IS! approaches the world situation from an abstract, sterile perspective, reiterating the basic problems of the entire imperialist era, but refusing to do a concrete analysis of our present, or any other, particular period. The ’two camps’ analysis which results, tells us only that certain forces maintain imperialism and certain others oppose it. It boils down to “Down with imperialism! Forward to revolution!” (“Against Right Opportunism in International Questions”, IS! #97, p. 13), and “What we know is that our task is to support revolution here in our country and support revolution elsewhere in the world. Imperialism, including the superpowers but not only the superpowers, is the enemy of revolution.” (p. 16) This ’analysis’ does nothing to apply Lenin’s correct teachings on imperialism to the particularities of today’s world situation. The ’declaration’ ends up compensating for this lack of analysis by spending its time chasing phantoms in the form of the Red Star Collective and others who defend and use the Three Worlds analysis.
In dealing only in basic forces, IS! completely fails to grasp the fact that every phenomenon has a dual nature. Because of the dual nature of various social classes, even enemies of the world proletariat can be brought, through skillful use of strategy and tactics, to act objectively in the interests of revolution. It is because IS! sees this view as terrible heresy that they don’t understand that to fight imperialism in this period communists all around the world must concentrate their blows on the two superpowers. IS! totally confuses the issue in setting up the false dichotomy between fighting imperialism and fighting the superpowers. They ask us to choose one or the other:
“This constant ’slip’ takes the reader from the superpowers to imperialism and from imperialism to the superpowers and ends up leaving the impression that struggling against the superpowers is sufficient. And that this struggle in itself is the struggle against imperialism in general.” (p. 14)
This whole approach is based on certain assumptions by IS! which we do not share. These should be the actual topic of debate. The assumptions are: 1) that the way to defeat imperialism is to attack all imperialists at the same time; 2) that there is no such thing as a main enemy of the world revolution at a particular time in any but a quantitative sense; 3) that “world united front” involves rallying all the forces fundamentally opposed to imperialism, but no others, i.e., that there is only unity and not struggle within the united front.
The RSC clearly and unequivocally calls for a world united front against the superpowers. We believe that although the internal factors of each country determine the strategy for revolution internal to that country, there is also a world process of revolutionary advance; we believe that on a world scale (but not necessarily in this or that country) imperialism as a stage in human history is mainly represented by the two superpowers, since they alone contend for world hegemony and in this are qualitatively distinct from the other imperialist powers. We believe that in rallying all who can be rallied to oppose this main enemy – the superpowers – we are utilising the conflicts amongst our class enemy to the advantage of the revolutionary cause in the whole world. We are advancing the struggle against the imperialist system itself by narrowing our target in this period; were we to attack all imperialisms equally and refuse to see the positive elements in the opposition of the Second World countries to the superpowers, we would in fact weaken the struggle against the main embodiment of imperialism at this time and would delay the process of overturning the entire system.
IS! is convinced that the RSC and other “social chauvinists” who support the Three Worlds analysis put forward in fact the strategy of alliance with the class enemy while only pretending to oppose the imperialist system. However, the Three Worlds analysis is actually a tool of communist analysis which shows us how to use the dual nature of various forces in the world with the explicit goal of overthrowing imperialism worldwide. Communists defend this analysis based on its ability to do so. The reason IS! rejects the analysis is that it doesn’t understand that the world is made up of internally contradictory phenomena. For IS!, there are simply the ’good guys’ who oppose imperialism and the ’bad guys’ who maintain it.
IS!’s entire thesis on the international situation and their rejection of the Three Worlds analysis is based on the assertion that any support, however conditional, for the actions of a capitalist or imperialist country by definition means that one opposes the struggles of the proletariat and peoples. So far IS! has rested content with bald assertion on this score. They haven’t offered the slightest hint of evidence and they have remained conspicuously silent on the material the RSC presented refuting the charge of ’social-chauvinism’ against the European ML parties. These parties in fact simultaneously unite in broad fronts against the superpowers while at the same time directly challenging the rule of capital in their countries. This,however,is much too complex for IS!: one either supports totally or opposes totally. ML ’strategy’ for them means supporting the eternally totally good ’good guys’ and opposing the eternally bad ’bad guys’.
But what, for example, of the national bourgeoisie in a New Democratic revolution, a class which often is part of the ’people’ in the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and feudal reaction? Do they not have a dual nature – progressive to a certain degree and for a certain time, reactionary otherwise? Are they not basically an exploitative, parasitic class which in the long run is the proletariat’s enemy? Does IS!’s logic not lead to the rejection of the united front everywhere, including the strategy of New Democracy? IS! should think of such questions when they say “we whould like to ask the RSC how European communists can both support their own bourgeoisies who, according to RSC could indeed unite to form another hegemonic superpower and at the same time build the Party and mobilise the masses to effect “revolutionary transformation”... How can it say that European communists must strengthen both at the same time the camp of the revolution and the camp of the reaction?” (p. 14)
The New Democratic Revolution is not the only example of the dual nature of the bourgeoisie. There is, for example, the progressive role that the European bourgeoisies played in the ’old’ democratic revolutions – the defeat of feudalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Further, there is the progressive role played by various bourgeois forces in the antifascist united front around the Second World War. (This example is taken up elsewhere in this paper.)
It is not Marxism-Leninism to strike out in all directions at once. We must be aware of all potential enemies, but we must also attack them one at a time. In China’s revolution the Communists directed the attack first at Japanese imperialism and its lackeys, then at US imperialism and its lackeys, then at the capitalists of China, including those who had united with them to attack foreign aggression. The potential enemy inherent in private ownership of land and small production in the countryside is now being attacked through gradual socialisation of the land. Neither the national bourgeoisie nor the peasantry have a fundamental interest in overthrowing capitalism – it is only be correctly understanding their dual nature that they have been led to play the greatest possible progressive role in advancing the Chinese revolution. Similarly on the world scale, we have the duty to make use of the dual nature of many social forces, through “uniting the many to defeat the few”. Those like IS! who refuse to narrow the target on a world scale to the main enemy, are in fact weakening the struggle against imperialism itself, in the same way that those in a New Democratic revolution who want to direct equal blows against imperialism and the national bourgeoisie are sabotaging this struggle.
In our speech to the Third Conference we quote Mao Tse-Tung on the importance (in 1964) of the broadest united front of peoples, nations and countries against the main enemy – US imperialism. He very clearly didn’t call for a ’united front against imperialism itself or against ’all imperialists’; this would have had no meaning for global ML strategy. Does IS agree with Mao Tse-Tung about the correctness of the strategy of united front against US imperialism in the sixties? We hope they do. This analysis, defining US imperialism as the main enemy, allowed the world communist movement to know who to unite with and who to oppose: many capitalists, monarchs and feudalists were able to play a positive role in attacking the main bulwark of imperialism, while the Soviet revisionists for example earned the people’s scorn because they conciliated with and united with US imperialism rather than uniting against it. If the strategy of unity against the main enemy was correct in 1964, what has changed to make it opportunist in 1977? The only basic way in which the ML view of the world situation has changed since the late sixties is that the Soviet Union has joined the US as main enemy and target of the united front.