dear folks,
I would like to send you an information about the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement that is in action all over the world. this movement is currently active in major centers of the world, particularly in the periphery. since i am academically and politically interested in marxist social movements in general, i have found their information quite useful in terms of mapping the history of revolutions, and likewise understanding their strategies and plan of action. consider that the movement has an international character because it is fighting against imperialism in different parts of the world as a united front. since we have been discussing about how to organize ourselves against the new world order, here is a rich source of information for you to consider. the declaration of the movement is written by
Central Reorganisation Committee, Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist)
Ceylon Communist Party
Communist Collective of Agit/Prop [Italy]
Communist Committee of Trento [Italy]
Communist Party of Bangladesh (Marxist-Leninist) [BSD (M-L)]
Communist Party of Colombia (Marxist-Leninist), Mao Tsetung
Regional Committee
Communist Party of Peru
Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist
Haitian Revolutionary Internationalist Group
Nepal Communist Party (Marshal)
New Zealand Red Flag Group
Revolutionary Internationalist Contingent [Britain]
Proletarian Communist Organisation, Marxist-Leninist [Italy]
Proletarian Party of Purba Bangla (Bangladesh)
Revolutionary Communist Group of Colombia
Leading Committee, Revolutionary Communist Party, India
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
Revolutionary Communist Union [Dominican Republic]
Union of Iranian Communists (Sarbedaran)
you can verify the source of information at:
http://www.csrp.org/rim/rimdec.htm
for citation purposes, and to prevent confusion,
i am COPYING the parts of the decleration relavant to our discussion:
The World Situation
All the major contradictions
of the world imperialist system are rapidly accentuating: the contradiction
between
various imperialist powers,
the contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed peoples and nations,
and the
contradiction between
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the imperialist countries. All of
these contradictions
have a common origin in
the capitalist mode of production and its fundamental contradiction. The
rivalry between
the two blocs of imperialist
powers led by the US and the USSR respectively is bound to lead to war
unless
revolution prevents it
and this rivalry is greatly affecting world events.
The post World War II world
is rapidly coming apart at the seams. The international economic and political
relations the "division
of the world" - established through and in the aftermath of World War II
no longer
correspond to the needs
of the various imperialist powers to "peacefully" extend and expand their
profit empires.
While the post World War
II world has undergone important changes as a result of conflicts between
the
imperialists and, especially,
as a result of revolutionary struggle, today it is this entire network
of economic,
political and military
relations that is being called into question. The relative stability of
the major imperialist powers
and the relative prosperity
of a handful of countries based on the blood and misery of the exploited
majority of the
world's people and nations
is coming unraveled. The revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations
and peoples
is again on the rise and
delivering new blows to the imperialist world order.
It is in this context that
the statement by Mao Tsetung, "Either revolution will prevent war, or war
will give rise to
revolution" rings out
all the more clearly and takes on urgent importance. The very logic of
the imperialist system
and the revolutionary
struggles is preparing a new situation. The contradiction between the rival
bands of
imperialists, between
the imperialists and the oppressed nations, between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie in the
imperialist countries,
are all likely in the coming period to express themselves by the force
of arms on an
unprecedented scale. As
Stalin said in regard to the First World War:
The significance of the imperialist war which broke out ten years ago lies,
among other things, in the fact
that it gathered all these contradictions into a single knot and threw
them on to the scales, thereby
accelerating and facilitating the revolutionary battles of the proletariat.
The heightening of contradictions
is now drawing, and will do so even more dramatically in the future, all
countries
and regions of the world
and sections of the masses previously lulled to sleep or oblivious to political
life into the
vortex of world history.
And so the revolutionary communists must get prepared, and prepare the
class conscious
workers and revolutionary
sections of the people and step up their revolutionary struggle.
Communists are resolute
opponents of imperialist war and must mobilise and lead the masses in the
fight against
preparations for a third
world war which would be the greatest crime committed in the history of
mankind. But the
Marxist-Leninists will
never hide the truth from the masses: only revolution, revolutionary war
that the
Marxist-Leninists and
revolutionary forces are leading or preparing to lead, can prevent this
crime.
Marxist-Leninists must
seize hold of the revolutionary possibilities that are developing rapidly
and lead the masses
in stepping up the revolutionary
struggle on all fronts - beginning revolutionary warfare where that is
possible,
stepping up preparations
where the conditions for such revolutionary warfare are not yet ripe. In
this way the
struggle for communism
will advance and it is possible that the victory of the proletariat and
the oppressed peoples
in the course of decisive
battles will shatter the imperialists' present preparations for world war,
establish the rule
of the working class in
a number of countries and create an overall world situation more favourable
to the advance
of the revolutionary struggle.
If, on the other hand, the revolutionary struggle is not capable of preventing
a third
world war, the communists
and the revolutionary proletariat and masses must be prepared to mobilise
the outrage
that such a war and the
inevitable suffering accompanying it will engender and direct it against
the source of war -
imperialism, take advantage-of
the weakened position of the enemy and in this way turn a reactionary imperialist
war into a just war against
imperialism and reaction.
Since imperialism has integrated
the world into a single global system land is increasingly doing so) the
world
situation increasingly
influences the developments in each country; thus revolutionary forces
all over the world must
base themselves on a correct
evaluation of the overall world situation. This does not negate the crucial
task they
face of evaluating the
specific conditions in each country, formulating specific strategy and
tactics and developing
revolutionary practice.
Unless this dialectical relationship between the overall situation at the
global level and the
concrete conditions in
each country is grasped correctly by Marxist-Leninists they will not be
able to utilise the
extremely favourable situation
at the global level in favour of revolution in each country.
Tendencies in the international
movement to view the revolution in one country apart from the overall struggle
for
communism must be struggled
against: Lenin pointed out, "There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism,
and that is - working
wholeheartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the
revolutionary
struggle in one's own
country, and supporting {by propaganda, sympathy and material aid) this
struggle, this, and
only this, line in every
country without exception." Lenin stressed that proletarian revolutionaries
must approach
the question of their
revolutionary work not from the point of view of "my" country but "from
the point of view of
my share in the preparation,
in the propaganda, and in the acceleration of the world proletarian revolution."
On the Two Component Parts of the World Proletarian Revolution
Lenin analysed long ago
the division of the world between a handful of advanced capitalist countries
and the great
number of oppressed nations
comprising the largest part of the world's territory and population which
the
imperialists parasitically
pillage and maintain in an enforced state of dependency and backwardness.
>From this
reality flows the Leninist
view, confirmed by history, that the world proletarian revolution is composed
essentially
of two streams - the proletarian-socialist
revolution waged by the proletariat and its allies in the imperialist citadels
and the national liberation,
or new democratic revolution waged by the nations and peoples subjugated
to
imperialism. The alliance
between these two revolutionary currents remains the cornerstone of revolutionary
strategy in the era of
imperialism.
In the period since the
Second World War until now the struggle of the oppressed peoples and nations
has been
the storm centre of the
world revolutionary struggle. Prosperity, stability and "democracy" in
a number of
imperialist states has
been bought and paid for by the intensified exploitation and misery of
the masses in the
oppressed countries. Far
from eliminating the national and colonial question, the development of
neo-colonialism
has further subjugated
whole nations and peoples to the requirements of international capital
and led to a whole
series of revolutionary
wars against imperialist domination.
The current intensification
of world contradictions while bringing forth further possibilities for
these movements also
places new obstacles and
new tasks before them. Despite efforts and even some successes of the imperialist
powers in subverting or
perverting the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed masses, especially
in the hopes of
turning them into weapons
of inter-imperialist rivalry, these struggles continue to deal powerful
blows to the
imperialist system, and
accelerate the development of revolutionary possibilities in the world
as a whole.
In the imperialist countries
of the Western bloc the post World War II period has been essentially marked
by a
non-revolutionary situation
reflecting the relative stability of imperialist rule in these countries
inseparably linked to
the intense exploitation
of the oppressed peoples by these imperialist states. Nevertheless, the
revolutionary
prospects in these countries
are more favourable than in any time in recent memory. History has shown
that
revolutionary situations
in these types of countries are rare and are generally connected with the
acute
intensification of world
contradictions, such as the conjuncture taking form in the world today.
The mass revolutionary
struggles that developed in most of the Western imperialist countries especially
during the
1960s demonstrate forcefully
the possibility of proletarian revolution in these countries, despite the
fact that the
conditions were not favourable
for a seizure of power at that time and these movements declined along
with the
overall ebb in the world
movement. Today the sharpening world situation is increasingly reflected
in these
countries as seen, for
example, by important rebellions of the lower strata of the proletariat
in some imperialist
countries as well as the
growth of a powerful movement against imperialist war preparations in a
number of
countries, including within
it a more revolutionary section.
In the capitalist and imperialist
countries of the Eastern bloc important cracks and fissures in the relative
stability of
the rule by the state-capitalist
bourgeoisie are more and more apparent. In Poland the proletariat and other
sections of the masses
have risen in struggle and delivered powerful blows to the established
order. In these
countries, also, possibilities
for proletarian revolution are developing and will be heightened by the
development
and intensification of
world contradictions.
It is important that the
revolutionary elements in both kinds of countries be educated to understand
the nature of
the strategic alliance
between the revolutionary proletarian movement in the advanced countries
and the
national-democratic revolutions
in the oppressed nations. The social-chauvinist position that would deny
the
importance of the revolutionary
struggle of the oppressed peoples or their ability, under the leadership
of the
proletariat and a genuine
Marxist-Leninist party, to lead to the establishment of socialism is still
a dangerous
deviation to be combated.
The modern revisionists, led by the USSR, who claim that a national liberation
struggle
can only be successful
if bestowed by "aid" from its "natural (imperialist) ally" and the Trotskyites
who negate in
principle the possibility
of the transformation of a national-democratic revolution into a socialist
revolution are
examples of this pernicious
tendency. On the other hand, in the recent period a significant problem
has been
another deviation which
ignores the possibility of revolutionary situations arising in the advanced
countries or
considers that such revolutionary
situations could only arise as a direct result of the advances in the national
liberation struggles.
Both these deviations sap the strength of the revolutionary proletariat
in that they fail to take
account of the developing
world conjuncture and the possibilities for revolutionary advances in different
kinds of
countries and on a world
scale that flow from it.
Some Questions Regarding the History of the International Communist Movement
In the little over a century
since the publication of the Communist Manifesto and its call "workers
of all countries,
unite!" an immense wealth
of experience has been accumulated by the international proletariat. This
experience
comprehends the revolutionary
movement in different types of countries in the great days of decisive
victories and
revolutionary elan and
the periods of the darkest reaction and retreat. In the course of the twists
and turns of the
movement the science of
Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought has taken shape and developed through
a
constant struggle against
those who cut out its revolutionary heart and/or render it a stale and
lifeless dogma.
Important turning points
in the development of world history and the class struggle have invariably
been
accompanied by fierce
battles on the ideological front between Marxism and revisionism and dogmatism.
This was
the case with Lenin's
struggle against the Second International (which corresponded with the
outbreak of the First
World War and the development
of a revolutionary situation in Russia and elsewhere} and in the struggle
of Mao
Tsetung against modern
Soviet revisionism, a great struggle which reflected world historic developments
(the
reestablishment of capitalism
in the USSR, the intensification of the class struggle in socialist China,
the
development of a worldwide
upsurge of revolutionary struggle aimed particularly at US imperialism).
Similarly, the
profound crisis that the
international communist movement is now experiencing is a reflection of
the reversal of
proletarian rule in China
and the all-round attack on the Cultural Revolution following the death
of Mao Tsetung
and the coup d'etat of
Teng Hsiao-ping and Hua Kuo-feng, as well as the overall heightening of
world
contradictions accentuating
the danger of world war and the prospects for revolution. Today, as in
the other great
struggles, the forces
fighting for a revolutionary line are a small minority encircled and attacked
by revisionists and
bourgeois apologists of
all stripes. Nevertheless, these forces represent the future, and the further
advances of the
international communist
movement depend on their ability to forge a political line which charts
the path forward for
the revolutionary proletariat
in the current complex situation. This is because if one's line is correct,
even if one has
not a single soldier at
first there will be soldiers and even if there is no political power, power
will be gained. This
is borne out by the historical
experience of the international communist movement since the time of Marx.
An extremely important
element for the elaboration of such a general line for the international
communist
movement is the correct
evaluation of the historical experience of our movement. It would be extremely
irresponsible, and contrary
to the Marxist theory of knowledge, to fail to attach adequate importance
to
experience gained and
lessons learned in the course of mass revolutionary struggles of millions
of people and paid
for by countless martyrs.
Today, the Revolutionary
Internationalist Movement, together with other Maoist forces, are the inheritors
of Marx,
Engels, Lenin, Stalin
and Mao, and they must firmly base themselves on this heritage. But they
must also, on the
basis of this heritage,
dare to criticise its shortcomings. There are experiences which people
should praise and
there are experiences
which should make people grieve. Communists and revolutionaries in all
countries should
ponder and seriously study
these experiences of success and failure so as to draw correct conclusions
and useful
lessons from them.
The summation of our heritage
is a collective responsibility which must be carried out by the entire
international
communist movement. Such
a summation must be done in a ruthlessly scientific manner, basing itself
on
Marxist-Leninist principles
and fully taking into account the concrete historical conditions which
existed then and
the limits they placed
on the proletarian vanguard and above all in the spirit of making the past
serve the present, in
order to avoid metaphysical
errors of measuring the past with today's yardstick, disregarding historical
conditions.
Such a thorough summation
will undoubtedly take a fairly long time but the pressure of world events,
the opening
up of revolutionary possibilities,
demands that certain key lessons be drawn today to better enable the vanguard
forces of the proletariat
to fulfill their responsibilities.
The summation of historical
experience has, itself, always been a sharp arena of class struggle. Ever
since the
defeat of the Paris Commune,
opportunists and revisionists have seized upon the defeats and shortcomings
of the
proletariat to reverse
right and wrong, confound the secondary with the principal, and thus conclude
that the
proletariat "should not
have taken to arms." The emergence of new conditions has often been used
as an excuse to
negate fundamental principles
of Marxism under the signboard of its "creative development." At the same
time, it is
incorrect and just as
damaging to abandon the Marxist critical spirit, to fail to sum up the
shortcomings as well as
the successes of the proletariat,
and to rest content with upholding or reclaiming positions considered correct
in
the past. Such an approach
would make Marxism-Leninism brittle and unable to withstand the attacks
of the
enemy and incapable of
leading new advances in the class struggle - and suffocate its revolutionary
essence.
In fact, history has shown
that real creative developments of Marxism land not phoney revisionist
distortions) have
always been inseparably
linked with a fierce struggle to defend and uphold basic principles of
Marxism-Leninism.
Lenin's two-fold struggle
against the open revisionists and against those, like Kautsky, who opposed
revolution
under the guise of "Marxist
orthodoxy" and Mao Tsetung's great battle to oppose the modern revisionists
and their
negation of the experience
of building socialism in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin while carrying
out a thorough
and scientific criticism
of the roots of revisionism are evidence of this.
Today a similar approach
is necessary to the thorny questions and problems of the history of the
international
communist movement. A
serious danger comes from those who, in the face of setbacks in the international
communist movement since
the death of Mao Tsetung, declare that Marxism-Leninism has failed or is
outmoded
and the entire experience
acquired by the proletariat must be put into question. This tendency would
negate the
experience of the dictatorship
of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, eliminate Stalin from the ranks
of proletarian
leaders, and in fact,
attack the basic Leninist thesis on the nature of the proletarian revolution,
the need for a
vanguard party and the
dictatorship of the proletariat. As Mao powerfully expressed "I think there
are two
'swords': one is Lenin
and the other Stalin", once the sword of Stalin has been discarded "once
this gate is opened,
by and large Leninism
is thrown away." This statement made by Mao Tsetung in 1956 has been shown
by the
experience of the international
communist movement up to today to retain its validity. Similarly today
the advances
in the science of revolution
made by Mao Tsetung are also attacked or rendered unrecognizable. In fact
all this is a
"new" version of very
old and stale revisionism and social democracy.
This more or less open
revisionism, whether it comes from the traditional pro-Moscow parties or
its
"Euro-communist" current
from the revisionist usurpers in China, or from the Trotskyites and the
petit-bourgeois
critics of Leninism, remains
the main danger to the international communist movement. At the same time,
revisionism in its dogmatic
form continues to be a bitter enemy of revolutionary Marxism. This current,
most
sharply expressed in the
political line of Enver Hoxha and the Party of Labour of Albania, attacks
Mao Tsetung
Thought, the path of the
Chinese Revolution and especially the experience of the Great Proletarian
Cultural
Revolution. Masquerading
as defenders of Stalin (when in fact many of their theses are Trotskyites),
these
revisionists soil the
genuine revolutionary heritage of Stalin. These imposters use the shortcomings
and errors of the
international communist
movement, and not its achievements in order to buttress up their revisionist-trotskyite
line,
and demand that the international
communist movement follow suit on the basis of a return to some mystical
"doctrinal purity". The
many features this Hoxhaite line shares with classical revisionism, including
the ability of
Soviet revisionism (as
well as reaction in general) to promote and/or profit from both openly
anti-Leninist
"Euro-communism" and Hoxha's
disguised anti-Leninism at the same time, are testimony to their common
bourgeois ideological
basis.
Upholding Mao Tsetung's
qualitative development of the science of Marxism-Leninism represents a
particularly
important and pressing
question in the international movement and among the class conscious workers
and other
revolutionary minded people
in the world today. The principle involved is nothing less than whether
or not to
uphold and build upon
the decisive contributions to the proletarian revolution and the science
of
Marxism-Leninism made
by Mao Tsetung. It is therefore nothing less than a question of whether
or not to uphold
Marxism-Leninism itself.
Stalin said, "Leninism
is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution." This
is entirely correct.
Since Lenin's death the
world situation has undergone great changes. But the era has not changed.
The
fundamental principles
of Leninism are not outdated, they remain the theoretical basis guiding
our thinking today.
We affirm that Mao Tsetung
Thought is a new stage in the development of Marxism-Leninism. Without
upholding
and building on Marxism-Leninism-Mao
Tsetung Thought it is not possible to defeat revisionism, imperialism and
reaction in general.
The USSR and the Comintern
The October Revolution
in Russia and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat
opened a new stage
in the history of the
international working class movement. The October Revolution was the living
confirmation of
Lenin's vital development
of the Marxist theory of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship
of the proletariat.
For the first time in
history the working class succeeded in smashing the old state apparatus,
establishing its own
rule, beating back the
attempts of the exploiters to strangle the socialist regime in its infancy
and creating the
political conditions necessary
for the establishment of a new, socialist, economic order. In this process
the central
role of a vanguard political
party of a new type, the Leninist party, was demonstrated.
The international impact
of the Russian Revolution, coming especially as it did in the course of
the world
conjuncture marked by
the First World War and the upsurge of revolutionary activity that accompanied
it, was
immense. From the beginning
the leaders and class conscious workers in the new socialist state viewed
the
success of the revolution
there not as an end in itself but as the first major breakthrough in the
worldwide struggle
to defeat imperialism,
uproot exploitation and establish communism throughout the world. In the
wake of the
Russian Revolution a new,
Communist, International was formed on the basis of assimilating the vital
lessons of the
Bolshevik revolution and
in rupturing with the reformism and social democracy that had poisoned
and eventually
characterised the great
majority of socialist parties making up the Second International. The Russian
Revolution
and the Comintern in connection
with the objective developments brought about by World War I transformed
the
struggle for socialism
and communism from an essentially European phenomenon into a truly worldwide
struggle
for the first time in
history.
Lenin and Stalin developed
the proletarian line on the national and colonial question, stressing the
importance of
the revolutions in oppressed
countries in the overall process of the world proletarian revolution and
arguing against
those such as Trotsky
who held that the revolution in these countries was dependent on the victory
of the
proletariat in the imperialist
countries and denied the possibility of the proletariat carrying out a
socialist revolution
on the basis of having
led the first, bourgeois democratic stage of the revolution in these types
of countries.
The period that followed
the Russian Revolution was marked by worldwide revolutionary ferment and
attempts at
establishing working class
political power in a number of countries. Despite the unbending assistance
the newly
established USSR gave
and the political attention by Lenin to the revolutionary movement worldwide,
the
temporary resolution of
the crisis that World War I concentrated and the remaining strength of
the imperialist
powers as well as the
weaknesses of the revolutionary working class movement led to the defeat
of the revolution
outside the borders of
the USSR.
Lenin and his successor
Stalin were faced with the necessity of safeguarding the gains of the revolution
in the
USSR and carrying through
the establishment of a socialist economic system in the Soviet Union alone.
Following
Lenin's death an important
ideological and political struggle was waged by Stalin against the Trotskyites
and others
who claimed that the low
level of the productive forces in the USSR, the existence of an immense
peasantry and
the USSR's international
isolation made it impossible to carry out the construction of socialism.
This erroneous,
capitulationist viewpoint
was refuted both theoretically and, more importantly, in practice as tens
of millions of
workers and peasants went
into battle to uproot the old capitalist system, to collectivise agriculture
and create a
new economic system no
longer based on the exploitation of man by man.
These soul-stirring battles
and the important victories won in them greatly spread the influence of
Marxism-Leninism and increased
the prestige of the USSR throughout the world. The class conscious workers
and oppressed peoples
correctly considered the socialist USSR as their own, rejoiced in the victories
won by the
Soviet working class and
came to its defence against the menaces and attacks of the imperialists.
Nevertheless it can be
seen in retrospect that the progress of the socialist revolution in the
USSR, even in the
period of the great socialist
transformations in the late 1920s end '30s, was marked by serious weaknesses
and
shortcomings. Some of
these weaknesses are to be explained by the lack of previous historical
experience of the
dictatorship of the proletariat
[outside of the short-lived Paris Commune) and by the severe imperialist
blockade
and aggression aimed at
the USSR. These problems were increased and supplemented, however, by some
important theoretical
and political errors. Mao Tsetung, while upholding Stalin from the slanders
of Khrushchev,
made serious and correct
criticisms of these errors: Mao explained the ideological basis for Stalin's
errors: "Stalin
had a fair amount of metaphysics
in him and he taught many people to follow metaphysics", "Stalin failed
to see the
connection between the
struggle of opposites and the unity of opposites. Some people in the Soviet
Union are so
metaphysical and rigid
in their thinking that they think a thing has to be either one or the other,
refusing to recognise
the unity of opposites.
Hence, political mistakes are made." Stalin's most fundamental error was
to fail to
thoroughly apply dialectics
in all spheres and thus draw serious wrong conclusions concerning the nature
of the
class struggle under socialism
and the means to prevent capitalist restoration. While waging a fierce
struggle
against the old exploiting
classes, Stalin denied in theory the emergence of a new bourgeoisie from
within the
socialist society itself,
reflected and concentrated by the revisionists within the ruling communist
party, hence his
erroneous claim that "antagonistic
class contradictions" had been eliminated in the Soviet Union as a result
of the
basic establishment of
socialist ownership in industry and agriculture. Similarly a failure to
thoroughly apply
dialectics to the analysis
of socialist society led the Soviet leadership to conclude that there was
no longer a
contradiction between
the productive forces and the relations of production under socialism and
to neglect to pay
adequate attention to
carrying out the revolution in the superstructure and continuing to revolutionise
the relations
of production even after
the establishment, in the main, of the socialist ownership system.
This incorrect understanding
of the nature of socialist society also contributed to Stalin's failure
to adequately
distinguish the contradictions
between the people and the enemy and the contradictions among the people
themselves. This in turn
contributed to a marked tendency to resort to bureaucratic methods of handling
these
contradictions and gave
more openings to the enemy.
In the period following
the death of Lenin, Stalin led the Communist International which continued
to play an
important role in advancing
the world revolution and developing and consolidating the newly formed
Communist
Parties.
In 1935 an extremely important
Congress of the Communist International was held in the midst of a severe
world
economic crisis, the growing
threat of a new world war and imperialist attacks on the Soviet Union,
the coming to
power of fascism in Germany
and the smashing of the German Communist Party, and the establishment of
fascism
or menace of the same
in a number of other countries. It was necessary and correct for the Communist
International to try to
develop a tactical line concerning all of these questions.
Because the Seventh Congress
of the Comintern has had such a deep influence on the history of the international
movement it is necessary
to make a sober and scientific evaluation of the Report of the Congress
in the light of the
existing historical conditions
at the time. In particular the reasons for the defeat of the German Communist
Party
must be deeply studied.
Nevertheless certain conclusions can be drawn now, and must be in light
of the present
tasks of today's Marxist-Leninists
and three clear deviations must be identified.
First the distinction between
fascism and bourgeois democracy in the imperialist countries, while certainly
of real
importance for the Communist
Parties, was treated in a way that tended to make an absolute of the difference
between these two forms
of bourgeois dictatorship and also to make a strategic stage of the struggle
against
fascism. Secondly, a thesis
was developed, which held that the growing immiseration of the proletariat
would
create in the advanced
countries the material basis for healing the split in the working class
and its consequent
polarisation that Lenin
had so powerfully analysed in his works on imperialism and the collapse
of the Second
International. While it
is certainly true that the depth of the crisis undermined the social base
of the labour
aristocracy in the advanced
capitalist countries and led to real possibilities that the Communist Parties
needed to
make use of to unite with
large sections of the workers previously under the hegemony of the Social
Democrats, it
was not correct to believe
that in any kind of a strategic sense the split in the working class could
be healed.
Thirdly, when fascism
was defined as the regime of the most reactionary section of the monopoly
bourgeoisie in
the imperialist countries,
this left the door open to the dangerous, reformist and pacifist tendency
to see a section
of the monopoly bourgeoisie
as progressive.
While it is necessary to
sum up these errors and to learn from them it is just as necessary to recognise
the
Communist International,
including in this period, as part of the heritage of the revolutionary
struggle for
communism and to beat
back liquidationist and
Trotskyite attempts to
seize upon real errors to draw reactionary conclusions. Even during this
period the
Communist International
mobilised millions of workers against class enemies and led heroic struggles
against
reaction such as the organising
of the International Brigades to fight against fascism in Spain in which
many of the
best sons and daughters
of the working class shed their blood in an inspiring example of internationalism.
The Communist International
also gave, correctly, great emphasis to the defence of the Soviet Union,
the land of
socialism. But when the
Soviet Union made certain compromises with different imperialist countries,
the leaders of
the Comintern more often
than not failed to understand the critical point that Mao Tsetung was to
sum up in 1946
(in relation to the compromises
then being made between the USSR and the United States, Britain and France):
"Such compromise does
not require the people in the countries of the capitalist world to follow
suit and make
compromises at home."
Furthermore, such compromises must take into account, first and foremost,
the overall
development of the world
revolutionary movement in which, of course, the defence of socialist states
plays an
important role.
In circumstances of imperialist
encirclement of (a) socialist state(s) defending these revolutionary conquests
is a
very important task for
the international proletariat. It will also be necessary for socialist
states to carry out a
diplomatic struggle and
at times to enter into different types of agreements with one or another
imperialist power.
But the defence of socialist
states must always be subordinate to the overall progress of the world
revolution and
must never been seen as
the equivalent (and certainly not the substitute) for the international
struggle of the
proletariat. In certain
situations the defence of a socialist country can be principal, but this
is so precisely because
its defence is decisive
for the advance of the world revolution.
It is necessary to sum
up the experiences of the international communist movement during the period
around the
Second World War in the
light of these lessons. World War II cannot be considered a mere repetition
of World
War I, for, even if the
same murderous logic of the capitalist system was responsible for it, it
was a complex
combination of contradictions.
At its beginning in 1939 it was, as Mao then pointed out "unjust, predatory
and
imperialist in character."
But a major change with global implications took place when Hitler's Germany
turned his
troops on the Soviet Union.
This just war on the part of the Soviet Union drew the support and sym-pathy
of the
working class and oppressed
peoples the world over who were greatly inspired by the heroic resistance
of the
Red Army and the Soviet
working class and people. This was no mere sympathy for a victim of aggression
but the
profound conviction that
the defence of the Soviet Union was also the defence of the socialist base
area of the
world revolution. Similarly
the war waged by the Chinese people under the leadership of the Communist
Party of
China against Japanese
aggression also developed and was most definitely a just war and a component
part of the
world proletarian revolution.
Particularly with the entry
of the Soviet Union into the war it took on a more complex character. It
became a
combination of four component
parts: the war between socialism and imperialism; the war between the imperialist
blocs; the wars of the
oppressed people against imperialism; and the contradiction between the
proletariat and the
bourgeoisie, which in
some countries developed to the level of armed struggle.
These differing aspects
led on the one hand to the growth of socialist forces, the defeat of the
fascist imperialist
powers, the weakening
of imperialism and the quickening tempo of the national liberation struggles.
On the other
hand they led to a recasting
of the imperialist division of the world with the US assuming the role
of chief bandit
among the imperialists.
There were great revolutionary
achievements in the course of World War II; at the same time it is impossible
not
to see serious errors
and begin the collective process of deeply summing them up so as to be
better prepared for
coming storms. In particular
we can note the error of eclectically combining the above mentioned contradictions.
In practical political
terms, the diplomatic struggle and international agreements of the Soviet
Union became
increasingly confounded
with the activities of the Communist Parties making up the Comintern. This
problem also
contributed to strong
tendencies to portray the non-fascist powers as something other than what
they truly were
-imperialists who would
have to be overthrown. In the European countries occupied by German fascist
troops it
was not incorrect for
the Communist Parties to take tactical advantage of national sentiments
from the standpoint
of mobilising the masses,
but errors were made due to raising such tactical measures to the level
of strategy.
Liberation struggles in
colonies under the domination of the allied imperialist powers were also
held back due to
such erroneous views.
While cherishing and upholding
the monumental revolutionary struggles and victories that took place in
this
important period and the
years immediately following, today's Marxist-Leninists will have to deepen
their
understanding of these
errors and their basis.
The socialist camp that
emerged from the Second World War was never solid. Little revolutionary
transformation
was carried out in most
of the Eastern European Peoples' Democracies. In the Soviet Union itself
powerful
revisionist forces unleashed
going into, in the course of, and in the aftermath of the Second World
War grew in
strength and influence.
In 1956, following the death of Stalin, these revisionist forces led by
Khrushchev
succeeded in capturing
political power, attacked Marxism-Leninism on all fronts and restored capitalism
in that
country.
The coup d'etat of Khrushchev
and the revisionists in the Soviet Union was also, it is clear now, the
coup de grace
to the communist movement
as it had previously existed. The widespread cancer of revisionism had
already
consumed many (including
some of the most influential) parties that had made up the Comintern. In
many others
only the thinnest veneer
covered parties that were fast degenerating to positions of modern revisionism
while the
revolutionary elements
were being suffocated. In the Soviet Union itself after Stalin's death
the genuine
Marxist-Leninists and
the Soviet proletariat, weakened by the war and disarmed by serious political
and
ideological errors, proved
incapable of mounting any serious riposte to the revisionist betrayers.
Mao Tsetung, the Cultural Revolution and the Marxist-Leninist Movement
Beginning immediately after
the coup d'etat of Khrushchev, Mao Tsetung and the Marxist-Leninists in
the Chinese
Communist Party began
to analyse the developments in the Soviet Union and in the international
communist
movement and to struggle
against modern revisionism. In 1963 the publication of A Proposal Concerning
the
General Line of the International
Communist Movement (the 25-point letter) was an all-round and public
condemnation of revisionism
and a call to the genuine Marxist-Leninists of all countries. The contemporary
Marxist-Leninist movement
has as its origin this historic appeal and the polemics that accompanied
it.
In the Proposal and the polemics Mao and the Chinese Communist Party correctly
upheld the Leninist position on the dictatorship of the proletariat and
refuted the revisionist theory of "state
of the whole people";
upheld the necessity of armed revolution and opposed the strategy of a "peaceful transition to socialism";
supported and encouraged the development of the national wars of liberation
of the oppressed peoples;
exposing the sham independence of "neo-colonialism" and refuting the revisionist
position that the wars of
liberation should be avoided because they endanger "world peace";
made an overall positive evaluation of Stalin and the experience of construction
of socialism in the USSR
and refuted the slanders directed against Stalin of being a "butcher" and
a "tyrant", while making some
important criticisms of Stalin's errors;
opposed the efforts of Khrushchev to impose a revisionist line on other
parties as well as criticising Thorez,
Togliatti, Tito and other modern revisionists;
put forward in an embryonic form the thesis Mao Tsetung was developing
concerning the class nature of
socialism and carrying through the revolution under the dictatorship of
the proletariat;
called for a thorough study of the historical experience of the international
communist movement and the
roots of revisionism.
These points, as well as
others contained in the Proposal and the polemics were and remain vital
elements to
distinguish Marxism-Leninism
from revisionism. Through these polemics Mao and the Chinese Communist
Party
encouraged the Marxist-Leninists
to split from the revisionists and form new proletarian revolutionary parties.
The
polemics represented a
radical rupture with modern revisionism and a sufficient basis for the
Marxist-Leninists to
go forward into battle.
Yet, on a number of questions, the criticism of revisionism was not thorough
enough and
some erroneous views were
incorporated even while criticising others. Exactly because of the important
role these
polemics and Mao and the
Chinese Communist Party played in giving birth to a new Marxist-Leninist
movement it
is correct and necessary
to consider the secondary, negative aspect in the polemics and in the struggle
waged by
the Communist Party of
China in the international communist movement.
In relation to the imperialist
countries, the Proposal put forward the view that "In the capitalist countries
which US
imperialism controls or
is trying to control, the working class and the people should direct their
attacks mainly
against US imperialism,
but also against their own monopoly capitalists and other reactionary forces
who are
betraying the national
interests." This view, which seriously affected the development of the
Marxist-Leninist
movement in these types
of countries, obscures the fact that in imperialist countries the "national
interests" are
imperialist interests
and are not betrayed, but on the contrary defended, by the ruling monopoly
capitalist class
despite whatever alliances
it may make with other imperialist powers and despite the inevitably unequal
nature of
such an alliance. The
proletariat of these countries is thus encouraged to strive to outbid the
imperialist bourgeoisie
as the best defenders
of its own interests. This view had a long history in the international
communist movement
and should be broken with.
While the CPC paid great
attention to the development of Marxist-Leninist parties in opposition
to the revisionists
they did not find the
necessary forms and ways to develop the international unity of the communists.
Despite
contributions to the ideological
and political unity this was not reflected by efforts to build organisational
unity on a
world scale. The CPC had
an exaggerated understanding of the negative aspects of the Comintern,
mainly those
caused by over-centralisation,
which led to crushing the initiative and independence of constituent communist
parties. While the CPC
correctly criticised the concept of Father party, pointed out its harmful
influence within the
international communist
movement, and stressed the principles of fraternal relations between parties,
the lack of an
organised forum for debating
views and achieving a common viewpoint did not help resolve this problem
but in
fact exacerbated it.
If the theoretical struggle
against modern revisionism played a vital role in the rebuilding of a Marxist-Leninist
movement it was especially
the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, an unprecedented new form of
struggle,
itself in large part a
fruit of this combat against modern revisionism, that gave rise to a whole
new generation of
Marxist-Leninists. The
tens of millions of workers, peasants and revolutionary youth who went
into battle to
overthrow the capitalist
roaders entrenched in the party and state apparatus and to further revolutionise
society
struck a vibrant chord
among millions of people across the world who were rising up as part of
the revolutionary
upsurge that swept the
world in the 1960s and early 1970s.
The Cultural Revolution
represents the most advanced experience of the proletarian dictatorship
and the
revolutionising of society.
For the first time the workers and other revolutionary elements were armed
with a clear
understanding of the nature
of the class struggle under socialism; of the necessity to rise up and
overthrow the
capitalist roaders who
would inevitably emerge from within the socialist society and which are
especially
concentrated in the leadership
of the party itself and to struggle to further advance the socialist transformation
and
thus dig away at the soil
which engenders these capitalist elements. Great victories were won in
the course of the
Cultural Revolution which
prevented the revisionist restoration in China for a decade and led to
great socialist
transformations in education,
literature and art, scientific research and other elements of the superstructure.
Millions of workers and
other revolutionaries greatly deepened their class consciousness and mastery
of
Marxism-Leninism in the
course of fierce ideological and political struggle and their capacity
to wield political
power was further increased.
The Cultural Revolution was waged as part of the international struggle
of the
proletariat and was a
training ground in proletarian internationalism, manifested not only by
the support given to
revolutionary struggles
throughout the world but also by the real sacrifices made by the Chinese
people to render
this support. Revolutionary
leaders emerged such as Chiang Ching and Chang Chun-chiao, who stood alongside
and led the masses into
battle against the revisionists and who continued to defend Marxism-Leninism-Mao
Tsetung Thought in the
face of bitter defeat.
Lenin said, "Only he is
a Marxist who extends the recognition of class struggle to the recognition
of the
dictatorship of the proletariat".
In the light of the invaluable lessons and advances achieved through the
Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution
led by Mao Tsetung, this criterion put forward by Lenin has been further
sharpened. Now it can
be stated that only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of class
struggle to the
recognition of the dictatorship
of the proletariat and to the recognition of the objective existence of
classes,
antagonistic class contradictions
and of the continuation of the class struggle under the dictatorship of
the
proletariat throughout
the whole period of socialism until communism. And as Mao so powerfully
stated, "Lack of
clarity on this question
will lead to revisionism."
The Cultural Revolution
was the living proof of the vitality of Marxism-Leninism. It showed that
the proletarian
revolution was unlike
all previous revolutions which could only result in one exploiting system
replacing another. It
was a source of great
inspiration to the revolutionaries in all countries. For all these reasons
the Cultural Revolution
and Mao Tsetung earned
the lasting and vicious abuse of all reactionaries and revisionists and
for these same
reasons the Cultural Revolution
remains an indispensable part of the revolutionary legacy of the international
communist movement.
Despite the tremendous
victories of the Cultural Revolution the revisionists in the Chinese party
and state
continued to maintain
important positions and promoted lines and policies which did considerable
harm to the still
fragile efforts to rebuild
a genuine international communist movement. The revisionists in China,
who controlled to
a large degree its diplomacy
and the relations between the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist
parties, turned their
backs on the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the oppressed
peoples or tried to
subordinate these struggles
to the state interests of China. Reactionary despots were falsely labeled
as
"anti-imperialists" and
increasingly under the banner of a worldwide struggle against "hegemonism"
certain
imperialist powers of
the Western bloc were portrayed as intermediate or even positive forces
in the world. Even
during this period many
of the pro-Chinese Marxist-Leninist parties supported by the revisionists
in the CPC
began to shamelessly tail
the bourgeoisie and even support or acquiesce in imperialist adventures
and war
preparations aimed at
the Soviet Union which was increasingly seen as the "main enemy" in the
whole world. All
these tendencies blossomed
fully with the coup d'etat in China and the revisionists' subsequent elaboration
of the
"Three Worlds Theory"
which they attempted to shove down the throats of the international communist
movement.
The Marxist-Leninists
have correctly refuted the revisionist slander that the "Three Worlds Theory"
was put
forward by Mao Tsetung.
However this is not enough. The criticism of the "Thee Worlds Theory" must
be
deepened by criticising
the concepts underlying it, and the origins must be investigated. Here
it is important to note
that the revisionist usurpers
had to publicly condemn Mao's closest comrades in arms for opposing this
counter-revolutionary
theory.
One of the essential contradictions
or features of the epoch of imperialism and the proletarian revolution
is the
contradiction between
socialist states and imperialist states. While at the present time this
contradiction has been
temporarily eliminated
as a result of the revisionist transformation of a number of formerly socialist
states, it is no
less true that summing
up the experience of the communist movement in handling this contradiction
remains an
important theoretical
task, for it is inevitable that the proletariat will again find itself
in a position where one or a
number of socialist states
will be confronted with the existence of predatory imperialist enemies.
In 1976 shortly after the
death of Mao Tsetung the capitalist roaders in China launched a vicious
coup d'etat
which reversed the verdicts
of the Cultural Revolution, overthrew the revolutionaries in the leadership
of the CPC,
instituted an all-round
revisionist programme and capitulated to imperialism.
This coup d'etat met with
resistance from the revolutionaries in the Chinese Communist Party who
have continued
to struggle for a restoration
of proletarian rule in that country. Internationally, revolutionary communists
in many
countries saw through
the revisionist line of Hua Kuo-feng and Teng Hsiao-ping and criticised
and exposed the
capitalist roaders in
China. This resistance, in China and internationally, to the coup d'etat
is a testimony to the
farsighted revolutionary
leadership of Mao Tsetung who tirelessly worked to arm the proletariat
and the
Marxist-Leninists with
an appraisal of the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat
and the possibility
of a capitalist restoration.
The theoretical work done by the proletarian headquarters, guided by Mao
Tsetung,
also played a major role
in equipping Marxist-Leninists with a correct understanding of the nature
of the
contradictions in socialist
society and remains an important elaboration of Mao Tsetung Thought. This
left the
Marxist-Leninist movement
ideologically better prepared for the tragic events in 1976 than they were
on the
occasion of the revisionist
coup in the Soviet Union twenty years earlier, despite being forced to
face this situation
where there was no socialist
country.
Nevertheless it was inevitable
that the restoration of capitalism in a country comprising one quarter
of the world's
population and the revisionist
capture of the Marxist-Leninist party that had been in the vanguard of
the
international movement
would profoundly affect the world revolutionary struggle and the Marxist-Leninist
movement. Many parties
previously part of the international communist movement embraced the revisionists
in
China and their "Three
Worlds Theory", and totally abandoned revolutionary struggle. As a result
of this these
parties spread some demoralisation
and, on the other hand, lost the confidence of the revolutionary elements
and
have undergone a great
crisis or collapsed entirely. Even among some other Marxist-Leninist forces
that refused to
follow the leadership
of the Chinese revisionists, the loss in China led to demoralisation and
the putting into
question of Marxism-Leninism-Mao
Tsetung Thought. This tendency was further exacerbated when Enver Hoxha
and the PLA launched an
all out attack on Mao Tsetung Thought.
While a certain crisis
was to be expected in the international communist movement following the
coup d'etat in
China, the depth of this
crisis and the difficulty in putting an end to it indicated that revisionism
in different forms
was already strong in
the Marxist-Leninist movement by 1976. The Marxist-Leninists must continue
to carry out
investigation and study
into the roots of revisionism, in both the more recent period and in previous
periods in the
international movement,
and continue to wage struggle against the continuing revisionist influence
while continuing
to uphold and build upon
the basic principles forged in the revolutionary advances made by the international
proletariat and the communist
movement throughout its history.
The Tasks of Revolutionary Communists
The task of revolutionary
communists in all countries is to hasten the development of the world revolution
- the
overthrow of imperialism
and reaction by the proletariat and the revolutionary masses; the establishment
of the
dictatorship of the proletariat
in accordance with the necessary stages and alliances in different countries;
and the
struggle to eliminate
all the material and ideological vestiges of exploiting society and thus
achieve classless society,
communism, throughout
the world. First and foremost communists must remember and act in accordance
with
their reason for being,
otherwise they are of no use to the revolution, and worse, degenerate into
obstacles in its
path.
Experience has shown that
proletarian revolution can only be achieved and carried forward by a genuine
proletarian party based
on the science of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, constructed on
Leninist lines,
capable of attracting
and training the best revolutionary elements among the proletariat and
other sections of the
masses. Today there is
no such party in most countries in the world and even where such parties
exist they are
generally not ideologically
or organizationally strong enough to meet the requirements and the opportunities
of the
coming period. For these
reasons the establishment and strengthening of genuine Marxist-Leninist
parties is a vital
task for the entire international
communist movement.
In countries where no Marxist-Leninist
party exists the immediate task facing the revolutionary communists there
is
to form such a party with
the aid of the international communist movement. The key to the establishment
of the
party is the development
of a correct political line and programme, both as regards the particularities
in a given
country and the overall
world situation. The Marxist-Leninist party must be built in close relationship
with carrying
out revolutionary work
among the masses, implementing a revolutionary mass line, and, in particular,
addressing
and resolving the pressing
political questions which must be resolved in order for the revolutionary
movement to
advance. If this is not
done the task of party building can become sterile, divorced from revolutionary
practice and
lead nowhere. On the other
hand it is just as wrong to make the formation of the party dependent upon
the rallying
of a certain number of
members or to insist that a certain quantitative influence among the masses
be achieved
before the party's formation.
In most cases when the party is first formed, it will be composed of a
relatively small
number of members; in
any event, the task of rallying the revolutionary elements to the party's
banner and
deepening the influence
of the party among the proletariat and masses is a constant task.
The Marxist-Leninist party
must be built and strengthened in the course of waging an active ideological
struggle
against bourgeois and
petit-bourgeois influences in its ranks. In building the vanguard party,
Marxist-Leninists
should learn from the
experience of the Cultural Revolution through which Mao fought to insure
the party's
proletarian character
and vanguard role. Mao's understanding of the two-line struggle in the
party, his criticisms of
erroneous ideas of "a
monolithic party" and his emphasis on the need for the ideological remoulding
of party
members enriched the basic
concept of the vanguard party developed by Lenin. It is important to create
a political
situation in which there
are both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity
of will and
personal ease of mind
and liveliness.
Without being guided by
revolutionary theory, practice gropes in the dark. The Marxist-Leninist
parties, and the
international communist
movement as a whole, must deepen their grasp of revolutionary theory in
the course of
making a concrete analysis
of concrete conditions in society and the world. Marxist-Leninists must
not abandon
the field of analysis
of new phenomena to others and must actively wage the theoretical struggle
concerning all the
vital problems and questions
of debate in the revolutionary movement and society as a whole.
The Marxist-Leninist party
must be built and organised with the fundamental objective of seizing power
firmly in
mind and undertake the
task of preparing itself and the proletariat and revolutionary masses organizationally,
politically and ideologically.
As the Joint Communique of Autumn 1980 put it, "In short, communists are
advocates
of revolutionary warfare."
This revolutionary war and other forms of revolutionary struggle must be
carried out as
a key arena for training
the revolutionary masses to be capable of wielding political power and
transforming
society. Even when conditions
do not yet exist for the armed struggle of the masses, communists must
carry out
the necessary work in
preparation for the emergence of such conditions. This principle has a
whole series of
implications for the Marxist-Leninist
parties, regardless of the differences in tasks and stages the revolution
will go
through in different countries,
including that the party, the backbone of which must be organised on an
illegal basis,
should be prepared to
withstand the repression of the reactionaries who will never peacefully
tolerate for long a
genuine revolutionary
party.
While engaging in, or preparing
for, the armed struggle for power the Marxist-Leninist party should utilise
different
forms of legal and/or
open work. History has shown that such work while important and sometimes
even critical in
a given period, must be
coupled with exposure of the class nature of bourgeois democracy and in
no
circumstances should the
communists drop their guard and fail to take the necessary measures to
insure the
continued ability of the
party to carry out revolutionary work when different legal possibilities
disappear. Past
experiences of handling
the contradiction between utilising legal and open possibilities without
falling into legalism
and parliamentary cretinism
should be summed up and the appropriate lessons drawn.
To carry out its revolutionary
tasks, to prepare the masses for the seizure of power, the Marxist-Leninist
party
must be armed with a regularly
appearing communist press, even though the press will have a different
role in
relation to the tasks
posed by the path of revolution in the two types of countries. The communist
press must be
neither petty and narrow
nor dry and dogmatic. It must strive to arm the class conscious proletariat
and others
with an all-round view
of society and the world, principally through analysis and political exposure
following close
on the heel of events.
The Marxist-Leninist party
in every country must be built as a contingent of the international communist
movement
and must carry out its
struggle as part of, and subordinate to, the worldwide struggle for communism.
The party
must educate its own ranks,
the class conscious workers and the revolutionary masses in the spirit
of proletarian
internationalism, recognising
that internationalism is not simply the support rendered of the proletariat
in one
country to another but,
more importantly, a reflection of the fact that the proletariat is a single
class worldwide with
a single class interest,
faces a world system of imperialism, and has the task of liberating all
of humanity.
Such internationalist education
and propaganda is an indispensable part of preparing the party and proletariat
to
continue to carry the
revolution forward after political power has been achieved in a given country.
The
achievement of political
power, and even the establishment of a socialist system not based on exploitation,
must be
seen not as the end in
itself but as one part of a long transition period full of twists and turns
and inevitable
setbacks as well as advances
until the goal of worldwide communism has been achieved.
Tasks in the Colonial, Semi (or Neo) Colonial Countries
The colonial (or neo-colonial)
countries subjugated by imperialism have constituted the main arena of
the
worldwide struggle of
the proletariat in the period since World War II and up until the present
day. In this period a
great deal of experience
has been achieved in waging revolutionary struggle, including revolutionary
warfare.
Imperialism has been handed
extremely serious defeats and the proletariat has won imposing victories
including the
establishment of socialist
countries. At the same time the communist movement has obtained bitter
experience
where the revolutionary
masses in these countries have waged heroic struggles, including wars of
national
liberation, which have
not led to the establishment of political power by the proletariat and
its allies but where the
fruits of the victories
of the people have been picked by new exploiters usually in league with
one or another
imperialist power(s).
All of this shows that the international communist movement has a very
important task to
critically sum up the
several decades of experience in waging revolution in these kinds of countries.
The point of reference
for elaborating revolutionary strategy and tactics in the colonial, semi
(or neo) colonial
countries remains the
theory developed by Mao Tsetung in the long years of revolutionary warfare
in China.
The target of the revolution
in countries of this kind is foreign imperialism and the comprador-bureaucrat
bourgeoisie and feudals,
which are classes closely linked to and dependent on imperialism. In these
countries the
revolution will pass through
two stages: a first, new democratic revolution which leads directly to
the second,
socialist revolution.
The character, target and tasks of the first stage of the revolution enables
and requires the
proletariat to form a
broad united front of all classes and strata that can be won to support
the new democratic
programme. It must do
so, however, on the basis of developing and strengthening the independent
forces of the
proletariat, including
in the appropriate conditions its own armed forces and establishing the
hegemony of the
proletariat among the
other sections of the revolutionary masses, especially the poor peasants.
The cornerstone of
this alliance is the worker-peasant
alliance and the carrying out of the agrarian revolution (i.e. the struggle
against
semi-feudal exploitation
in the countryside and/or the fulfillment of the slogan "land to the tiller")
occupies a central
part of the new democratic
programme.
In these countries the
exploitation of the proletariat and the masses is severe, the outrages
of imperialist domination
constant, and the ruling
classes usually exercise their dictatorship nakedly and brutally and even
when they utilise
the bourgeois-democratic
or parliamentary form their dictatorship is only very thinly veiled. This
situation leads to
frequent revolutionary
struggles on the part of the proletariat, the peasants and other sections
of the masses which
often take the form of
armed struggle. For all these reasons, including the lopsided and distorted
development in
these countries which
often makes it difficult for the reactionary classes to maintain stable
rule and to consolidate
their power throughout
the state, it is often the case that the revolution takes the form of protracted
revolutionary
warfare in which the revolutionary
forces are able to establish base areas of one type or another in the countryside
and carry out the basic
strategy of surrounding the city by the countryside.
The key to carrying out
a new democratic revolution is the independent role of the proletariat
and its ability,
through its Marxist-Leninist
party, to establish its hegemony in the revolutionary struggle. Experience
has shown
again and again that even
when a section of the national bourgeoisie joins the revolutionary movement,
it will not
and cannot lead a new
democratic revolution, to say nothing of carrying this revolution through
to completion.
Similarly, history demonstrates
the bankruptcy of an "anti-imperialist front" (or similar "revolutionary
front") which
is not led by a Marxist-Leninist
party, even when such a front or forces within it adopt a "Marxist" (actually
pseudo-Marxist) colouration.
While such revolutionary formations have led heroic struggles and even
delivered
powerful blows to the
imperialists they have been proven to be ideologically and organisationally
incapable of
resisting imperialist
and bourgeois influences. Even where such forces have seized power they
have been incapable
of carrying through a
thoroughgoing revolutionary transformation of society and end up, sooner
or later, being
overthrown by the imperialists
or themselves becoming a new reactionary ruling power in league with imperialists.
In conditions when the
ruling classes exercise their brutal or fascist dictatorship, the communist
party can utilise the
contradictions this gives
rise to in favour of the new democratic revolution and engage in temporary
agreements or
alliances with other class
forces. However, this can only be carried out successfully if the party
maintains its
leadership, utilising
such alliances within the overall and principal task of carrying the revolution
to completion
without making a strategic
stage out of the struggle against dictatorship since the content of the
anti-fascist struggle
is nothing other than
the content of the new democratic revolution.
The Marxist-Leninist party
must arm the proletariat and the revolutionary masses not only with an
understanding of
the immediate task of
carrying through the new democratic revolution and the role and conflicting
interests of
different class forces,
friend and foe alike, but also of the need to prepare the transition to
the socialist revolution
and of the ultimate goal
of worldwide communism.
For Marxist-Leninists it
is a principle that the party must lead revolutionary warfare in such a
way that it is a
genuine war of the masses.
The Marxist-Leninists must strive, even in the difficult circumstances
of waging
warfare, to carry out
widespread political education and to raise the theoretical and ideological
level of the
masses. For this it is
necessary to maintain and develop a regular communist press as well as
to carry the
revolution into the cultural
sphere.
The main deviation in the
recent period in the colonial, semi (or neo) colonial countries has been
and remains the
tendency to deny or negate
this basic orientation for the revolutionary movement in these types of
countries: the
negation of the leading
role of the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist party; the rejection or
opportunist
perversion of people's
war; the abandonment of building a united front, based upon the worker-peasant
alliance
and under the leadership
of the proletariat.
This revisionist deviation
has taken on in the past both a "left" and an openly right-wing form. The
modern
revisionists preached,
especially in the past, the "peaceful transition to socialism" and promoted
the leadership of
the bourgeoisie in the
national liberation struggle. However this openly capitulationist, right-wing
revisionism
always corresponded with,
and has become increasingly intermingled with, a kind of "left" armed revisionism,
promoted at times by the
Cuban leadership and others, which separated the armed struggle from the
masses and
preached a line of combining
revolutionary stages into one single "socialist" revolution, which in fact
meant
appealing to the workers
on the narrowest of bases and negating the necessity of the working class
to lead the
peasantry and others in
thoroughly eliminating imperialism and the backward and distorted economic
and social
relations that foreign
capital thrives on and reinforces. Today this form of revisionism is one
of the major planks of
the social-imperialist
attempt to penetrate and control national liberation struggles.
In order for the revolutionary
movement in the colonial, semi (or neo) colonial countries to develop in
a correct
direction it is necessary
for the Marxist-Leninists to continue to step up the struggle against the
revisionists in all
their forms and to uphold
the work of Mao Tsetung as an indispensable theoretical basis for further
analysing the
concrete conditions in
different countries of this type and developing the appropriate political
line.
At the same time it is
necessary to take note of other, secondary, deviations that have appeared
amongst the
genuine revolutionary
forces who have strived to carry out a revolutionary line in the colonial
and dependent
countries. First of all
it must be noted that the countries comprising the oppressed nations of
Africa, Asia and Latin
America are not a monolithic
bloc and have considerable differences in relation to their class composition,
the
form of imperialist domination
and their position vis a vis the world situation as a whole. Tendencies
to fail to carry
out a thorough and scientific
study of these problems, to mechanically copy the previous experience of
the
international proletariat
or to fail to take notice of changes in the international situation and
in particular countries
can only harm the cause
of the revolution and weaken the Marxist-Leninist forces.
In the 1960s and early
1970s Marxist-Leninist forces in a great many countries, under the influence
of the Cultural
Revolution in China and
as part of the general worldwide revolutionary upsurge, joined with sections
of the masses
in waging armed revolutionary
warfare. In a number of countries the Marxist-Leninist forces were able
to rally
considerable sections
of the population to the revolutionary banner and maintain the Marxist-Leninist
party and
armed forces of the masses
despite the savage counter-revolutionary repression. It was inevitable
that these early
attempts at building new,
Marxist-Leninist parties and the launching of armed struggle would be marked
by a
certain primitiveness
and that ideological and political weaknesses would manifest themselves,
and it is, of course,
not surprising that the
imperialists and revisionists would seize upon these errors and weaknesses
to condemn the
revolutionaries as "ultra-leftists"
or worse. Nevertheless these experiences must, in general, be upheld as
an
important part of the
legacy of the Marxist-Leninist movement which helped lay the basis for
further advances.
In the oppressed countries
of Asia, Africa and Latin America a continuous revolutionary situation
generally exists.
But it is important to
understand this correctly: the revolutionary situation does not follow
a straight line; it has its
ebbs and flows. The communist
parties should keep this dynamic in mind. They should not fall into one-sideness
in
the form of asserting
that the commencement and the final victory of people's war depends totally
on the
subjective factor (the
communist), a view often associated with "Lin Piaoism". Although at all
times some form of
armed struggle is generally
both desirable and necessary to carry out the tasks of class struggle in
these countries,
during certain periods
armed struggle may be the principal form of struggle and at other times
it may not be.
When the revolutionary
situation is ebbing, the communist parties should determine appropriate
tactics and not fall
into rash and impatient
advances. In such situations, political and organisational preparations
necessary to carry
out protracted people's
war should by no means be neglected and forms of struggle and organisation
suitable for
the concrete conditions
should be determined in order to hasten the development of the revolution
while awaiting
favourable conditions
for further advance. It is necessary to combat any erroneous view which
would postpone
the commencement of armed
struggle or the utilisation of any form of armed struggle until conditions
become
favourable for revolutionary
warfare throughout the country. This view negates the uneven development
of
revolution and revolutionary
situations in these countries, in opposition to Mao's statement, "A single
spark can
start a prairie fire."
It is also important to note that the overall international situation has
an influence on the
revolution in a particular
country; not taking this into account leaves the Marxist-Leninists unprepared
to seize the
opportunity when the revolutionary
process is hastened by the developments on the world scale.
Today as the danger of
a new imperialist war is rapidly developing, the Marxist-Leninist parties
and organisations
in the neocolonial countries
are also confronted with the urgent task of devoting attention to the struggle
against
imperialist war. Communists
must take into account the possibility that many of these countries may
be dragged
into the imperialist war
according to the position these countries have in relation to the different
imperialist blocs.
Communist parties must
consider the various concrete situations that might arise in the midst
of such an imperialist
war and develop their
thinking in relation to these situations. Given the objective conditions
in these countries the
masses are generally less
aware of the danger and consequences of an imperialist war and the Marxist-Leninists
must educate them. In
the event of an imperialist war the most important task of the Marxist-Leninists
is to utilise
the favourable opportunities
thrown up by such a war to intensify the revolutionary struggle and turn
the imperialist
war into a revolutionary
war against imperialism and reaction.
The Joint Communique of Autumn 1980 pointed out:
There is an undeniable tendency for imperialism to introduce significant
elements of capitalist relations in the
countries it dominates. In certain dependent countries capitalist development
has gone so far that it is not
correct to characterize them as semifeudal. It is better to call them predominantly
capitalist even while
important elements or remnants of feudal or semi-feudal production relations
and their reflection in the
superstructure may still exist.
In such countries a concrete analysis must be made of these conditions
and appropriate conclusions
concerning the path, tasks, character and alignment of class forces must
be drawn. In all events, foreign
imperialism remains a target of the revolution.
The analysis of the implications
of the increased introduction of capitalist relations in the countries
dominated by
imperialism, as well as
the specific case of those oppressed countries which can correctly be termed
"predominantly capitalist,"
remains an important task for the international movement. Nevertheless
some important
conclusions can be drawn
today.
The view that the combination
of formal political independence and the introduction of widespread capitalist
relations has eliminated
the need for a new democratic revolution in most or many of the former
direct colonies is
wrong and dangerous. This
view, promoted by various Trotskyites, social-democrats and petit-bourgeois
critics
of revolutionary Marxism,
holds that there is no qualitative distinction between imperialism and
those nations
oppressed by it, thus
eliminating at a single stroke one of the most important features of the
imperialist epoch.
In fact imperialism continues
to be a fetter on the productive forces in the countries it exploits. The
capitalist
"development" which it
undeniably introduces to greater or lesser degrees does not lead to an
articulated, national
market and a "classical"
capitalist economic system but to an extremely lopsided development dependent
on and
in the interests of foreign
capital.
Even in the predominantly
capitalist oppressed countries foreign imperialism along with its domestic
props remain
the principal target of
the revolution in its first stage. While the path of the revolution in
these countries will often be
considerably different
than those in which semi-feudal relations prevail, it is still necessary,
in general, for the
revolution to pass through
a democratic, anti-imperialist stage before the socialist revolution can
be begun.
The relative weight of
the cities in relation to the countryside, both politically and militarily,
is an extremely
important question that
is posed by the increased capitalist development of some oppressed countries.
In some of
these countries it is
correct to begin the armed struggle by launching insurrections in the city
and not to follow the
model of surrounding the
cities by the countryside. Moreover, even in countries where the path of
revolution is that
of surrounding the city
by the countryside, situations in which a mass upheaval leads to uprisings
and insurrections
in the cities can occur
and the party should be prepared to utilise such situations within its
overall strategy.
However in both these
situations, the party's ability to mobilise the peasants to take part in
the revolution under
proletarian leadership
is critical to its success.
Due to the establishment
of a central state structure prior to the process of capitalist development,
semi (or neo)
colonial countries, in
the main, have multi-national social formations within them, in a large
number of cases these
states have been created
by the imperialists themselves. Furthermore, the borders of these states
have been
determined as a consequence
of imperialist occupations and machinations. Thus it is generally the case
that within
the state borders of countries
oppressed by imperialism, oppressed nations, national inequality and ruthless
national oppression exist.
In our era, the national question has ceased to be an internal question
of single countries
and has become subordinate
to the general question of the world proletarian revolution, hence its
thoroughgoing
resolution has become
directly dependent on the struggle against imperialism. Within this context
Marxist-Leninists
should uphold the right
of self-determination of oppressed nations in the multinational semi-colonial
states.
Thus it can be said that
the Marxist-Leninists in the colonial and neo-colonial countries confront
a double task on
the ideological and political
front. They must, on the one hand, continue to defend and uphold the basic
teachings
of Mao concerning the
character and path of the revolution in those types of countries, as well
as defending and
building upon the revolutionary
attempts that (to paraphrase Lenin) accompanied the "mad years" of the
1960s. At
the same time, the revolutionary
communists must apply the critical Marxist spirit to analysing both past
experience
as well as the current
situation and developments that affect the course of the revolution in
these countries.
The Imperialist Countries
As the Joint Communique
pointed out, in the imperialist countries "the October Revolution remains
the basic point
of reference for Marxist-Leninist
strategy and tactics." It is necessary to reaffirm and deepen this point
because the
basic Leninist principles
regarding the preparation for and waging of the proletarian revolution
in the imperialist
countries have long been
buried under an avalanche of revisionist distortion.
Lenin correctly stressed
the need for communists to develop an all-round political movement of the
workers
capable, when conditions
ripen, of leading the revolutionary forces in society in an insurrection
aimed against the
reactionary state power.
He correctly pointed out that such a revolutionary movement could not grow
spontaneously out of the
day-to-day economic struggles of the workers and that, further, these struggles
were not
the most important arena
of revolutionary work. He argued that the revolutionaries must "divert"
the spontaneous
movement of the masses
away from a narrow struggle over the conditions and sale of labour power.
In order to
do this it is necessary
to bring political consciousness to the workers from "outside" their immediate
experience,
above all through political
exposure and analysis of all the major events in society in every sphere:
political,
cultural, scientific,
etc. Only in this way could a class conscious sector of the proletariat
be formed - conscious of
its revolutionary tasks
and of the nature and role of all the other class forces in society.
Lenin emphasized too that
as crucial as agitation and propaganda are, they are not enough. Only through
class
struggle, especially political
and revolutionary struggle, could the masses fully develop their revolutionary
consciousness and fighting
capacity. In this way, and together with the all-round work of the communists,
the
masses learn through their
own experience and are educated in the furnace of class struggle.
Far from preaching the
"monolithic unity of the working class," Lenin demonstrated that imperialism
inevitably
leads to a "shift in class
relations," to a split in the working class in the imperialist countries
between the oppressed
and exploited proletariat
and an upper section of the workers benefiting from and in league with
the imperialist
bourgeoisie.
Lenin was also the vigorous
opponent of all those who, in one form or another, sought to identify the
interests of
the proletariat with that
of "its own" imperialist bourgeoisie. He vigorously fought for a line of
revolutionary
defeatism in relation
to imperialist war and consistently upheld the banner of proletarian internationalism
in
opposition to the tattered
"national flag" of the bourgeoisie.
Lenin also analysed that
the possibility for making revolution in the capitalist countries was linked
to the
development of revolutionary
situations which appear infrequently in these countries but which concentrate
the
fundamental contradictions
of capitalism. He analysed the error of the Second International of banking
everything
on the gradual and peaceful
accumulation of socialist influence among the masses and argued instead
that the task
of communists in relatively
'peaceful" times was to prepare for the exceptional moments in history
when
revolutionary transformations
in these types of countries are possible and when the activities of the
revolutionaries
mark the society and the
world for "decades to come."
Despite the clarity of
Lenin on these subjects, and their centrality to the overall body of scientific
socialist theory,
the Leninists have quite
often chosen to ignore it.
Early in the history of
the Third International, in certain Communist Parties, erroneous conceptions
of "mass
parties" in non-revolutionary
situations and economist deviations appeared. These tendencies grew in
strength and
became articles of faith
in the communist movement, along with other wrong and extremely dangerous
tendencies
to champion bourgeois
national interests in the imperialist countries.
Unfortunately, the rupture
with modern revisionism during the 1960s was notably incomplete especially
regarding
the strategy and tactics
of communists in the imperialist countries. While the "peaceful road" was
rejected and
criticised and the need
for an eventual armed uprising propagated, little effort was given to summing
up the
historical roots of revisionism
in the communist movement in the capitalist countries and, in general,
the
Marxist-Leninist forces
adopted a course of work based more upon the negative experiences of some
of the
Communist Parties during
the 1930s than on the "October Road" forged under Lenin's leadership.
In most imperialist countries
during this period, a significant section of new-born revolutionary forces
took wrong
turns into policies of
adventurism or left sectarianism. But especially as time wore on, the new
Marxist-Leninist
parties and organisations
generally adopted a line of making the centre of their work concentrating
on the
day-to-day struggles of
the workers and battling with the revisionists and bourgeois trade union
officials for the
leadership of these struggles.
This worship of the "average worker" and the preoccupation with the economic
struggle led to little
in terms of actually winning workers to a revolutionary position and to
the Marxist-Leninist
parties but did unfortunately
have a corrosive effect on the Marxist-Leninist parties themselves and
on their
members. The economist
line dominating the Marxist-Leninist movement in these countries stood
in sharp contrast
to the very revolutionary
principles on which it was founded. The young militants who made up the
bulk of these
parties joined them because
they wanted to contribute to the worldwide revolutionary process, because
they
wanted to struggle for
communism. The desire to spread the revolutionary movement of the 1960s
to the
proletariat and to merge
with the workers, inspired to no small degree by the experience of the
revolutionary youth
in the Cultural Revolution,
was a powerful and correct revolutionary sentiment which, however, became
stifled and
distorted under the influence
of economism. As the worldwide revolutionary upsurge receded, the
Marxist-Leninist parties
and organisations tended to move further and further to the right in an
effort to obtain a
mass following on a non-revolutionary
basis. The members of these organisations saw less and less connection
with the preparation for
revolution and the tasks they were actually pursuing. The results of this
were distortion,
demoralisation and the
strengthening of opportunism.
All of this was further
compounded by confusion among the Marxist-Leninists regarding the "national
tasks" (or
more precisely, the lack
of them) in the imperialist countries. As was pointed out, the polemics
of the Chinese
Communist Party contained
serious errors in this regard, errors which were incorporated by the Marxist-Leninist
movement. The correct,
internationalist desire to fight against US imperialism (correctly singled
out as the main
bastion of world reaction
at that time) increasingly mingled with a promotion of the national interests
of the
imperialist states insofar
as they came into contradiction with the US and (especially from the early
1970s on) with
the Soviet Union. Increasingly
wrong positions were taken by a great many Marxist-Leninist parties concerning
world affairs, positions
which went against internationalism and objectively aligned the positions
of these parties on
these issues with imperialist
war preparations and counter-revolutionary suppression. As pointed out
earlier, some
Marxist-Leninist parties
in the imperialist countries had already adopted a thoroughly social-chauvinist
line even
before the coup d'etat
in China in 1976.
These two serious and related
errors, economism and social-chauvinism (including the embryonic revisionist
"Three Worlds Theory"),
were the main subjective factors that contributed to the virtual collapse
in Europe of the
Marxist-Leninist movement
following the coup d'etat in China. The communists in the advanced capitalist
countries
must give great emphasis
to the struggle against the influence of these deviations in building and
strengthening
genuine Marxist-Leninist
parties.
As the Marxist-Leninist
movement floundered in most of the advanced capitalist countries some sections
of the
revolutionary youth attempted
to find a "new ideology" and a different path. The attraction of anarchism
and other
forms of petit-bourgeois
radicalism for significant sections of the revolutionary youth reflected
a desire to bring
about revolutionary change.
Nevertheless these forces are incapable of playing a fully revolutionary
role insofar as
they lack the only thoroughly
revolutionary ideology, Marxism. In some countries small numbers of people
have
turned to terrorism, an
ideology and political line which does not rely on the revolutionary masses
and has no
correct perspective of
a revolutionary overthrow of imperialism. While these terrorist movements
like to appear
very "revolutionary,"
they have also incorporated, more often than not, a whole series of revisionist
and reformist
deviations such as "the
liberation struggle" in imperialist countries, the defence of the imperialist
Soviet Union, and
so forth. These movements
share with economism the fundamental failure to grasp the centrality of
raising the
political consciousness
of the masses and leading them in political struggle, as preparation for
revolution.
While the "excavating"
of basic Leninist principles is the starting point for the elaboration
of a revolutionary line in
the imperialist countries,
it is still only a beginning. The imperialist countries of today differ
in important respects
from turn-of-the-century
Russia and other imperialist countries at that time and a great deal of
experience (positive
and negative) in trying
to build a revolutionary movement in these countries has been accumulated
since the
October Revolution.
The process of imperialist
development has led to a number of important changes in these countries
- including the
virtual elimination of
a peasantry in some of them, the rapid growth of new sections of the petit
bourgeoisie, and so
forth. The most important
development, however, is the greatly increased parasitism of the imperialist
states based
on the plunder of the
oppressed nations, and a further polarisation of the working class that
goes along with it.
There is in the imperialist
countries a large, well entrenched and influential labour aristocracy which
benefits from
imperialism and willingly
serves its interests. Imperialism sharpens the contradiction between these
workers and a
significant strata of
the working class [including its industrial reserve army - the unemployed)
who are
impoverished and who desire
and are inclined to fight for a radical change. In the principal Western
imperialist
states this lower section
of the working class is composed in no small measure of immigrant workers
from the
dominated countries as
well as, in some cases, national minorities and oppressed nations from
within t he
imperialist states themselves.
It is this lower section of the working class that is the most important
element of the
social base of the party
of the proletariat in the imperialist countries.
In between these two sections
of the workers there is a large number, sometimes even a majority, of workers
who, while not benefitting
from imperialism in the manner of the labour aristocracy, have been greatly
influenced
by a long period of relative
prosperity and who are not, in ordinary times, in a revolutionary mood.
The fight for
the allegiance of the
broad masses of these workers as they are propelled into motion by deepening
crisis and
especially as a revolutionary
situation develops, will be an important element in the struggle between
the
revolutionary, class conscious
proletarians led by the Marxist-Leninist party and the reactionary labour
aristocracy
and its political expressions.
While not neglecting to carry out work among the bourgeoisified sections
of the
working class the Marxist-Leninist
party in the imperialist countries should principally base its work on
the most
potentially revolutionary
sections of the workers.
It is not possible to build
the revolutionary movement and lead it to victory without paying attention
to the battles
for daily existence of
the working class and masses of other strata. While the party must not
direct its own or the
messes' attention mainly
to such struggle nor foster the dissipation of its own and the masses)
forces and energies
on them, neither can the
party fail to do work in relation to them. Leading economic struggles is
not the same thing
as economism. The proletarian
party should take these struggles, especially those with the potential
to go beyond
conventional bounds, seriously
into account. This means conducting work in relation to these struggles
in such a
way as to facilitate the
moving of the masses to revolutionary positions, especially as the conditions
for revolution
ripen.
The Marxist-Leninist party
must strive to carry out Lenin's call to turn the factories into fortresses
of communism.
This is not only an important
political question for the preparation of the revolution but also has important
implications for the armed
insurrection of the proletariat.
Unless the Marxist-Leninist
parties in the imperialist countries strike deep roots among the revolutionary
masses
through evolving and implementing
a revolutionary mass line, then efforts to utilise revolutionary situations
will be
seriously weakened. In
all this the tactics and style of work developed by the Bolshevik Party
and summed up by
Lenin still remain the
basic guideline. However, in order to develop a revolutionary mass line
and style of work,
Marxist-Leninists in the
imperialist countries must put aside conventional wisdom about 'proper"
forms of struggle
and organisation and all
such dogmas, analyse the specific characteristics of contemporary imperialism
and the
nature of struggles being
waged by the masses and seek out favourable new grounds for revolutionary
practice
and develop new forms
of struggle and mass organisations.
As Lenin so vividly expressed
it, the communist ideal "should not be a trade union secretary, but a tribune
of the
people."
The Marxist-Leninist party,
while principally basing itself on the most potentially revolutionary sections
of the
proletariat, must strive
to carry out revolutionary work among other sections of the population
including elements
of the petit bourgeoisie.
Another factor potentially
very favourable to the proletarian revolution in more than a few of the
imperialist
countries is the existence
of oppressed nations and national minorities within the bellies of these
beasts. Often, as
noted above, large numbers
of proletarians from these nationalities form an important part of a single,
multi-national proletariat
there. But, in addition to this, there is also a broader national question
involved,
encompassing other classes
and strata of these oppressed nationalities. Such situations have often
given rise to
sharp national struggles
within these imperialist states, and if they are properly handled by the
proletarian parties
there, which should support
such struggles and uphold the right of self-determination where applicable,
these
struggles can play a significant
role in the struggle to overthrow imperialist states.
In the countries of Eastern
Europe Marxist-Leninists face the task of formulating correct strategy
and tactics for
the socialist revolution,
taking into account the domination of Soviet social-imperialism and the
concrete tasks it
poses without minimising
or overlooking the central task of overthrowing the state power of their
own bureaucratic
bourgeoisie.
The current developments
toward world war and both the dangers and revolutionary opportunities that
presents
require that the Marxist-Leninist
parties in the imperialist countries place great importance on the question
of world
war and revolution. The
Marxist-Leninist party must expose imperialist war preparations and especially
the
interests and manoeuvres
of its "own" imperialist ruling class. It must demonstrate to the masses
that such a war
flows from the very nature
of capitalist exploitation and is a continuation of imperialist economics
and politics, and
that only the advance
of the world revolution can stop the war in preparation and attack its
source. The
communists must constantly
struggle against every effort to identify the interests of the proletariat
with those of the
imperialist bourgeoisie
and must train the class conscious proletariat and others to see through
the bloody
imperialist nature of
the national flag.
The communists must build
support among the masses for the anti-imperialist struggle of the oppressed
peoples
and nations, even where
such struggles are not led by Marxist-Leninists. The party must consistently
and
concretely train the proletariat
in internationalism.
The increased danger of
world war is now being felt sharply by the masses in the imperialist countries
and
communists must pay great
attention to the mass movements against war preparations and to addressing
the
questions posed by these
movements. The Marxist-Leninist party must support the revolutionary elements
in these
movements and strive to
win them to its ranks. The party must unite with the anti-war sentiments
of the masses
while at the same time
combatting illusions that a "peace movement" can stop the imperialist war
and especially the
national chauvinist views
that seek to avoid the devastation of war for one imperialist nation or
another at the
expense of the rest of
the world.
While uniting with the
masses in struggle against imperialist war preparations the Marxist-Leninist
party should not
put forward or support
demands for "nuclear free zones", illusory notions of abolishing imperialist
blocs and so
forth in the imperialist
countries. Even in the lesser, non-nuclear states the communists must constantly
stress to the
masses that imperialism
breeds world war, that all imperialist ruling classes are implicated in
preparing this crime
against humanity, and
that the only real solution lies in revolution and not in illusory, and
ultimately reactionary,
efforts towards "neutrality."
The Marxist-Leninist party
must prepare itself and the revolutionary proletariat so that if revolution
is not able to
prevent the world war
it is in the best position to take advantage of the weakness of the imperialists,
to build on
the inevitable widespread
hatred of war and direct it against the imperialists themselves and strive
to turn the
imperialist war into a
civil war. The revolutionary defeatist position must be adopted by the
Marxist-Leninists in all
the imperialist countries.
In the imperialist countries the communist press plays a particularly important
role in the
preparation of the proletarian
revolution. The press must be built as the collective propagandist, agitator
and
organiser of the party.
The Marxist-Leninists in
the advanced capitalist countries face the task of continuing to combat
the pernicious
influence of revisionism
and reformism in their ranks. The key to doing this remains the fight for
principles
developed by Lenin in
the course of preparing and leading the October Revolution. At the same
time the
Marxist-Leninists must
sum up past experience, fight against dogmatism, be firm in principle and
flexible in tactics,
and undertake a scientific
study of the developments in the imperialist countries over the last several
decades and
the further development
of revolutionary strategy that flow from them.
For the Ideological, Political and Organisational Unity of Marxist-Leninists
The communist movement
is, and can only be, an international movement. Indeed the very launching
of scientific
socialism, the Communist
Manifesto, declared "Workers of all countries, unite!" With the success
of the October
Revolution, the formation
of the Communist International and the subsequent spreading of Marxism-Leninism
to
every corner of the globe,
the international unity of the working class took on an even more profound
meaning.
Today, in the midst of
profound crisis in the ranks of Marxist-Leninists, the need for international
unity and the
need for a new international
organisation are urgently felt.
In building up its own
organisation on a global level, the international proletariat has accumulated
both positive and
negative experience. The
concept of world party and the resultant over-centralisation of the Comintern
should be
evaluated so that appropriate
lessons from that period can be drawn as well as from the positive achievements
of
the First, Second and
Third Internationals. It also is necessary to evaluate the overreaction
of the Communist
Party of China to the
negative aspects of the Comintern that led them to refuse to play the necessary
leading role
in building up the organisational
unity of the Marxist-Leninist forces at the international level.
At the present juncture
of world history, the international proletariat has to take up the challenge
of forming its own
organisation, an International
of a new type based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, assimilating
the
valuable experience of
the past. And this goal must be boldly proclaimed before the international
proletariat and
the oppressed of the world
with the same revolutionary daring of our predecessors from the Communards
of Paris
to the proletarian rebels
of Shanghai who dared to storm heaven and resolved to do the "impossible"
- build a
communist world.
The process of forming such an organisation will, in all likelihood, be a protracted one.
The most crucial task the
Marxist-Leninists face, in this respect, is to evolve a general line and
a correct and viable
organisational form, conforming
to the complex reality of the present-day world and the challenges it poses.
The function of such a
new International will be to continue and deepen the summation of experiences,
develop the
general line on which
it is founded, and serve as an overall guiding political centre. These
tasks necessitate a form
of democratic centralism
based on the ideological and political unity of Marxist-Leninists. But
it cannot be of the
same nature as the functioning
of a party in a single state, since the components of such an international
organisation will be different
parties having equality of right and responsibility of leading the revolution
in each
country in the sense of
each party's share in the preparations and acceleration of the world revolution.
Considering the level of
ideological and political unity and maturity achieved by the Marxist-Leninist
parties and
organisations at the Second
Conference, they must take the following preliminary steps in the direction
of fulfilling
the higher tasks mentioned
above:
1.An international
journal must be developed as a vital tool in reconstructing the international
communist
movement. It must be at once both an organ of analysis and political commentary
as well as a forum for
debating the questions of the international movement. It must be translated
into as many languages as
possible, vigorously distributed in the ranks of the Marxist-Leninist parties
and among other revolutionary
forces. The Marxist-Leninist parties must correspond regularly with the
journal and contribute articles and
criticism.
2.Helping the
formation of new Marxist-Leninist parties and the strengthening of existing
ones is the common
task of the international communist movement. The ways and means must be
found for the international
movement as a whole to assist Marxist-Leninists in different countries
in carrying out this crucial task.
3.Joint and
coordinated campaigns should be conducted by the Marxist-Leninist parties
and organisations
The First of May activities should be carried out under unified slogans.
4.The different
Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations should carry out the political
line and decisions
adopted by the International Conferences and agreed to by these parties,
even while continuing to carry out
principled struggle over differences.
5.All Marxist-Leninist
parties and organisations should, within the measure of their capacity,
contribute
financially and practically to the tasks involved in furthering the unity
of the communists.
6.An interim
committee - an embryonic political centre must be set up to lead the overall
process of furthering
the ideological, political and organisational unity of communists, including
the preparation of a draft proposal
for a general line for the communist movement.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The constitution of the
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, based on the higher level of ideological
and
political unity of Marxist-Leninists achieved through
principled struggle, represents an extremely important step for the
international communist movement. But the need to race
to catch up with the objective developments in the world is still
apparent. The revolutionary struggle of the masses of
the people in all countries is crying out for genuine revolutionary
leadership. The genuine Marxist-Leninist forces, in individual
countries and on a world scale, have the responsibility to provide
such leadership even as they continue to struggle to
solidify and raise the level of their unity. In this way the correct ideological
and political line will bring forward new soldiers and
will become an ever more powerful material force in the world. The words
of the Communist Manifesto ring out all the more clearly
today: "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They
have a world to win."
March 1984
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222