First Published: Discussion Bulletin #7, October 29, 1979.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
NOTE: Martin Connell’s “Reject the Theory of Three Worlds!” was originally circulated internally in September 1978. The following comments are based on a reply originally drafted in January 1979, but not finalized and published then, because of other commitments, and because there was no interest shown in the internal discussion supposed to start then. A more positive analysis of some of the issues raised by Martin Connell would probably have been better, but since the critique is being published now, it is necessary to put on record a simple reply to the various accusations of misquoting and the various references to Marxist-Leninist classics, even though such a reply cannot deal with the essential issues in dispute. On the substantive issues, I still stand by my original article on “Three Worlds” in the first issue of this bulletin, and also the additional material in the second issue, although I no longer regard the Albanian line as simply a “Left Wing Communist” error, I do not believe that Martin Connell’s article answers mine, or even seriously attempts to do so, but since it is being published, I don’t want anybody to think I am refusing to answer it.
* * *
1. The reason my article was “liberally studded with quotations from Marxist-Leninist classics” was because it was refuting the Albanian editorial “Theory and Practice of Revolution” which uses the method of quoting isolated remarks by Lenin or Stalin to “prove” that this or that view is “Leninist” or ”anti-Leninist”. Probably it is best not to reply directly and simply put forward a positive statement of one’s own, based on an actual Marxist-Leninist analysis of the real world. That appears to be the way that Mao’s China handled its differences with the Albanian party. Nevertheless, I thought it would be helpful to people intimidated by the Albanian pontifications, to call their bluff by quoting what the classics of Marxism have said on these issues, and quoting them in their full context. I will do the same in regard to Martin Connell’s article, and simply hope that this won’t unduly contribute to the atmosphere created by “quotation mongering” material, which is usually boring and unreadable and encourages people to shy away from the whole dispute, leaving it to the “gurus”.
2. The complaint is a bit rich coming from Martin Connell, whose article is “liberally studded” with more than twice as many quotations per page! If mine were longer that is because I was careful to include the context.
3. I did not omit the Chinese polemics against Khrushchev and Mao Tsetung’s statements in the 1960s from my bibliography “because this material is in stark contradiction to the theory of three worlds”, but for the opposite reason, that although it is relevant to quote Mao’s statements in the 1930s and 1940s to show consistency, it is hardly convincing to quote current Chinese material in support of Chinese current policy. In other words I omitted it for the same reason that supporters of the Albanian line should refrain from quoting current statements by Enver Hoxha as an authority for their views (although they would find it interesting to go back over some of his previous’ statements on related issues, such as the anti-fascist war). I will quote some of this material now, since the issue has been raised, although a short answer would be that Martin Connell, along with most of those who wrote polemics “proving” that the “three worlds” was against Mao’s line and the Chinese Communist Party’s polemics with Khrushchev, has since admitted that this is bullshit and now claim that Mao and the Chinese Communist Party were revisionist all along (but of course without any self-criticism whatever).
4. Neither the “two camps”, nor the “three worlds” nor the “four contradictions” have ever been ”the starting point of Marxist-Leninist analysis of the world situation”.
We are Marxists, and Marxism teaches that in our approach to a problem we should start from objective facts, not from abstract definitions, and that we should derive our guiding principles, policies and measures from an analysis of these facts. (Mao Tsetung, “Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art”)
Nevertheless, I will have to follow Martin Connell’s approach, in order to refute his article point by point. So here goes.
5. My article on “Three Worlds” rejected the Albanian complaints about China no longer talking about the socialist camp, by pointing out that it no longer existed and that there was therefore no point talking about anything more than socialist countries (who do not play such a central role, as one pole of a fundamental contradiction in the world, as they did when there actually was a socialist camp). (Section 6, p20)
6. Martin argues that there is a “fundamental question of principle” involved, whether one refers to a “socialist camp” or “socialist countries”, in that one of the four fundamental contradictions in the world is that “between the socialist system and the capitalist system”. He implies that in the 1960s polemics, Khrushchev tried to play down the importance of this fundamental contradiction, while the Chinese emphasized it, but they have since negated this, departing therefore from what they themselves had insisted was the Marxist-Leninist position.
7. Instead of trying to prove that a “socialist camp”, or for that matter “socialist countries” do in fact play a central role in one of the fundamental contradictions of the world today, Martin simply argues that they must do so because:
Following the seizure of state power by the proletariat in Russia in 1917, a fourth basic contradiction of our era emerged and hap been in force ever since, namely:
* The contradiction between the socialist system and the capitalist system.
8. Having looked through Stalin’s “Foundations of Leninism” and found only three basic contradictions listed, Martin concludes that the fourth one must not have existed when Stalin wrote that book, but must have emerged after 1917. Since nobody has repealed it, this contradiction must still be “in force” (sic) “ever since”. Check out page 1 of the article and see whether this isn’t the way Martin is reasoning.
9. Unfortunately “Foundations of Leninism” was written in 1924, thus 7 years later, Stalin had never heard of the terribly terribly vital “four” contradictions, although:
...whether he (meaning Alan Ward, not Uncle Joe) likes it or not, ... they have been part and parcel of the international communist movement general line since the Great October Socialist revolution, despite numerous attempts by Trotsky, Browder, Tito, Khrushchev, Teng Hsiao-ping etc., to “forget” one or more of them. . .
Thus Stalin, not to mention Lenin, is as forgetful as Trotsky, Alan Ward, Tito and the rest. Oh well... back to 65% good, 5 marks off for bad memory!
10. If Martin had ever bothered to study the 1960s “Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement”, instead of skimming through it looking for suitable quotes, he would have realised that the “contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp” referred to a specific bloc of thirteen countries (listed on pp. l0-11 of the “Polemic...”) which did in fact play a fundamental role in world affairs during the period known as the “Cold War”.
11. The Albanian polemic complained about classifying countries into “three worlds” instead of classifying “first and foremost, from the social-economic order existing in various countries”. They explicitly said that “today, too, we should speak of a socialist world”, although they were not able to specify exactly who was in it!
Instead of explaining how a classification of the countries of the world into Albania on the one hand, and the rest of the world on the other, helps us to grasp international affairs, Martin simply avoids the whole issue by talking about a “contradiction between the socialist system and the capitalist system”.
This was never the issue, and nobody except Martin has ever claimed that this is a fourth fundamental contradiction in the world, separate from the contradiction between labour and capital.
12. In the 1960’s polemics, it was precisely the Khrushchovites who over emphasized the contradiction between socialist and capitalist countries, while the Chinese refuted them pointing out that the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism was even more important. This incidentally, was also a feature of Trotsky, Browder and one phase of Tito’s revisionism, and it is also becoming a feature of Teng Hsiao-ping’s, as China now abandons the concept of rallying the Third World against both superpowers, and tries to subordinate the international communist movement to its needs as an allegedly socialist country threatened by Soviet imperialism.
Here is the Soviet position and the Chinese reply in the 1960s polemics (pp 200-203). The continuity between this debate and the present one about “Three Worlds” is clear, but in the opposite direction to what Martin suggests:
The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU accuses the Chinese Communist Party of putting forward a “new theory”. It says:
“. .. according to which (the new theory) the chief contradiction of our time is not, we are told, between socialism and imperialism, but between the national-liberation movement and imperialism. In the Chinese comrades’ opinion, the decisive force in the battle against imperialism is not the socialist world system, and not the international working-class struggle but, again we are told, the national-liberation movement.”.
In the first place, this is a fabrication. In our letter of June 14, we pointed out that the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world are the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries, the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism, and the contradictions among imperialist countries and among monopoly capitalist groups.
We also pointed out: The contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp is a contradiction between two fundamentally different social systems, socialism and capitalism. It is undoubtedly very sharp. But Marxist-Leninists must not regard the contradictions in the world as consisting solely and simply of the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp.
Our view is crystal clear.
In our letter of June 14, we explained the revolutionary situation in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the significance and role of the national liberation movement. This is what we said:
1. “The various types of contradictions in the contemporary world are concentrated in the vast areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under imperialist rule and the storm centres of world revolution dealing direct blows at imperialism.”
2. “The national democratic revolutionary movement in these areas and the international socialist revolutionary movement are the two great historical currents of our time.”
3. “The national democratic revolution in these areas is an important component of the contemporary proletarian world revolution.”
4. “The anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America are pounding and undermining the foundations of the rule of imperialism and colonialism, old and new, and are now a mighty force in defence of world peace.”
5. “In a sense, therefore, the whole cause of the international proletarian revolution hinges on the outcome of the revolutionary struggles of the people of these areas, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.”
6. “Therefore, the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America is definitely not merely a matter of regional significance but one of overall importance for the whole cause of proletarian world revolution.”
These are Marxist-Leninist theses, conclusions drawn by scientific analysis from the realities of our time.
No one can deny that an extremely favourable revolutionary situation now exists in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Today the national liberation revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America are the most important forces dealing imperialism direct blows. The contradictions of the world are concentrated in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The centre of world contradictions, of world political struggles, is not fixed but shifts with changes in the international situation. We believe that with the development of the contradiction and struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in Western Europe and North America, the momentous day of battle will arrive in these homes of capitalism and heartlands of imperialism. When that day comes, Western Europe and North America will undoubtedly become the centre of world political struggles, of world contradictions.
Lenin said in 1913, “... a new source of great world storms opened up in Asia... It is in this era of storms and their ’repercussion’ on Europe that we are now living. ”
Stalin said in 1925:
“The colonial countries constitute the principal rear of imperialism. The revolutionisation of this rear is bound to undermine imperialism not only in the sense that imperialism will be deprived of its rear, but also in the sense that the revolutionisation of the East is bound to give a powerful impulse to the intensification of the revolutionary crisis in the West.”
Is it possible that these statements of Lenin and Stalin are wrong? The theses they enunciated have long been elementary Marxist-Leninist, knowledge. Obviously, now that the leaders of the CPSU are bent on belittling the national liberation movement, they are completely ignoring elementary Marxism-Leninism and the plain facts under their noses.
13. The long excerpt above is justified not only to refute the idea that the analysis of “Three Worlds” contradicts the stand taken by Maoists in the 1960s polemics, but also because it provides such a clear refutation of the present Albanian theses about the “two camps” and the relative importance of the “socialist system” and the national-liberation movement. Check out the excerpt quoted from the CPSU Open Letter (indeed check out the whole Open Letter – “Polemics... ” pp526-586). Weren’t the Khrushchovites saying then exactly what Martin is saying now?
Of course Martin could admit that he was wrong to counterpose the “Three Worlds’” of the Chinese stand in the 1960s (although he has not admitted this yet – preferring to just change his views without: any self-criticism whatever).
Consistent with his present position, Martin could now argue that the material I have quoted confirms the Albanian thesis that the Chinese Communists were always revisionists all along from the 1930s and therefore their 1960s polemics with Khrushchev weren’t much good either.
But will Martin go further and admit Khrushchev was right? I doubt it, nevertheless the above material shows clearly that if Enver Hoxha is correct about the “two camps” today, then Khrushchev was right about it much earlier.
This is a very serious issue. Not only did Khrushchev advance the idea that Chinese strategy was to provoke a world war between the USA and the USSR, long before Enver Hoxha, but he also took up the question of Chinese attitudes towards the “Socialist system” and the national-liberation movement, as shown above, and if you look through the Soviet, polemics there is hardly a single issue (except perhaps Yugoslavia), where Khrushchev did not anticipate Hoxha (just as on most concrete international questions today, like the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea, Albania and the Soviet Union take up identical positions, and now this includes the Yugoslav question too).
One need only study what the Soviet polemics had to say about the social content of the Chinese revolution, the class character of the Chinese Communist Party, the “anti-Leninist” strategy and tactics it followed against Comintern advice and so on to be struck by the fact that the Albanians, like the Trotskyites before them, have absolutely nothing new to say on these questions. The resemblance grows even more striking when one reads the Soviet polemics about the construction of socialism in China, the internal, life of the CCP and its lack of Congresses etc., the Cultural Revolution, which allegedly liquidated the CCP and plunged China into chaos, and all the rest of it.
Having made the same analysis of China’s “pro-imperialist” foreign policy, especially since the Nixon visit, it is hardly surprising that the Soviets, Trotskyites and Albanians should come up with the same “theoretical” and “historical” explanation for it. The only thing surprising is that the Albanians won’t admit Khrushchev was right. This hardly seems fair, especially since the Soviets have publicly stated that the Albanians are right (see Discussion Bulletin #3).
14. Martin complains that the Chinese Foreign Minister’s October 5, 1976 UN speech only mentions an “analysis of all the basic contradictions of our time and the division and realignment of all the political forces in the world”, but he “does not list these basic contradictions. . . ”. Martin also complains (p.1) that “Alan Ward does not list these contradictions in his article”.
All the Albania line speeches and articles do unfailingly list all four contradictions (including the one between imperialist and socialist camps, which disintegrated more than a decade ago), so whoever fails to conscientiously list all four in every speech or article is obviously guilty of a grave crime.
What the UN speech did, and what I tried to do in my article, was to actually present an analysis of how the proletariat can overthrow imperialism (the principal contradiction of our epoch), based on an analysis of the other fundamental contradictions – between the oppressed nations and imperialism, and among the imperialists themselves. This still seems to me far more useful than producing a “list” and pontificating about its significance.
15. The point of the Albanian thesis about “two camps” is not that it takes into account a fourth fundamental contradiction left out or slurred over in the analysis of “three worlds”.
The contradiction between socialist and capitalist systems is an aspect of the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which the Red Eureka Movement highlighted in the first section, on “Proletarian Revolution” of our policy statement “Opinions on some international questions”.
The point of the “two camps” theory is to downplay the other two “fundamental” contradictions in the world today – taking strong exception to the importance we attach to the struggle of oppressed Third World and Second World countries against the superpowers, and the contention between the two superpowers for hegemony.
It is precisely because we really do recognize that the contradiction between the oppressed nation and imperialism is fundamental to understanding the division and realignment of all the political forces in the world, that we pay such attention to the relations between the Third World (and Second World), and their oppressors, the two superpowers. That is exactly why we attach such importance to the rise of the Third World and the struggles waged by Third World countries and peoples against the two superpowers (and to a lesser extent by Second World countries and peoples too).
It is precisely because we really do recognize that the contradiction between the imperialists themselves is a fundamental contradiction that also does determine the actual course of international developments, that we pay so much attention to superpower contention in international affairs. That is exactly why we attach such importance to the broadest possible united front against Soviet Imperialism, seeing this as a fundamental issue like the united front against fascism in the 1930s and 1940s.
It is precisely because we really do recognize that the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a fundamental contradiction determining the whole character of our epoch that we won’t agree to forget about it when dealing with aspects of the other two fundamental contradictions or any other matter. That is exactly why we won’t go along with Hill, in making “independence” the whole content of the Australian revolution at its present stage (whether independence from the USA, the USSR, or their “contention”). Nor will we surrender our initiative, independence and opposition to imperialism in the course of a united front against the Soviet Union. Nor will we forget Communist leadership of the new democratic revolution because we support Third World countries against imperialism. Nor will we accept that “superpower contention” has replaced the class struggle as the motive force behind political developments in Australia. And neither will we accept Enver Hoxha’s denials that there is a bourgeoisie and a class struggle in Albania.
Since the defeat of the revolutionary upsurge in Europe after the second world war, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie of the advanced capitalist countries has not been at the center stage of world affairs, and the focal point of world contradictions has been in Asia, Africa and Latin America. That situation will certainly change, perhaps in the course of the coming world depression, but nobody could seriously argue that it has changed already and that working class struggle in the West already overshadows the national-liberation movement, and the contradictions between imperialists, as a determining influence on world affairs.
This is the whole point of recognizing that there are three inter related fundamental contradictions, not just one – and this is completely missed by those who talk about “two camps”.
By reducing world politics to just a struggle between “two camps”, the Albanian line completely negates the concept that there is more than one fundamental contradiction in the world, while those of us who don’t conscientiously list those contradictions are faithfully upholding that concept.
The “two camps” approach is very attractive to a certain “leftist” mentality (even though its promoters are not “left” at all), but it very clearly does not correspond to what’s actually happening in the world and the forces that are really at work. That’s why its advocates resort to abstract quotation mongering and “lists” instead of trying to apply their theory to explain facts and show who our friends and enemies are and what line we should take towards them, as the Chinese UN speech does.
Although it sounds very “revolutionary” and “Leninist”, this “two camps” approach is really quite the opposite.
As usual, Lenin himself provides the best refutation of this ignorant and childish nonsense:
So one army lines up in one place and says, “We are for socialism”, and another, somewhere else and says, “We are for imperialism”, and that will be a social revolution!
...
Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is.(“The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”, (Collected Works Vol 22, pp356-7)
16. According to Martin (p3), to put the contradiction between China and imperialism within the framework of the third world versus imperialism (rather than two camps – socialist and imperialist) was a very “erroneous view”, “At least up until October 1976, when China was a proletarian dictatorship.”
On the contrary, it was a very correct view, and “at least up until October 1976” the view of many revolutionaries who saw China as a major determining force in the world, at the head of the socialist and proletarian revolutionary forces, separate from the “Third World”, had a very “erroneous view”.
Since the revisionist coup d’etat of October 1976 and the defeat of socialism in China, continuing to view a “socialist camp”, or “socialist countries” or even the “socialist system” in the abstract, as more central to world affairs than for example the “Third World”, is not merely “erroneous”, but just plain silly.
To paraphrase Martin’s quote from the Albanian editorial, it “ignores the great historic defeat of the international proletariat” both that which occurred when the socialist camp disintegrated, and the subsequent defeat in China, not to mention Albania’s open repudiation of Marxism-Leninism in favour of revisionism.
Like it or not (and I do not), there is no socialist camp, therefore there is no “fourth contradiction”, and therefore the polemics about it are just pompous phrase-mongering which cannot help anyone to understand, let alone make revolution in the real world.
At least the “Third World” is real.
17. Martin’s next complaint is about the “Three Worlds” referring to “countries” and not “nations” or “peoples”. Instead of explaining why, in his opinion, we should not unite with oppressed Third World countries and their Governments, against imperialism, Martin simply produces no less than six quotations from Chinese statements in the 1960s, which refer to oppressed nations and peoples, (“emphasis added”). He suggests it is a “fundamental revision of Marxism-Leninism” to classify the world into oppressor and oppressed countries, and refutes my claim that Lenin and Stalin’s division of the world into oppressor and oppressed nations is the basis for the concept of “Three Worlds” and would be a “non-class view” according to the logic of the Albanian insistence on classifying the world only according to class criteria.
The quotations selected are taken from the polemics against Khrushchev, the political report to the Ninth National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, and various solidarity declarations on international questions by Mao Tsetung. Presumably this explains why Martin thought I omitted reference to these documents as being in “stark contradiction to the theory of three worlds”.
Very impressive.
Almost as impressive as the “four contradictions” and Stalin in fact, and just as wrong.
Unfortunately for Martin, the very same documents he quotes about “nations” and “peoples”, also refer to “countries”, and in exactly the same terms since used concerning the ”three worlds”.
Take Mao Tsetung’s statement of 12 January, 1964, cited in note 12 of Martin’s article. Did Martin miss this passage, or wasn’t he looking?
The people of the countries in the socialist camp should unite, the people of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America should unite, all peace loving countries and all countries subjected to U. S. aggression, control, interference and bullying should unite, and should form the broadest united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and to safeguard world peace. (Emphasis not added)
Apart from the target being the U.S. in 1964, rather than the two superpowers and especially the Soviet Union as in the present situation, the concept of a united front of all countries subjected to “aggression control, interference and bullying”, is clearly the same as in the “three worlds”.
In the Documents of the Ninth National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party we read:
All countries and people subjected to aggression, control, intervention or bullying by U. S. imperialism and Soviet revisionism, let us unite and form the broadest possible united front and overthrow our common enemies! (p. 101)
For a fuller explanation of this concept, we need only go back to the Chinese polemics against Khrushchev, relied upon by Martin:
Thirdly, in carrying out the policy of peaceful coexistence, Lenin adopted different principles with regard to the different types of countries in the capitalist world.
He attached particular importance to establishing friendly relations with countries which the imperialists were bullying and oppressing. He pointed out that “the fundamental interests of all peoples suffering from the yoke of imperialism coincide” and that the “world policy of imperialism is leading to the establishment of closer relations, alliance and friendship among all the oppressed nations”. He said that the peace policy of the Soviet state “will increasingly compel the establishment of closer ties between the R.S.F.S.R. (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) and a growing number of neighbouring states”.
Lenin also said:
“We now set as the main task for ourselves: to defeat the exploiters and win the waverers to our side – this task is a world-wide one. The waverers include a whole series of bourgeois states, which as bourgeois states hate us, but on the other hand, as oppressed states, prefer peace with us.” (“Polemics... ” pp265-6)
Of course Lenin wouldn’t dream of uniting with bourgeois “countries” as well as their peoples, no, he only, talked about winning over “bourgeois states” to our side!
The Chinese polemics against Khrushchev’s line on “peaceful coexistence” also give a very thorough explanation of the Marxist-Leninist attitude to the countries now known as the “Third World” (p273-4):
We differentiate between the nationalist countries which have newly attained political independence and ’the imperialist countries.
Although fundamentally different from the socialist countries in their social and political systems, the nationalist countries stand in profound contradiction to imperialism. They have common interests with the socialist countries – opposition to imperialism, the safeguarding of national independence and the defence of world peace. Therefore, it is quite possible and feasible for the socialist countries to establish relations of peaceful coexistence and friendly co-operation with these countries. The establishment of such relations is of great significance for the strengthening of the unity of the anti-imperialist forces and for the advancement of the common struggle of the peoples against imperialism.
We have consistently adhered to the policy of consolidating and further developing peaceful coexistence and friendly co-operation with countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. At the same time, we have waged appropriate and necessary struggles against countries such as India which have violated or wrecked the Five Principles.
These polemics continue, to explain the Marxist-Leninist attitude towards the countries now known as the “second world”:
We differentiate between the ordinary capitalist countries and the imperialist countries and also between different imperialist countries.
As the international balance of class forces grows increasingly favourable to socialism and as the imperialist forces become daily weaker and the contradictions’ among them daily sharper, it is possible for the socialist countries to compel one imperialist country or another to establish some sort of peaceful coexistence with them by relying on their own growing strength, the expansion of the revolutionary forces of the peoples, the unity with the nationalist countries and the struggle of all the peace-loving people, and by utilising the internal contradictions of imperialism.
Again, the continuity between this line, and the “three worlds” is perfectly obvious, although it should be noted that circumstances for carrying it out became more favourable and more Third World and Second World countries became interested in such unity or neutrality in the 1970s, as the US imperialist attempt to isolate China collapsed, and the Third World bloc emerged as an important independent force. It should also be noted that there was some serious “ultra-left” obstruction to the carrying out of this line in Chinese foreign policy during the period when Lin Piao (and not the “gang of four”) was influential.
18. Likewise, there is a very real continuity between the Albanian attacks on China’s unity with the bourgeois leaderships of third world countries, and similar attacks made by the Khrushchovites:
In its Open Letter of July 14, the Central Committee of the CPSU also attacks the standpoint of the Chinese Communist Party on the question of proletarian leadership in the national liberation movement. It says:
...the Chinese comrades want to “correct” Lenin and prove that hegemony in the world struggle against imperialism should go not to the working class, but to the petty bourgeoisie or the 1 national bourgeoisie, even to “certain patriotically-minded kings, princes and aristocrats.”
This is a deliberate distortion of the views of the Chinese ’Communist Party.
In discussing the need for the proletariat to insist on leading the national liberation movement, the letter of the Central Committee of the CPC of June 14 says:
“History has entrusted to the proletarian parties in these areas (Asia, Africa and Latin America) the glorious mission of holding high the banner of struggle against imperialism, against old and new colonialism and for national independence and peopled democracy, of standing in the forefront of the national democratic revolutionary movement and striving for a socialist future.
...
“On the basis of the worker-peasant alliance the proletariat and its party must unite all the strata that can be united and organize a broad united front against imperialism and its lackeys. In order to consolidate and expand this united front it is necessary that the proletarian party should maintain its ideological, political and organizational independence and insist on the leadership of the revolution.”
In discussing the need for establishing a broad anti-imperialist united front in the national liberation movement the letter of the Central Committee of the CPC says:
The oppressed nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America are faced with the urgent task of fighting imperialism and its lackeys.
...
“In these areas, extremely broad sections of the population refuse to be slaves of imperialism. They include not only the workers, peasants, intellectuals and petty bourgeoisie, but also the patriotic national bourgeoisie and even certain kings, princes and aristocrats who are patriotic.”
Our views are perfectly clear. In the national liberation movement it is necessary both to insist on leadership by the proletariat and to establish a broad anti-imperialist united front. What is wrong with these views? Why should the leadership of the CPSU distort and attack these correct views?
It is not we, but the leaders of the CPSU, who have abandoned Lenin’s views on proletarian leadership in the revolution.
The wrong line of the leaders of the CPSU completely abandons the task of fighting imperialism and colonialism and opposes wars of national liberation; this means it wants the proletariat and the Communist Parties of the oppressed nations and countries to roil up their patriotic banner of opposing imperialism and struggling for national independence and surrender it to others. In that case, how could one even talk about an anti-imperialist united front or of proletarian leadership?
19. Obviously a UN speech can only deal with the united front and there is not much point discussing the strategy and tactics of the proletarian party within that united front, to an assembly of delegates from their rivals for leadership. Therefore the UN speech on “Three Worlds” may appear somewhat one-sided in failing to raise these questions.
Certainly the Chinese Communist Party was not one-sided in its own practice of independence and initiative during their united front with Chiang Kai-shek against Japanese imperialism, nor did it fail to support similar tactics by the Communist Parties in Malaya, Thailand etc., although of course a different attitude prevails since the revisionist coup d’etat.
20. If one is going to gather quotes from Marxist-Leninist documents that refer to the “people”, to prove a point, there is no need to go back to the 1960s. We can contribute some more recent examples for Martin’s collection.
From the Red Eureka Movement’s policy statement “Opinions on Some International Questions”, which is not a UN speech and therefore does deal with the question of Communist strategy and tactics:
In the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, our basic program is the complete overthrow of all exploiting classes, the establishment of working class rule (the dictatorship of the proletariat) in place of capitalist class rule (the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) and the triumph of socialism over capitalism.
...
As proletarian internationalists we firmly unite with the genuine Marxist-Leninist Communist Parties and organizations, with the proletariat, the oppressed people and nations of the whole world, and fight together with them to overthrow the two superpowers – the Soviet Union and the United States, to overthrow all imperialism, revisionism and reaction and to abolish the system of exploitation of one person by another over the globe, so that all humanity will be emancipated.
...
Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution – this has become an irresistible historical trend.
...
All power grows out of the barrel of a gun. The imperialists are armed, so to win independence and socialism, the people must be armed.
...
The numerous countries of the Third World are the most heavily oppressed and exploited by colonialism and imperialism. The peoples and countries of the Third World are the main force in the fight against imperialism and particularly against the superpowers. This main force includes socialist as well as capitalist and semi-feudal countries. The working class is the leading force and the genuine Marxist-Leninist Communist Parties are its vanguard. The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.
...
The task of Communists is to lead the revolution. This applies whether we are at war or in peacetime, whether we are in power or driven underground and whether we are in a united front with the bourgeoisie or split with it.
...
WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES AND OPPRESSED NATIONS, UNITE!
And from the October 1976 Chinese UN speech on “Three Worlds”:
Back in the early sixties, Chairman Mao Tsetung vividly portrayed the contemporary world situation in these verses:
The Four Seas are rising,
clouds and waters raging,
The Five Continents are rocking,
wind and thunder roaring.
The world situation has been in a state of great turmoil. the people want revolution. .. This great disorder is a good . thing and not a bad thing for the people. It throws the enemies into disarray and divides them, while awakening and tempering the people, thus pushing the international situation to develop further in a direction favourable to the people and unfavourable to imperialism and social-imperialism.
...
... Chairman Mao’s concept of the three worlds provides orientation for the workers and oppressed nations and oppressed peoples of the world in their fight in the realm of international class struggle.
In the past year, the struggle against colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism waged by the people of the Third World countries has made great progress, though it suffered setbacks in individual places... The heroic people of Egypt,... The people of Asia, Africa and Latin America... The great African people... the long-tempered African people...
...
“The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.” The destiny of mankind is definitely not to be decided by any superpower. “People of the world, be courageous, dare to fight, defy difficulties and advance wave upon wave. Then the whole world will belong to the people. Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed.”
...
We firmly support the people of Zimbabwe, Namibia and Azania in their just struggle against white racism and for national liberation. . . We firmly support the people of Zimbabwe in their armed struggle. . . the people of Namibia in their armed struggle, . . the powerful mass movements of the people of Azania against racial discrimination and apartheid.. .
We firmly support the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. . . We firmly support the Korean people. . . We firmly support the just struggle carried on by the people of East Timor under the leadership of the Revolutionary Front for Independent East Timor (FRETILIN) in defence of the independence and territorial integrity of their country against foreign aggression. . .
...
... The Chinese Government will continue unswervingly to implement Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line and policies in foreign affairs, keep the people in mind, place hopes on them, uphold proletarian internationalism, and will never seek hegemony or be a superpower. We will strengthen our unity with the international proletariat and the oppressed nations and peoples the world over, our unity with the people of the Third World countries and our unity with all the countries subjected to aggression, subversion, interference, control or bullying by imperialism or social-imperialism so as to form the broadest possible united front against imperialism, and particularly against the hegemonism of the two superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States. ..
...
Surveying the whole world, we see that there is great disorder under heaven and that the situation is excellent. The way ahead is tortuous, but the future of mankind is bright. The people of China are ready to join hands with the people of all other countries in our common endeavor. (Emphasis in original)
It is perfectly clear that both Mao Tsetung’s China, and the Red Eureka Movement, while defending the analysis of “Three Worlds” and the united front of countries, placed the main emphasis on the “people” at all times. Even if it was just a matter of words, we refer to the word “peoples” far more often than to the word “countries”.
As I noted in my original article criticizing the Albanian editorial:
The editorial’s real objection is not to any “omission” of the people, because no such omission is made. The objection is to the inclusion of a united front of countries as well. (p27)
21. What Martin has done, is gone through a number of documents from the 1960s and 1970s, all of which refer to peoples, nations and countries and selected quotations referring to “peoples” from the 1960s, and quotations referring to “countries” from the 1970s, in order to contrast the two and “prove” a “fundamental revision of Marxism-Leninism”.
This method goes beyond the bookish dogmatic quotation mongering of the rest of Martin’s article and is more than just a refusal to examine the real world in a Marxist-Leninist way instead of playing with verbal abstractions. It is straight out dishonest fabrication.
If Martin objects to the inclusion of countries as well as peoples in the united front, he should not argue about the use of words, or refer to abstract “principles”, but cite facts to explain why.
If he does believe there is some “principle” requiring us to only unite with the “people”, then he should develop the argument for that principle on its own merits, and not by trying to dig up quotations.
Being unable to do so and going through Marxist-Leninist documents looking for support for such a principle is not a very good idea. Naturally Martin couldn’t find any support for his principle, because it is not a Marxist-Leninist principle. If he had not been so completely blinded by subjectivism, he would have noticed the clear statements of opposition to that principle, and not made such stupid blunders (the same goes for the “four contradictions” and Stalin).
But having gone fossicking through documents looking for “quotes”, and having failed to understand what those documents were actually saying the least Martin could have done is to abandon the quest and go back to straightforward dogmatic assertion.
There is no excuse for outright fabrication, although the fact that these fabrications are copied from the Chilean Revolutionary Communist Party Open Letter and other anti-“three worlds” documents may be a mitigating circumstance.
22. The very title of this section of Martin’s article, “Countries or Nations?,” indicates a complete misunderstanding of this question, as is proved by the quotation from the 1966 Chinese article on “The National Question and the Class Struggle”.
Martin believes it is alright to talk about oppressed nations and a united front with them, but no good mentioning oppressed countries or a united front with them. What he has in mind is that unity with an oppressed country means unity with its ruling class and Government, while unity with an oppressed nation could simply mean unity with its proletariat and other working people, and need not have such a corrupting influence on the “pure” proletarian revolution Martin would dearly like to imagine.
True enough, the term “people” is often used in a restricted sense referring to the revolutionary classes in a nation and not to its entire population. But there is no such distinction between the forms “nation” and “country”. These terms are commonly used interchangeably by Marxist-Leninists, who also have no hesitation talking about unity with oppressed bourgeois states. Thus Lenin’s reference to winning over “oppressed states” quoted above (and the practical diplomatic and other activity which flowed from this policy). Also note Lenin’s description of Germany after the peace of Versailles as an oppressed nation.
The term “nation” refers to a historically constituted, stable community of people with a common language and culture, economy, territory, history and so on. It is elementary common sense that nations are divided into classes and that when one speaks of an oppressed nation one is talking about all the classes being subject to national oppression, and not about particular classes being subject to class oppression.
A “country” is a particular national state, although the same word may be used for the geographic territory concerned. It may be a single nation state (e. g. the Australian nation, Australia), a state embracing several nations (the Czech and Slovak nations, Czechoslovakia), or a nation divided among several states (the German nation, East and West Germany).
An oppressed nation with its own state may be less oppressed than a nation that has been denied its right to self-determination, but it is still an oppressed country. The only reason “countries” are referred to more often in the 1960s and 1970s while Lenin and Stalin referred to “nations” more often is that the post-war decolonization has brought many more independent states onto the stage of world history.
Certainly it was never the Leninist position that we unite only with the exploited classes in an oppressed nation. Thus in “Foundations of Leninism” Stalin insists that:
The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates... For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism.
According to Stalin, right at the center of the Leninist attitude to the national question is “rendering real and continuous assistance to them (oppressed nations) in their struggle against imperialism for real equality of nations, for their independent existence as states. ”
Why on earth would we support their struggle for independent existence as states, if we believed that once formed, such states were not worth uniting with against imperialism?
23. Of course the exploiting classes in oppressed nations tend to consider the national question to be solved as soon as they themselves are no longer subject to intense national oppression, as soon as native capitalists can develop their own businesses without being treated like dirt by colonial masters.
The same applies to oppressed national minorities, where for example better off blacks in Australia or the USA may consider the problem solved when they have “equal opportunity” and are not subject to racist laws, even though the majority of blacks may continue to be sharply discriminated against in practice, even without such racist laws.
That is why the article Martin quotes is correct to point out that:
The national question is essentially one of the emancipation of the broad masses and exploited working people of all nationalities. If the working people, the overwhelming majority of the people of all nationalities, do not enjoy equality and emancipation, then those nationalities are not equal or free, and the national question cannot be said to be solved.
This obviously refers to national equality and emancipation. It means we fight for the liberation of the whole nation and not just for the liberation of its upper classes from national oppression.
The national question is not solved while the working people are still oppressed by foreign imperialists. But this certainly does not mean that the national question in a country is not solved so long as there is inequality and oppression within a nation, with one class exploiting another.
The aim of the class struggle of the proletariat is not “equality and freedom”, but the complete abolition of classes in a communist society.
“Equality and freedom” is the goal of the bourgeois national democratic revolution and Martin is degrading the proletarian revolution to the level of the bourgeois revolution when he imagines that the struggle against bourgeois Governments in the Third World is simply a struggle for “equality and freedom”.
Perhaps Martin imagines that there are hardly any genuinely independent states in the Third World and they are mainly neo-colonial puppet regimes. If so, he should say so and prove it. All the evidence I know of suggests that there are very few really puppet regimes like South Vietnam, and they do not last long, although the degree of independence naturally varies.
But by Martin’s criteria, even the United States would have to be an “oppressed nation” (although an imperialist country), because the American working people are still oppressed and exploited.
24. Even Teng Hsiao-ping has Martin completely tied up in knots because of this complete confusion about countries, nations, classes and so on, which comes from the abstract manipulation of verbal categories instead of real analysis of the real world.
According to Martin: When Teng Hsiao-ping told the UN in 1974 that the “Third World” countries “have won political independence”, he was obviously not referring to the workers and peasants. He was referring to the bourgeois governments...
Quite true of course, although it is a mystery why Martin should be so shocked about it. After all, Teng Hsiao-ping is a revisionist, not an ignoramus and nobody who is talking about “political independence” can be referring to anything but a relation between nations and states, not classes.
The state power of the workers and peasants is not called “independence”, E.F. Hill and Martin Connell notwithstanding.
25. This “political independence” of Third World countries is not an invention of Teng Hsiao-ping’s, but a fact about the world since the post-war disintegration of the colonial system. Of course this does not mean economic independence. In a “Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism”, Lenin pointed out the absurdity of claims that self-determination of nations and political independence was impossible under imperialism, citing the example of Norway, which became politically independent although its industry was largely foreign owned. As Lenin pointed out:
Big finance capital of one country can always buy up competitors in another, politically independent country and constantly does so.
Only caricature Marxists deny the importance of political independence because of this, just as only caricature Marxists counterpose the class struggle against the struggle for self-determination. As Lenin points out in the same work:
Some curious opponents of “self-determination of nations” try to refute our views with the argument that “nations” are divided into classes! Our customary reply to these caricature Marxists is that the democratic part of our program speaks of “government by the people”.
26. Precisely because there is such a thing as neo-colonialism, precisely because the formal establishment of political independence does not mean the national question is completely solved, Teng Hsiao-ping is quite correct to say that the Third World countries “still face the historic task of clearing out the remnant forces of colonialism, developing the national economy and consolidating national independence.”
Exactly the same idea is expressed in the Chinese polemic “Apologists of Neo-Colonialism”:
A great revolutionary storm has spread through Asia, Africa and Latin America since World War II, Independence has been proclaimed in more than fifty Asian and African countries. . .
...
... But can anyone assert that the task of combating imperialism and colonialism and their agents has been completed by the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America?
Our answer is, no. This fighting task is far from completed... many of these countries have not completely shaken off imperialist and colonial control and enslavement and remain objects of imperialist plunder and aggression as well as arenas of contention between the old and new colonialists. . .
...
The leaders of the CPSU have also created the theory that the national liberation movement has entered upon a “new stage” having economic tasks as its core. Their argument is that, whereas “formerly, the struggle was carried on mainly in the political sphere”, today the economic question has become the “central task” and “the basic link in the further development of the revolution”.
The national liberation movement has entered a new stage. But this is by no means the kind of “new stage” described by the leadership of the CPSU, In the new stage, the level of political consciousness of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples has risen higher than ever and the revolutionary movement is surging forward with unprecedented intensity. They urgently demand the thorough elimination of the forces of imperialism and its lackeys in their own countries and strive for complete political and economic independence. The primary and most urgent task facing these countries is still the further development of the struggle against imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys. This struggle is still being waged fiercely in the political, economic, military, cultural, ideological and other spheres. And the struggles in ail these spheres still find their most concentrated expression in political struggle, which often unavoidably develops into armed struggle when the imperialists resort to direct or indirect armed suppression. It is important for the newly independent countries to develop their independent economy. But this task must never be separated from the struggle against imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys. (“Polemics... ”ppl87-192)
If all this wasn’t true, then the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism would have ceased to be a fundamental contradiction in the world today, and the concept of “three worlds” would be wrong.
In that case the national question could be said to be solved and the only historic task in all countries would be for the workers to seize power and build socialism. Martin’s attempt to exclude “countries” from the revolution, confining it to the “people” (by which he probably means the Communist Parties), is in fact a declaration that the national question has been solved, ignoring the reality of neo-colonialism etc.
Instead of condemning Teng Hsiao-ping for his recent actual practice of abolishing the revolution in China and proclaiming a “new stage” with economic, tasks as its core (for other Third World countries too), Martin condemns Teng for a 1974 UN speech where he correctly calls for a political struggle against “the remnant forces of colonialism” (not just in southern Africa, but throughout the third world).
Obviously Teng Hsiao-ping believes there is no “historic task” of carrying out the revolution. This is proved by his actual practice of carrying out counter-revolution in China. That is why both Chiao Kuan-hua’s 1976 UN speech, and our policy statement, place so much emphasis on the people, the revolution and so on... But this is no excuse for denying that the oppressed nations who constitute the Third World countries face the historic task of clearing out the remnants of colonialism etc., and pretending that this task is faced by their workers and peasants alone.
The working class has the task of leading this national struggle, relying on the peasantry as the main force, and it has the further task of continuing the revolution far beyond its national democratic stage. Speeches from representatives of socialist countries in the UN can assist (although not much) by supporting the national democratic revolutionary struggle. Not by ignoring it and encouraging the bourgeois governments to line up entirely with imperialism against their own people.
27. The Chinese material, and our policy statement, does make quite precise differentiations between the proletariat, the people, nations, countries and so on, pointing out the particular historic tasks which particular forces join in solving.
It is precisely the Albanians who mix everything up together, presenting the whole struggle as between “the freedom loving peoples” and “the reactionaries”, completely ignoring the peasant question, or any other kind of class analysis.
As I pointed out in the section on “Classes in the Third World” (p20), this confusion, which consistently occurs in all material from the anti-“three worlds”: camp, is characteristic of the way petit-bourgeois nationalists look at the revolution.
Although it sounds terribly “left”, it actually means subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie in a purely national struggle.
28. Martin complains that I quoted Lenin “selectively” by referring to his emphasis on the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations as the most important and fundamental idea in our theses on the national and colonial questions. Instead of answering my explanation that this fundamental distinction is the basis of the classification of countries into “three worlds”, and is rejected by the Albanian attack on this classification, Martin says:
It is very obvious why A.W. neglected to quote the rest of the theses, because they show precisely the stark difference between the Leninist class approach and the bourgeois outlook of the theory of three worlds.
Martin then goes on to quote Lenin’s second and third theses, which I omitted.
Had I too quoted Lenin unselectively, as Martin demands, then of course I would have gone on to include the passage saying that:
... reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia.
Since Martin has quoted the whole of the passage in question, it ought to be “very obvious” why I refrained from doing so.
Lenin was specifically talking about “the present world situation following the imperialist war”, a qualification presumably inserted at the start of this passage in the vain hope that it would prevent people from quoting it out of time and space.
It really was true that in the period immediately after the first World War, world politics was determined by the struggle waged between the imperialist nations and the Soviets. During the second World War, world politics was determined by the struggle between the Axis and the Allies. At present it is determined by the struggle between the Third World, the Second World and the superpowers, and by the contention between the superpowers.
What possible use could there be in quoting Lenin’s estimation of the forces involved at a particular time to settle an argument about what forces are involved at another time altogether? This is not the same as quoting Lenin’s fundamental principles back to people who claim it is “anti-Leninist” to analyse the contemporary world in accordance with those principles.
Presumably Martin does not imagine that “the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia” are still at the head of the world struggle (although on the face of it, this is exactly what he is saying). We may perhaps be permitted a certain amount of “revision” in order to “apply” Lenin’s (completely irrelevant) thesis to our own time.
Then it would read like this, and if I had quoted it unselectively, Martin would have been completely happy:
The second basic idea in our theses is that in the present situation in the late 1970s, reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the communist movement headed by the only socialist state, the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. Unless we bear that in mind, we shall not be able to pose a single national or colonial question correctly, even if it concerns a most outlying part of the world. The Communist parties, in civilized and backward countries alike, can pose and solve political problems correctly only if they make this postulate their starting point.
It sounds like a joke, and it is a joke, but it captures the essence of what Martin is saying, and what the whole idea of “two camps” amounts to. Moreover this joke is being taken very seriously by all sorts of flunkey groups around the world who are insisting that world politics does revolve around the “genuine Marxist-Leninist parties” (one franchise holder per country) whose main activity appears to be solidarity with Albania (while Albania’s main activity, perhaps unknown to some of these groups, seems to be trying to keep out of the Soviet Union’s way in the coming European war, and perhaps hoping for a slice of Yugoslavia in return for disrupting the international communist movement’s opposition to Soviet aggression).
In fact, world politics in no way resembles this picture, and Martin doesn’t even try to argue that it does. In most countries, the communist movement is very weak and especially disoriented at the moment (and the flunkey groups always will be). There is nothing like the Soviet movement that swept Europe after the first World War, and no socialist state acting as a center and inspiration for this movement, like Soviet Russia did then.
Albania’s influence on world affairs is confined to the existence of groups of co-religionists who erect shrines to what they imagine it is like, and most of whom will probably melt away when they realize what is really going on.
Maoists today have no more influence than Albania liners, although we have a future since our analysis is being proved right, while theirs is being proved wrong. But at least people have heard of Mao Tsetung and the Communist line he represents. More people have heard of the Ananda Marga sect than of Enver Hoxha’s.
When China, which embraces a quarter of the world’s population, was under revolutionary leadership, it was at least understandable why people inclined towards flunkeyism should tend to see the world revolution as in some sense centred around China.
The Chinese revolutionaries clearly repudiated this view, both by repeatedly warning of the defeat of socialism in China (which warnings were politely applauded as showing how vigilant they were, and studiously ignored, both by those who have now become Albanian flunkeys and by those who have remained Chinese flunkeys), and also by putting forward the analysis of “three worlds”.
Despite what the flunkeys think, it was never true that the revolution centered around China and the analysis of “three worlds” clearly explains that China is just a part of the third world and tells us that to achieve a correct “orientation in the realm of international class struggle” (or to “pose and solve political problems correctly”) one must grasp the relations within and between the three worlds, because that is how the forces that determine current history are lined up.
Since the counter-revolution in China, and the disarray in the international communist movement, assertions that current world politics are determined by a struggle between “two camps” becomes not only wrong, but, quite incomprehensible. WHAT ON EARTH ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT?
One has to suspect that the people putting forward these phrases don’t even understand what they are saying, while the Albanian leaders, who are initiating them, must have some other purpose in mind, since if they were that stupid, they would not be in Government.
Quoting Lenin selectively and refraining from quoting him where it would make one appear to be an idiot is not “an entirely false and dishonest” approach.
Stalin answers this far better than I could, so please read the excerpt from “Lenin as the Organizer and Leader of the Russian Communist Party”, which accompanies this article. The trend that does not “stand by” Marxism, but “lies down” on it includes Enver Hoxha as well as E.F. Hill.
29. Since it has already taken more than three times as many pages to untangle the first 5 and a half pages of Martin’s article as it did to write them, I am going to take a rest before writing part 2 of this reply for the next issue.
Meanwhile I hope there is enough material above to confirm that my previous omission of references to the Chinese polemics of the 1960s was not because I found them disagreeable, and that any delay in further reply to Martin’s comments is not because we were shocked into silence by his irrefutable logic.
Readers are invited to pick out for themselves the fallacies in the rest of Martin’s article. Unsuccessful contestants may be presented with a complete set of the Collected Works of Enver Hoxha and required to read it.