WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT
Volume 10, Number 6
VOICE OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY OF THE USA
August 25, 1980
-- PART TWO --
-- PART THREE --
AGAINST THE NATIONAL NIHILISM OF THE "RCP,USA"
INTRODUCTION TO PARTS TWO AND THREE
In the Introduction and Part One of this series we denounced the anti-Marxist-Leninist stand of opposing the ideological struggle. We explained that the crusaders against ideological struggle are savagely attacking our Party. The immediate reasons for their frenzy are that our Party has been giving vigorous leadership to the movement against social-chauvinism and also that our Party insists that it is only the norms of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and not any sort of "special relationship," that govern the relations between Marxist-Leninist parties.
These gentlemen have taken part in creating confusion about what are the anti-Marxist-Leninist theses of Mao Zedong Thought. They are opposed to carrying the struggle against Chinese revisionism through to the end. On the contrary, they reduce the criticism of Mao Zedong Thought to the idiotic absurdity of denouncing one or two word phrases, like "campaigns," "movements," "alliances" or "getting organized." As well, with these absurdities, they have openly come out against the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the struggle against opportunism by denouncing "ideological struggle."
These gentlemen are not the only ones creating confusion about what Mao Zedong Thought is. The Khrushchovite revisionists and social-democrats as well are taking part in this confusion-mongering. They "criticize" Mao Zedong Thought from the point of view of identifying Maoism as revolution and then repudiating revolution. The attacks on "ideological struggle" can only bring grist to the mill of the Soviet revisionists and the social-democrats, for they too are striving to extinguish the struggle against opportunism. In particular, the Khrushchovites are striving with might and main to present the condemnation of Soviet revisionism as a Maoist mistake, while the social-democrats are absorbing the "three worlders" and Chinese revisionists into their coalitions.
As a result, it is necessary to clarify what the revolutionary criticism of Mao Zedong Thought is. This series is written for that purpose.
In the first part of this series in The Workers' Advocate of July 10, 1980, we took up the question of dealing with the issue of whether or not Maoism is "ideological struggle." We upheld the Marxist-Leninist teachings that ideological or theoretical struggle is one of the three basic forms of the class struggle and that it is a fundamental principle of Marxism-Leninism. We showed that the Chinese revisionists were guilty not of exaggerating the struggle against modern Soviet revisionism nor of issuing too many ideological polemics against modern revisionism, but of the exact opposite. The Maoists were guilty of opposing, conciliating, hindering, removing the ideological content from and even outright liquidating the struggle against Soviet revisionism. We shall return to the anti-Marxist-Leninist stand of Mao Zedong Thought with regard to the struggle against modern revisionism and opportunism in later articles.
In this part of the series, we go on to other questions of strategy and tactics for the socialist revolution. The crusaders against ideological struggle have taken to whispering slanders against our Party on certain of. these questions. They are doing this in order to prettify their unprincipled attacks on our Party and to divert attention from the immediate issues motivating their attacks, issues that prove the utterly corrupt nature of these attacks. They are trying to give themselves a high-minded appearance. They allege that their differences with the Communique of our Founding Congress justify their war on our Party.
Actually their war on our Party began months prior to their criticisms of the Communique and it began on other issues. Indeed, to this day our brave crusaders have never dared to prepare a document on their criticisms. And no wonder! Today they say one thing and tomorrow another. Such a display of word-chopping, quibbles and sophistry has seldom been seen.
But so be it. Our Party puts a high value on all the questions of strategy for the revolution. We will therefore take up step by step any serious questions that can be squeezed out from behind the nonsensical criticisms raised by these gentlemen. We shall discuss these questions in relation to the repudiation of Mao Zedong Thought, for their criticisms are Maoist blunders. They are deviations away from Marxism-Leninism towards Chinese revisionism.
In this article we introduce the question of the relation between the anti-imperialist struggle and the socialist revolution. We discuss a particular example, a much discussed one, namely the relationship of the struggle against foreign imperialist domination and the proletarian socialist revolution in the imperialist countries of Western Europe, Japan and Canada. In brief, we take up part of the celebrated question of the so-called "second world."
Mao Zedong Thought has proved itself totally incapable of defining the relationship between the anti-imperialist struggle and the socialist revolution. Mao Zedong Thought completely detaches the anti-imperialist struggle from the class struggle. This is strikingly apparent with respect to the strategy for the proletariat in the major western imperialist countries of Western Europe, Japan and Canada. Mao Zedong Thought and the theory of "three worlds" negates the proletarian socialist revolution in these countries. They have no faith in the proletariat and stake everything on the national bourgeoisie, which in these countries means the imperialist bourgeoisie. First on the pretext of the need to fight U.S. imperialism and later on the pretext of the need to fight Soviet social-imperialism, Maoism denounces the socialist revolution. Instead it calls for class collaboration with the domestic bourgeoisie and it glorifies the neocolonialism of these major western imperialist powers and calls for its extension under the guise of "uniting the second world and the third world."
But Maoism is an eclectic brew, an amalgam of anti-Marxist-Leninist theses. It vacillates from one extreme to the other and combines both extremes. Thus there are those followers of Maoism who denounce the anti-imperialist struggle in a capitalist or imperialist country on the pretext of supporting the socialist revolution. This is fully a Maoist position. It preserves the basic Maoist stand of separating and putting a Chinese wall between the anti-imperialist struggle and the class struggle. Moreover in practice it too amounts to submission to all imperialism, both foreign as well as domestic, for it justifies the U.S. imperialist hegemony over its imperialist allies in Western Europe, Japan and Canada and supports this dangerous weapon against the proletariat.
The "RCP,USA" is just such a follower of Maoism. The "RCP,USA" has taken up the superpower chauvinist position of denouncing the struggle of the proletariat of capitalist countries against U.S. imperialist hegemony. Travelling along the same road of the Progressive Labor Party which justified great-power chauvinism under the slogan "all nationalism is reactionary," the "RCP,USA" has openly taken up the banner of national nihilism. We denounce this position in this article as it is the duty of all internationalists to expose and fight against the chauvinists who defend the imperialism of "their own" bourgeoisie. This is especially pressing in a superpower such as the U.S., which rules over a vast world empire.
Negating the struggle against imperialism on the pretext of the socialist revolution appears to be different from the Maoist negation of the socialist revolution on the pretext of the anti-imperialist struggle. But it is just the other side of the same Maoist coin. This is revealed by the fact that it is the "RCP,USA" which is upholding the trotskyite banner of national nihilism. For years its predecessor the Revolutionary Union, denied that the main contradiction in the U.S. was between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Instead it put forward the "three worldist" "united front against imperialism strategy." To this day, the "RCP,USA," despite its lip service to proletarian revolution, upholds a suitably modified version of the "united front against imperialism strategy," defends "Mao's three worlds tactic" and finds its reason for existence in Mao Zedong Thought.
The crusaders against ideological struggle have utterly failed to grasp the error of Maoism on these questions. Thus they themselves have made grave blunders concerning the strategy for the revolution for a certain major western imperialist country. Among other things, they go to the extreme of insisting that this country is not really imperialist because allegedly it is "like a colony" of U.S. imperialism. Thus on the basis of the necessity to fight U.S. imperialist domination, they deny the proletarian socialist revolution and deny that the basic contradiction in the country is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They subordinate the class struggle to what is in effect a non-socialist, anti-colonial strategy for revolution. In short, they are enslaved to the Maoist separation of the anti-imperialist struggle from the socialist revolution. Nay more, they go on to insist on the necessity to ally with the national bourgeoisie or with what they regard as the "patriotic." "pro- working class," "pro-communist" bourgeoisie. Thus when they sometimes pay lip service to the socialist revolution, they are putting forward the idea of marching into "socialism" shoulder to shoulder with the bourgeoisie.
Their criticism of the Communique of our Party also suffers from the Maoist blunder of separating democratic and anti-imperialist struggles with a Chinese wall from the proletarian socialist revolution. They approach this from both sides of the Maoist coin.
On the one hand they claim that the Communique does not contain "class analysis." The truth of the matter is that they disagree with the class analysis in the Communique and with our Party's stand that the basic contradiction in the U.S. is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Indeed, one would think that class analysis means taking the standpoint of the class struggle, looking at things from the point of view of the struggle of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie. But that is not what these worthy gentlemen mean. On the contrary, they have at times even gone to the extent of denouncing the Comintern's slogan of "class against class," a slogan which Stalin defended against the right opportunists, as allegedly being a trotskyite blunder that denies that the proletariat has allies. For them "class analysis" means that one should analyze what section of the bourgeoisie to ally with against the other, just as they have set forth in their own strategy for what amounts to non-socialist revolution in an imperialist country. In brief, they are against Marxist class analysis and in favor of "tactics" of pragmatic alliances with the bourgeoisie.
Our Party rejects such a strategy. We hold to Marxist-Leninist class analysis which rejects the idea of marching into socialism with the bourgeoisie. Instead our Party calls for rallying all the toiling and oppressed masses around the proletariat in the struggle against the bourgeoisie. In doing so, we concretely go against the Maoist distrust and scepticism about the revolutionary capacity of the proletariat.
From the other side, the crusaders against ideological struggle go to the other extreme of denouncing any mention of the democratic tasks of the proletariat as a violation of socialist principle. In fact, they go further and denounce any mention of partial demands or "the immediate aims and momentary interests" of the proletariat as allegedly opportunist. They have taken up imperialist economism, justifying their stand by saying that the only immediate aim or momentary interest of the proletariat in the epoch of imperialism is the seizure of state power. Of course, they themselves issue various demands other than that for the seizure of state power. But, as their imperialist economism shows, they are unable to correctly define the relationship between the immediate struggle and the revolution. Hence, despite their semi-anarchist posturings, they inevitably fall into the most astonishing opportunist and rightist blunders.
Our Party rejects such imperialist economism and Maoist strategy as well. Our Party does not negate the great social and political movements of the proletariat and the oppressed nor the struggle over day-to-day demands, but instead uses these struggles to organize the masses for the socialist revolution. Our Party works to weld all the revolutionary currents into a single torrent with the proletariat at the center. This is Leninism, Leninism in action against Maoism, imperialist economism, social-democracy and liberal-labor politics.
The dangerous and harmful blunders on fundamental issues of the strategy and tactics for the revolution by the crusaders against ideological struggle highlight the harmfulness of denying the ideological struggle. For it is the ideological struggle against Mao Zedong Thought and all other types of revisionism and opportunism that helps clarify these questions. Yet at this time, when there is obviously still much work to be done, the crusaders against ideological struggle have not only become complacent, they are arrogant in their complacency. They hold that by 1972 they already knew everything about the strategic and tactical questions of the revolution confused by Chinese revisionism. Since then, they say, they have only had to perfect their knowledge by repudiating such allegedly "concrete manifestations" of Maoism as "campaigns," "movements," "alliances," "getting organized" and "ideological struggle." Why, they say, they have known everything all along and only made errors because they allegedly had "too big a heart" for the international communist movement. In short, they are arrogant and do not take the struggle against revisionism seriously.
Our Party, however, shall continue to march forward upon the road of vigorous opposition to all revisionism and opportunism. We believe that the ideological struggle against revisionism is a crucial component of the struggle against revisionism. It is a powerful force clarifying the orientation of the revolution to the masses of dedicated revolutionaries and class conscious proletarians. In this spirit, we shall continue this series "Against Mao Zedong Thought" and clarify the question of what Mao Zedong Thought is and what it is not.
The Chinese revisionist theory of "three worlds" is a thoroughly anti-Marxist-Leninist and counter-revolutionary concoction. This notorious pseudo-theory denies the class struggle, opposes the proletarian as well as the people's anti-imperialist and democratic revolutions, and writes off socialism. The "three worlds" theory which was authored by Mao Zedong and is based on his "thoughts" is the complete negation of the Leninist strategy of revolution on all fronts.
Among its many services to imperialism, Mao Zedong Thought and its bastard offspring, the "three worlds" theory, has tried to create the maximum degree of confusion about the strategy of the revolution in the major imperialist countries of Western Europe, Japan and Canada, which are closely allied with and led by U.S. imperialism. These countries are principal countries of the so-called "second world," that is, of the developed capitalist and revisionist states which, along with and headed by U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, comprise the two big imperialist blocs of western imperialism and social-imperialism. Over the years the Chinese revisionists have been floating out-and-out anti-Marxist-Leninist and social-chauvinist concepts about the tasks of the proletariat and its strategic objectives within these countries. One of the principal questions which the Chinese revisionist theoreticians have seized upon to spread their revisionist fallacies is the question of the relationship between the proletarian socialist revolution and the struggle against the two superpowers and in particular against the U.S. imperialist domination in these "second world" imperialist countries.
On the one hand, such countries as Germany, France, Japan, Great Britain or Canada are imperialist powers in their own right. These are highly developed industrial countries where the moribund monopoly capitalist system has long been fully established. Internally the big monopoly capitalist bourgeoisie of these states ruthlessly exploits and oppresses the working class and the broad masses of working people. Externally these imperialists are bloodsucking neo-colonialists (some also maintain parts of their old colonial holdings) and international marauders. On the other hand, particularly since the conclusion of the Second World War, to one degree or another, these imperialisms have been placed under the jackboot of U.S. imperialist domination.
The presence of U.S. imperialism in these countries does not in the least displace the significance of the internal class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The preparation of the proletarian socialist revolution which overthrows the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and replaces it with the dictatorship of the proletariat and which overthrows the capitalist system and replaces it with the socialist system remains on the order of the day. At the same time, the proletarian socialist character of the revolution does not mean in the least that the struggle against U.S. imperialist domination and tutelage is not of great significance. On the contrary, this struggle brings nearer and facilitates-the victory of socialism. The progressive anti-imperialist sentiments of the working masses, their burning hatred and indignation against U.S. imperialism's brutal interference and criminal activities, serve as an important positive factor for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat with their Marxist-Leninist parties at the head takes up the banner of struggle against U.S. imperialist hegemony as one of the links in the chain of the proletarian socialist revolution, firmly adhering to the perspective that it is only through the socialist revolution that U.S. imperialist domination can be overthrown and the freedom and sovereignty of the people established. This is the Marxist-Leninist perspective that the Chinese revisionists, along with all the other modern revisionists, have with might and main attempted to obscure.
The "Three Worlds" Theory -- A Social-Chauvinist Theory Which Detaches "National Independence" from the Class Struggle and the Socialist Revolution
According to the infamous theory of "three worlds," the "main" or "most immediate task" of the proletariat within the imperialist countries of the so-called "second world" is the "defense of national independence" against the two superpowers. Under this social-chauvinist slogan the Chinese revisionists and their faithful lackeys declare their unreserved support for the strengthening of these imperialist states, for the beefing up of their imperialist armies, for the strengthening of the positions of the capitalist monopolies of Europe through the European Economic Community, and for every other measure to bolster the big bourgeoisie in its exploitation and oppression of the working class and people.
The Chinese revisionist strategists argue that by placing these man-eating imperialist states within the "united front against the superpowers" they are only "taking advantage of contradictions." But in fact they are striving to strengthen imperialism. As the Party of Labor of Albania has pointed out:
"In the scheme of 'three worlds,' the so-called 'second world' includes capitalist and revisionist imperialist countries, which, from the point of view of their social order, have no essential difference either from the two superpowers or from various countries included in the 'third world.' It is true that the countries of this 'world' have definite contradictions with the two superpowers, but they are contradictions of an inter-imperialist character, as are also the contradictions between the two superpowers themselves. In the first place, they are contradictions over markets, spheres of influence, zones for the export of capital and the exploitation of the riches of others, of such imperialisms as the West German, Japanese, British, French, Canadian ones, etc., with one or the other superpower, as well as with one another.
"Certainly, these contradictions weaken the world imperialist system and are in the interest of the struggle of the proletariat and of the peoples. But it is anti- Marxist to identify the contradictions between various imperialist powers and the two superpowers with the struggle of the working masses and people against imperialism, for its destruction." ("The Theory and Practice of the Revolution," July 7, 1977 editorial of Zeri i Popullit, pp. 23-24 in the COUSML edition)
In fact, the "three worlds" theory is so reactionary that it identifies the "second world" imperialist states as benevolent friends or even "strategic allies" of the oppressed peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In this way, the "three worldists" openly champion the plunder and robbery of the oppressed peoples by the West European, Japanese and Canadian imperialisms under the slogan of "unity between the second and third worlds."
Finally, while the "three worlds" theory is advertised as a theory opposed to both superpowers, in reality it is a theory directly in the service of U.S. imperialism in its rivalry with Soviet social-imperialism. Therefore, in regard to the "second world," this theory openly appeals for the strengthening of the U.S. imperialist subjugation of these countries, for the strengthening of the NATO forces under the U.S. command, etc., under the signboard of opposing the supposedly "more dangerous superpower," Soviet social-imperialism.
Thus, for the proletariat and working masses of the so- called "second world," "Mao Zedong's brilliant strategic concept of three worlds" is a strategy of total and complete betrayal. It is a strategy of strengthening the monopoly capitalist order, of whitewashing the imperialist plunder of the peoples, and of beefing up U.S. imperialist domination. And all this is done under the thin disguise of a fight against the two superpowers, or more precisely against the "Soviet threat." Of course, from time to time the "three worldist" revisionists in these countries will mouth a few phrases about class struggle, the proletarian revolution and socialism. But this is just for show, a far and distant "future objective," whereas the "immediate main task" is the "defense of independence" and the measures to shore up the imperialist status quo.
Maoism Contradicts the Leninist Strategy of the Proletarian Revolution in the Imperialist Metropolises
The counter-revolutionary theory of "three worlds" was given its full elaboration and was widely advertised with the speech at the UN in April 1974 by the arch-revisionist henchman, Deng Xiaoping. However, the anti-Marxist-Leninist concepts behind this theory were built into the edifice of Chinese revisionism long before. Among other things, since the early 1960's the leadership of the Communist Party of China has been advocating concepts downplaying the significance of the class struggle of the proletariat for the overthrow of the internal bourgeoisie of the imperialist metropolises under the pretext that the toning down of this struggle was necessary for the development of the struggle against U.S. imperialism. Furthermore, under the influence of these concepts of the Chinese revisionists, strategies have been formulated which separate and detach the struggle against the hegemony of U.S. imperialism from the internal class struggle and the proletarian revolution. In this way the socialist revolution becomes a distant prospect, attainable only upon the completion of a non-socialist stage of the revolution which is allegedly necessary to pave the way for the onset of the proletarian revolution by first overthrowing U.S. imperialist domination.
Theoretically the possibility can not be ruled out that within the imperialist metropolises of the "second world," national and other democratic tasks other than the direct struggle for socialism could emerge as the most pressing objectives of the Marxist-Leninists and the proletariat. In the Second World War progressive anti-fascist national wars did in fact emerge in Europe. At that time, the first and most pressing task which confronted the communist parties and the working class and people was the overthrow of the fascist slavery and occupation and the realization of national liberation. But even then it was necessary for the communists to adhere firmly to the class principle and to strive to step by step develop the anti-fascist war into a profound popular revolution and then further to the seizure of power by the proletariat. To do otherwise meant lapsing into right opportunism and the betrayal of socialism, as the arch-revisionist Browder and others graphically showed at the time.
Of course, today the imperialist countries of the so-called "second world" are not being trampled underfoot and subjugated in a fashion comparable to those countries which fell victim to the Nazi-fascist occupiers. Nor is the overall world situation similar to that of World War II. This reality and the experience of the Anti-Fascist War further underscore the right opportunist and anti-Marxist-Leninist nature of the Maoist strategies which attempt to dampen the class struggle and to detach the anti-imperialist struggle from the socialist revolution.
The Revolutionary Strategy Indicated by Lenin, Stalin and the Comintern
Decades past, Lenin and Stalin and the Communist International indicated the correct Marxist-Leninist strategy for the current struggle of the proletariat in the capitalist-imperialist countries which have been placed under the hegemony of U.S. imperialism. For example, following World War I the German working class and toilers, under the terms of the plunderous Versailles Treaty, were heavily oppressed and exploited by the Great Powers which had emerged victors from this inter-imperialist carnage -- the French, British and U.S. imperialists. In this situation, the Comintern pointed out that it would be a great error for the Communist Party of Germany to fail to take up for resolution the major national problem that had thus been created. Addressing the connection between the struggle for national liberation and socialism, Ernst Thaelman, a staunch leader of the Communist Party of Germany and a major figure in the Comintern, said:
"This is how Lenin set out the itinerary for us. The road to national liberation runs through the road of the seizure of state power by the proletariat in alliance with the strata of the working people, it runs from the road of social liberation alone."
Today also the genuine Marxist-Leninist communist parties of the Western European imperialist countries which have been placed under U.S. imperialist hegemony defend and adhere to this same revolutionary perspective of liberation from the yoke of world imperialism through the socialist revolution.
In this regard, of particular interest is the strategic perspective which the Comintern outlined for the communist parties and the proletariat of Canada and the other Dominions of British and other imperialisms. From the early 1920's the congresses of the Comintern described the British Dominions such as Canada as imperialist countries. In 1928 the Sixth World Congress adopted a resolution on "The Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi- Colonies" which addressed the features of these Dominions in some detail:
"10. In the colonial countries it is necessary to distinguish between those colonies of the capitalist countries which have served them as colonising regions for their surplus population, and which in this way have become a continuation of their capitalist system (Australia, Canada, etc.) and those colonies which are exploited by the imperialists primarily as markets for their commodities, as sources of raw material and as spheres for the export of capital. This distinction has not only a historic but also a great economic and political significance. The colonies of the first type on the basis of their general development became 'Dominions,' that is, members of the given imperialist system with equal, or nearly equal, rights. Capitalist development reproduces among the white population the class structure of the metropolis, (i.e., the imperial centre -- the 'mother country') while the native population was, for the most part, exterminated. There cannot be there any talk of the colonial regime in the form that it shows itself in the colonies of the second type."
The resolution then proceeded to outline the various factors compelling imperialism "to reconcile itself to a certain political and economic independence" of "these semi-independent countries" or "Dominions."
This assessment made by the Comintern corresponded directly to the assessment of Frederick Engels made nearly half a century before. Engels wrote: "In my opinion the colonies proper, i.e., the countries occupied by a European population, Canada, the Cape [South Africa -- ed.], Australia, will all become independent,'' Engels then immediately distinguished these countries from "the countries inhabited by a native population, which are simply subjected, India, Algiers, the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish possessions." (Letter from Engels to Kautsky, Sept. 12, 1882, Marx-Engels Selected Correspondence, p. 399)
This distinction drawn by Engels, as the Comintern pointed out, has "great economic and political significance." That is, in the Dominions, with Canada as the foremost example, the class structure and social system of the imperialist metropolis was reproduced and modern capitalism developed rapidly and relatively unhindered. Hence the imperialist system emerged in these countries with "equal, or nearly equal rights." Therefore, concluded the Comintern, it was impermissible to compare such a Dominion with the colonies of a subjected population. Moreover, the Comintern strongly criticized those leaders of the Communist Party of Canada who denied the necessity for preparing the socialist revolution under the pretext of the need to first realize the complete independence of Canada from the British Empire. Against any such viewpoint the Comintern advocated that the question of British Imperialist hegemony or that of U.S. imperialism could only be resolved through the overthrow of the Canadian imperialist bourgeoisie by way of the socialist revolution of the Canadian proletariat.
The Maoist Attempts to Portray the "Second World" Imperialisms as Anything Other Than Exploiting Imperialist Powers Are Anti-Marxist and Fraudulent
Today such a perspective remains the only Marxist-Leninist viewpoint. But against this strategy have been arrayed the anti-Marxist concepts of the Chinese revisionists. According to the Maoist conception, the heavy economic, political, military, cultural and all-sided influence of U.S. imperialism on the other imperialisms fundamentally alters the laws governing the capitalist-imperialist system operating in these countries. The idea has been propagated that the West European and the other imperialisms have lost their barbarous imperialist features and have become tame, non- aggressive and non-plunderous. Some have even gone so far as to polemicize that a given imperialist country is not imperialist at all but instead is "like a colony." However, according to Marxism-Leninism, the same imperialist social system, with the same fundamental characteristics of this man-eating system, are operating in the imperialist countries of Western Europe, Japan and Canada in the very same way as they are operating in the United States and the present-day Soviet Union. And the Leninist strategy for the overthrow of these imperialisms through the socialist revolution remains more valid today than ever.
In the 1930's Mao Zedong defined as a fundamental characteristic of "capitalist countries" that "in their external relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress other nations." (Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 219) Taken literally this Maoist formula means that by definition a capitalist country cannot be oppressed and, conversely, if a country is oppressed by others it is therefore by definition not a capitalist country. And nearly half a century later we find Mao's followers pontificating that for a country to be truly capitalist and imperialist it cannot be oppressed by U.S. imperialism and must have its full and complete sovereignty intact. Such a conception of imperialism, however, may agree with Kautskyism or Maoism, but not with Leninism. As Lenin pointed out in his famous work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: "The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialized regions (German appetite for Belgium; French appetite for Lorraine)." (p. 109) This characteristic feature of imperialism means that the world system of imperialism is a system of the ruthless oppression of nations, both capitalistically undeveloped nations and developed capitalist and imperialist ones. And as witnessed in recent years, the two most powerful imperialisms, the United States and the Soviet Union, are attempting to completely subjugate the entire capitalist-revisionist world between themselves. Thus, apart from possibly these two superpowers, the search for a "pure" capitalist and imperialist country which fits into Mao's schematic formula will simply have to be pursued on some other planet besides this one with which we have become acquainted.
A given imperialism does not become something else when gigantic sums of foreign finance capital are invested into its industries or when it incurs massive indebtedness to the foreign imperialist banks. Historically, imperialist Russia on the eve of the First World War is a case in point. The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik) describes the foreign dependent nature of tsarist Russia as follows:
"That Russia entered the imperialist war on the side of the Entente, on the side of France and Great Britain, was not accidental. It should be borne in mind that before 1914 the most important branches of Russian industry were in the hands of foreign capitalists, chiefly those of France, Great Britain and Belgium, that is, the Entente countries. The most important of Russia's metal works were in the hands of French capitalists. In all about three-quarters (72 percent) of the metal industry depended on foreign capital. The same was true of the coal industry of the Donetz Basin. Oilfields owned by British and French capital accounted for a- bout half the oil output of the country. A considerable part of the profits of Russian industry flowed into foreign banks, chiefly British and French. All these circumstances, in addition to the thousands of millions borrowed by the tsar from France and Britain in loans, chained tsarism to British and French imperialism and converted Russia into a tributary, a semi-colony of these countries."
The History then proceeds to expose the Russian imperialist bourgeoisie's own plunderous aims in pursuing the war: "The Russian bourgeoisie went to war with the purpose of improving its position: to seize new markets, to make huge profits on war contracts, and at the same time to crush the revolutionary movement by taking advantage of the war situation." (p. 162)
Here, if it were not for the Maoist confusion-mongers, it would hardly be necessary to point out that it wasn't the massive presence of foreign imperialist capital that eliminated the imperialist character of Russia, but it was the Great October Socialist Revolution which brought about the demise of Russian imperialism.
Post-World War II Western Europe provides further examples of economically and financially dependent imperialisms. Western Europe was itself mortgaged ten times over to the Wall Street banks while nevertheless the imperialisms of Western Europe remained. And today, those imperialisms with heavy U.S. and other foreign investments in their economies, with a large presence of U.S. and other multinational corporations, and with massive foreign indebtedness -- such as Italy or Canada or a number of lesser imperialisms than these -- remain imperialist countries just the same.
Similarly, the sovereignty of all the countries within the western imperialist bloc, to one degree or another, has been trampled upon by U.S. imperialism through countless means. Militarily, for example, NATO, NORAD and the U.S.-Japan treaty have placed the imperialist armies of Western Europe, Canada and Japan under the virtual command of the Pentagon. To varying degrees, these countries have been converted into U.S. imperialist bases of aggression with U.S. military bases, including large numbers of U.S. troops and massive weaponry including nuclear weapons, set up in most of these allied imperialist states. However, West German imperialism, for instance -- despite NATO and the presence of a quarter of a million U.S. troops on its territory -- is nevertheless a dangerous and ferocious imperialism. The same is true of Japanese imperialism. Despite the fact that the current Japanese constitution was written and imposed by the fascist U.S. General MacArthur during the U.S. occupation, and despite the fact that the U.S.-Japan treaty is a blatantly unequal treaty for the maintenance of Japan as a base for U.S. aggression in the Pacific, and despite the presence of 50 U.S. military installations in Japan, Japanese imperialism is nevertheless a powerful and aggressive imperialism in its own right.
The same conclusion applies to Canadian imperialism as well. Nominally Canada is a Dominion of Great Britain. Its head of state is Queen Elizabeth II and its constitution is the British North America Act, an act of the British parliament dating back to 1867. At the same time, while Canada's status in relation to Britain has become little more than ornamental, Canada has been placed under the all-round economic, financial, political, military and cultural hegemony of U.S. imperialism. Canada is subordinated to U.S. imperialism through the aggressive NORAD and NATO military pacts, through the massive operation of the U.S. multinational corporations in Canada, etc. Nevertheless, Canadian imperialism is a major world power. This fact is recognized by the international bourgeoisie itself as exemplified by Canada's participation in the recent economic conference in Venice where the seven most powerful western imperialist states gathered to discuss how to shore up the tottering capitalist-imperialist world order. Canada has become one of a small handful of the richest and most powerful imperialist states.
In short, the attempts of the Chinese revisionists to portray the so-called "second world" imperialisms as anything other than rapacious imperialisms are anti-Marxist and fraudulent. The crusaders against ideological struggle have "criticized" Maoism by polemicizing that what is wrong with the "three worlds" theory is that it erroneously labels as "imperialist" a so-called "second world" imperialist country that allegedly must not be described as imperialist at all. It must not be described as imperialist supposedly because it evolved as a "colony proper" and hence today remains "like a colony" or is a "neo-colony" of U.S. imperialism rather than an imperialism in its own right. But such idiotic and thoroughly anti-Marxist "criticism" of the "three worlds" theory means resorting to arguments that are more Maoist than those of the "three worldists" themselves. Moreover, declarations that such a country is an "oppressor state," is "part of the imperialist system of states," has an "imperialist democracy," or has imperialists among the bourgeoisie while continuing to argue that such a country is not in fact imperialist, or that the principal contradiction in such a country is not that between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, are simply desperate attempts to slur over the issue of principle involved while at the same time preserving the Maoist blunder intact.
Existence or Non-Existence of Imperialism Is a Question of Principle Concerning the Basic Strategy and Tactics of the Proletariat
Indeed the basic social/class character of a given country is a cardinal question of principle for the revolution. Whether or not a given country is or is not a developed monopoly capitalist imperialist state is of tremendous significance as it bears on fundamental questions of the basic strategy and tactics of the proletariat. Hence there is great danger in the Maoist arguments that when a given imperialism is placed under the sway of U.S. imperialism it fundamentally changes its social/class character and that the inherent laws governing the imperialist system become invalid. Hence there is great danger in the arguments of the crusaders against ideological struggle that deny the imperialist nature of a given imperialism altogether. This denial leads to insisting that allegedly the strategy of the proletariat must be charted as though the country were instead "like a colony." Such Maoist pseudo-theories fling the doors wide open to gross distortions of the Leninist strategy and tactics of the revolution.
In this way the doors are opened for the rejection of even the most basic concepts of Marxism such as that it is the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie which is the main contradiction in capitalist society and that it is to be resolved through socialist revolution. The Maoists create the anti-Marxist argument that since such a "second world" imperialist country is dominated by U.S. imperialism, it therefore must not be considered fully capitalist and imperialist itself. They say that for this reason the main contradiction cannot be the one between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Rather the "main contradiction" is alleged to be the contradiction between U.S. imperialism and "all patriotic classes," including even the "patriotic" or "national" bourgeoisie. In the meantime, it is required by the Maoist strategy that the class contradiction between the working class and the capitalist class must remain subordinated, must be postponed until the fine day on the 32nd of August when the contradiction with foreign imperialism is first resolved.
From these extremely erroneous and anti-Marxist concepts the Marxist-Leninist perspective of the basic stage of the revolution and its fundamental class character is obscured. That is, the socialist revolution of the proletariat is subordinated to or is simply replaced with a peculiar type of non-socialist revolution. The very concept of the proletarian socialist revolution is scoffed at, while in its place emerges the Maoist strategy of a non-socialist revolution which is presented as something "like" an anti-colonial revolution which has as its primary objective the realization of national independence and the overthrow of the hegemony of U.S. imperialism. Then, only after the completion of this "national war against U.S. imperialism," or whatever signboard this non-socialist stage of the revolution may have, only then will "material conditions be prepared" for going over to the proletarian socialist stage of the revolution. Indeed the crusaders against ideological struggle have gone so far as to ridicule as "trotskyite phrasemongering" the presentation of any definite assessment of the stage of revolution. The assessment of the character or stage of the revolution is therefore intentionally slurred over. At the same time, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the socialist revolution is given no place in the strategic aims of the proletariat whatsoever.
A Maoist "Tactical Line" of a Class Alliance with the Bourgeoisie in the Socialist Revolution
Moreover, according to the tactical line of this Maoist non-socialist revolution, the bourgeoisie itself is welcomed aboard as an alleged ally of the working class. The revolution may for the purposes of ornamentation be called socialist. But the proletariat is supposed to march along side by side with the "national bourgeoisie" into this "socialism." The idea is propagated that an alliance with the bourgeoisie or at least sections of it is "decisive" for the fate of the revolution, as this bourgeoisie is supposedly an important ally of the proletariat in the struggle to overthrow U.S. imperialist domination.
Falling into the same error as the Maoists, the crusaders against ideological struggle prettify the bourgeoisie in many ways. They arbitrarily define the "national bourgeoisie" as that section of the bourgeoisie which produces for the home market. From this absurd definition the equally absurd conclusion is drawn that, because of U.S. domination, these "national" capitalists allegedly "cannot exist" as either "big" or "monopoly" capitalists. But everyone knows that the national bourgeoisie of the imperialist country includes the big monopoly bourgeoisie and indeed is led by this reactionary big bourgeoisie.
Nevertheless the crusaders against ideological struggle have gone to the extent of redefining the "national bourgeoisie" as the "middle bourgeoisie." They never concretely describe who they are referring to with this term. That is because they are not referring to the Marxist conception of "middle bourgeoisie" but are simply renaming and whitewashing the national bourgeoisie. For them, this term "middle bourgeoisie" refers to all the capitalists based on the home market no matter how large and rich they may be because, by petty-bourgeois nationalist logic, they "cannot exist" as "big" or "monopoly" bourgeoisie. "Middle bourgeoisie" becomes a code word for prettifying all of the capitalist exploiters, but for a handful of top financial usurers and U.S. corporations.
But that is not the least of it. The crusaders against ideological struggle lavish on this very noble and "patriotic" bourgeoisie the most obscene and unmitigated praise. The glorious "national bourgeoisie" is heralded as "pro-working class"; "opposed to the shifting of the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the proletariat"; "opposed to fascization"; "against war preparations"; "sympathetic to socialism"; "supports the national liberation movement"; and is declared to be "pro-communist" to boot!!
From this beautiful fairy tale of a "class analysis," it is then deemed necessary to make a thousand and one promises to these capitalist exploiters that the coming revolution will not undermine their wealth or power but will expropriate only a handful of families at the top of the financial oligarchy. Occasionally this "tactic" has been expressed without any modesty whatsoever. It has even led at one time to the issuing of manifestoes far and wide promising the monopoly capitalists directly that they will not be overthrown but will be allowed to maintain 5% of the state power. Today programs are still being issued in great numbers in an attempt to convince the exploiters, or at least a section of them, that they have nothing to fear in the coming revolution, that it will not blot out their place in the sun, that it will not end all exploitation.
This reformist and sentimental "tactical line," though advertised by its authors to be the very pinnacle of "tactical" genius, is diametrically opposed to the tactical principles of the proletarian revolution as they have been elaborated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Such an opportunist policy is a manifestation of Maoist, modern revisionist and social-democratic tactics. In his important new book, Eurocommunism Is Anti-Communism, Comrade Enver Hoxha exposed the essence of such a "tactical line" towards the exploiting classes:
"In a long tirade, at the 22nd Congress of the FCP, Marchais goes so far as to say that the accusation of allegedly wanting to eliminate the wealthy, levelled against the French revisionists, is without foundation. Considering it a slander, he declares openly that they want private property to exist, want the middle bourgeoisie to exist with all its property and want the landed peasantry to exist; that they want only to nationalize all the common state assets and to have all these administered by the people. Social-democracy also defends these capitalist structures which Marchais defends. In this instance he has the right to be angry with those who accuse him of not being one hundred per cent loyal to the bourgeoisie like his social-democratic brothers." (Proletarian Internationalism ed., p. 62)
The Maoist "tactics" of making promises to the bourgeoisie to preserve exploitation in the name of winning major strata of capitalists over to the side of the allegedly socialist revolution are clearly of close relation to those of George Marchais, the other Euro-revisionists and their social-democratic brethren. It is also obvious that it is not a socialist revolution as advocated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin which the bourgeoisie is being called upon to join, because it is only the "socialist revolution" as advocated by the likes of Proudhon, Bukharin, Browder, Tito, Mao or George Marchais which includes the bourgeois exploiting classes within it. But then, towards this type of "socialism," the bourgeoisie has always been known to display its "pro-communist" sympathies!
The Proletariat Must Shoulder Its Responsibilities in Regard to the Crimes of Its "Own" Imperialist Ruling Class
Besides these basic questions of strategy and tactics, there are other major questions of principle involved in the obscuring of the imperialist character of the so-called "second world" imperialist countries. There is the question of the attitude of the proletariat towards the aggressive and enslaving activity of its "own" imperialism. Japanese imperialism is building up a vast neo-colonial network across East Asia and is operating actively in the Middle East, Africa, etc. West German imperialism is a dangerous hotbed of war and aggression against the people and has emerged as a major international neo-colonialist. The old colonial powers, France and Britain, have not given up their dreams of world empire and are plotting feverishly against the freedom of the people of Africa and elsewhere.
Canadian imperialism too is realizing super-profits off the sweat and blood of the people through the massive export of imperialist capital into the Caribbean and Latin America as well as Africa and Asia. The Canadian imperialist corporations, Massey-Ferguson, Alcan, and so forth, operate on a global scale. For example, Noranda Mines holds large-scale investments in Latin America and other developing countries in general and in particular in Chilean copper and the Chile of the fascist dictatorship of Pinochet. Besides multinational corporations and big banking, there are other organisms of Canadian imperialism such as CIDA for the neo-colonial enslavement of the peoples. As well, the Canadian armed forces have participated in numerous "peacekeeping" missions along with and on behalf of U.S. imperialism to put down the people's liberation struggles, in Korea, the Congo, Lebanon and the Middle East, and in Indochina.
As Marxism-Leninism teaches, the proletariat of Japan, West Germany, France, Britain, Canada, etc., must shoulder their proletarian internationalist duties in regard to the crimes of their "own" imperialisms against the oppressed peoples if they are going to succeed in realizing their own social emancipation. However, to portray the outrages which one's "own" imperialist rulers perpetrate against the oppressed peoples as simply the responsibility of U.S. imperialism is to embellish one's "own" imperialist marauders. It is, of course, correct and necessary to explain to the masses that many of these crimes are committed in direct collaboration with and even under the immediate direction of U.S. imperialism. But the condemnation of one's "own" bourgeoisie as "lackeys," "front men" and "agents" of U.S. imperialism must always be used to instill in the masses a burning hatred against this bourgeoisie and not to prettify its criminal nature to the effect that it is simply a "mere extension" of American imperialism. To do otherwise means to hide the fact that it has its own enslaving ambitions and that it too, even when acting on the orders of others, is always pursuing its share of the loot and enriches itself through the plunder and robbery of the peoples. Clearly it is not possible to properly shoulder one's proletarian internationalist duties in regard to the crimes of one's "own" imperialist ruling class when preoccupied with the task of whitewashing its imperialist, neo-colonialist and predatory nature. Nor is it possible when one is preoccupied with proving that one's "own" imperialism is more "like a colony" and not really an imperialist country at all.
Such are a few of the important questions on which the Chinese revisionists' concepts which deny the imperialist nature of the "second world" imperialist countries have grave anti-Marxist consequences. The Maoist concepts regarding these imperialist countries cannot fail to have powerful repercussions on the questions of strategy and tactics. To be exact, the strategy and tactics will be marked by the influence of Chinese revisionism and Mao Zedong Thought and will necessarily deviate from the Marxist-Leninist strategy and tactics of the revolution.
A Concrete Manifestation of Mao Zedong's Denigration of the Revolutionary Capacity of the Proletariat
The various attempts to replace the Leninist strategy of the socialist revolution with some sort of Maoist non-socialist revolution in the "second world" imperialist countries have their roots in one of the ideological mainsprings of Mao Zedong Thought. Their roots are in the revisionist "thoughts" of Mao which denigrate the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Mao Zedong considered the peasantry and the countryside to be more revolutionary than the industrial proletariat and the cities. He scoffed at the prospects of the socialist revolution of the proletariat in the imperialist metropolises. Moreover, in his "three worlds" strategy Mao doesn't even grant the proletariat and socialism so much as a minor role in his "brilliant strategy of world revolution."
Thus, distrusting the working class, the followers of Chinese revisionism searched high and low for some stratagem for the revolution in the capitalist-imperialist countries which would supposedly have more potential than the socialist revolution of the proletariat. As a result of this search they came up with their strategies for non-socialist revolutions, for anti-colonial liberation struggles, programs to "get organized for national war against U.S. imperialism," or innumerable variations of similar concepts. It should be noted that even in the U.S., the neo-revisionist theoreticians cooked up their so-called "united front against imperialism strategy" which negated the main and leading role of the proletariat, negated the role of the proletarian party, negated the struggle against opportunism and the ideological struggle and negated the socialist character of the revolution, all on the pretext of upholding the role or leadership of "third world peoples (oppressed nationalities) in the U.S." Just as Chinese revisionism cannot define the proper relationship between the struggle against U.S. imperialist domination and the socialist revolution for the imperialist countries of Western Europe, Japan and Canada, so too it fell flat on its face in defining the relation of the struggle of the oppressed nationalities in the U.S. and the socialist revolution. The neo-revisionists swung helplessly from one extreme to another, either denying the proletarian socialist revolution or denying the struggle of the oppressed nationalities. Some went so far as to advocate that the proletariat of North America had no revolutionary mission to fulfill whatsoever except to provide aid to the national liberation struggles abroad.
Of course, such strategies are in complete disregard of scientific class analysis and Marxism-Leninism. But since in the eyes of the Chinese revisionists the working class lacks revolutionary potential and the socialist revolution as championed by Marx and Lenin is viewed as an unrealistic slogan of a bygone era, the idea of an anti-colonial revolution directed mainly against foreign imperialism is dished out as the "strategy" for the revolution in the capitalist and imperialist countries of Europe, Japan, Canada, etc.
The Other Side of the Maoist Coin -- Negating the Struggle Against the Imperialist Domination of a Capitalist Country
Thus Chinese revisionism has negated the proletarian socialist revolution in the imperialist countries of Western Europe. Japan and Canada under the pretext of the need to oppose the domination of these countries by foreign imperialism. This negation of the socialist revolution is a striking manifestation of Chinese revisionism's inability to combine or to correctly define the relation between the anti-imperialist struggle and the proletarian socialist revolution. But Chinese revisionism is eclectic and goes from one extreme to the other. There are also those of its followers who deny the struggle against the foreign imperialist domination of a capitalist country as allegedly a violation of the socialist revolution. This position may on the surface seem to be the opposite of the Maoist negation of the socialist revolution, but in reality it is only the flip side of the same position. The two extremes meet. They are both based on the Maoist theses completely detaching the socialist revolution and any democratic or anti-imperialist tasks. Furthermore, both positions end up justifying U.S. imperialist world domination. The "three worlders" who advocate "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism" openly call for the "second world" to support U.S. imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism. Meanwhile the other side of the Maoist coin denounces the struggle of the proletariat and toiling masses of these "second world" countries against U.S. imperialism as allegedly "social-chauvinism."
The "RCP,USA" is one such Maoist grouping that gives this flip position of Chinese revisionism.
The "RCP,USA" has attempted to strike a pose as opponents of a few of the more blatant and discredited theses of Chinese revisionism, such as "directing the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism." But at the same time the "RCP,USA" has been and remains "three worldist" through and through. To this day the "RCP,USA" declares its solidarity with "Mao's three worlds tactic" as allegedly in contradistinction to "Deng Xiaoping's three worlds strategy." Moreover, presently Bob Avakian and the other theoretical hacks of the "RCP,USA" have taken upon themselves to elaborate all "the immortal contributions" of Mao Zedong Thought, including all the Chinese revisionist theories belittling the revolutionary capacity of the proletariat and negating the Marxist-Leninist conception of the role of the proletarian party.
Thus the "RCP,USA" has found itself caught in a contradiction. On the one hand they are trying to look revolutionary and appear as opponents of the Klonskyite "directors of the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism" and the present-day Chinese ultra-revisionist rulers; while on the other hand they are fighting to maintain the entire corrupt and anti-Marxist-Leninist outlook of Mao Zedong Thought and Chinese revisionism. This contradiction has led the "RCP,USA" into anarchist actions and trotskyite phrasemongering in order to try to put a revolutionary coloring on its "three worlds-ism."
Maoism Vacillates from One Anti-Marxist Extreme to the Other
For example, today with its petty-bourgeois anarchist activities, the "RCP,USA" has given yet another vivid expression of the Maoist scepticism towards the revolutionary potential of the working class. The "RCP,USA" holds to the basic view of Mao Zedong Thought that the working class is not revolutionary and the working class movement is nothing but reformism and economism. Hence the "RCP, USA" goes from one extreme to another, combining reformist work in the working class movement with anarchist activities. The "RCP,USA" needs these anarchist activities to preserve its "revolutionary" credentials because the "RCP,USA" is incapable of giving up reformism and economism in its approach to the working class movement. Anarchism proves once again to be the cry of despair of the reformist petty bourgeois.
The same thing applies to the question of the struggle against U.S. imperialism. For years the "RCP,USA" openly negated the proletarian socialist revolution in the U.S. with its "united front against imperialism strategy." The predecessor of the "RCP,USA," the "Revolutionary Union," was based on primeval "three worlds-ism." For example, the RU always proudly claimed to be the original authors of the "united front against imperialism strategy." Moreover, as an important element of this strategy, the RU held the position as late as 1974 that the main contradiction in the U.S. was not between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie but between U.S. imperialism and the "third world peoples" (oppressed nationalities) inside the U.S. To this day, although the "RCP,USA" pays lip service to the socialist revolution, it still preserves a suitably adapted version of the "united front against imperialism strategy," just as it also upholds "Mao's three worlds tactic." Therefore, in order to have something to say against the Klonskyite "three worlders," it has taken to the trotskyite position of denouncing all struggle against foreign imperialist domination of "second world" countries as "social-chauvinism."
Similarly for years the "RCP,USA" and its predecessors supported cultural nationalism as allegedly a stage in the development of revolutionary consciousness. This was part of their anti-Marxist-Leninist Maoist stand of negating the tight against revisionism and opportunism. They utilized their sophistry in defense of cultural nationalism to justify allying with the shabbiest characters. Indeed, to this day they still justify Mao's deviations on this question. At the same time, they have gone to the other anti-Marxist-Leninist extreme of denouncing as violations of internationalism all the revolutionary-traditions of a people and all national culture, without distinguishing between the progressive and reactionary. They identify it with bourgeois nationalism and cultural nationalism and with the flag of the bourgeoisie. They then proceed to rave hysterically against the flag. What a repulsive display of sophistry!
Thus the "RCP,USA" has stepped forward as utter great-power chauvinists in defense of U.S. imperialist world hegemony. No matter how many U.3. flags the "RCP,USA" burns, its condemnation of the struggle of the West European, Japanese and Canadian proletariat against U.S. imperialism brands it indelibly as an American superpower chauvinist. The "RCP,USA" is internationalist only in its posturing, while it is chauvinist to the core in its attitude to the struggle of the world proletariat and toiling masses against U.S. imperialist world domination. Hence the two extremes meet, the two forms of Mao Zedong Thought and "three worldsism," Mr. Klonsky's and Mr. Avakian's, in a common orgy of disgusting national chauvinism.
The American Superpower Chauvinists of the "RCP, USA" Raise the Trotskyite Banner of National Nihilism
On the basis of their trotskyite negation of the struggle against U.S. imperialism, the "RCP,USA" has declared its discovery of "the roots of revisionism and decay that have damaged all and destroyed some of the international communist movement over the past 50 years." So how is this evil force expressed today? By "the call to revolutionaries in the imperialist countries to 'pick up the national flag'... from Enver Hoxha of Albania." ("On the Question of So-Called 'National Nihilism': You Can't Beat Your Enemy While Raising His Flag," Revolutionary Worker, August 1, 1980, p. 20, col. 1) In fact the "RCP,USA" finds the very fountainhead of modern revisionism in the struggle of the working class of the capitalist countries against subjugation by U.S. imperialism, and before that in the struggle for liberation against the German Nazi hordes.
Over the last three years the "RCP,USA" has written a number of treatises on this theme against the MLP,USA and its predecessor, the COUSML, as well as against the Party of Labor of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha and against all the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties. Furthermore, these dregs of Chinese revisionism reserve their main venom to slander the glorious work of the Comintern and in particular the line of its Seventh World Congress which guided the proletariat and people in the earthshaking struggle against world fascism. They denounce the struggle against fascism oriented by the Seventh World Congress, a struggle which led to some of the greatest victories of socialism and to the setting up of socialist states in a number of countries. But, for the "RCP,USA," any struggle on democratic issues is suspect, and the more so as the antifascist struggle led to progressive anti-fascist national liberation wars in capitalist countries.
The "RCP,USA" also reserves special contempt for J.V. Stalin who led the great anti-fascist struggle. As well, they sneer in particular at his appeal to the world's communists at the 19th Congress of the CPSU in 1952. For here Stalin set forward once again the tasks of fighting against fascization and against U.S. imperialist hegemony. Stalin declared:
"...the bourgeoisie itself-- the major enemy of the liberation movement -- has become more reactionary, has lost contact with the people, and thus has weakened itself...
"Formerly, the bourgeoisie presumed to play the liberal, defending bourgeois-democratic freedoms, and thereby gained some popularity for itself among the people. Now not a trace of this liberalism remains.
... The banner of bourgeois-democratic freedoms has been thrown overboard. In my opinion, it has fallen upon you, representatives of Communist and democratic parties, to pick up this banner and carry it forward if you wish to gather around yourselves the majority of the people. There is no one else to raise it.
"Formerly, the bourgeoisie was considered the leader of nations; it maintained the rights and independence of nations, putting them 'before all else. ' Now not a trace of this national principle remains. Now the bourgeoisie will sell the rights and independence of their nations for dollars. The banner of national independence and national sovereignty has been thrown overboard. There is no doubt that it has fallen upon you, representatives of Communist and democratic parties, to pick it up and carry it forward, if you wish to be patriots of your countries, if you wish to become the leaders of nations. There is no one else to raise it.
"Thus stands the matter in the present time. Certainly all these circumstances must lighten the work of Communist and democratic parties that have not yet come to power. It follows that these are all reasons to count on success and victory for our fraternal parties in countries still under the rule of capital.
These words of Stalin's ring as true today as when he said them. U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, with the active collaboration of the world bourgeoisie, is striving to place the proletariat and working masses of the entire capitalist-revisionist world under their dictate and oppression. Hence the banners of struggle against fascism and fascization, against imperialist domination, and in particular against the world empires of the superpowers have become important banners in the struggle of the world's Marxist-Leninist communists for the overthrow of the rule of capital.
Against this Marxist-Leninist line the American superpower chauvinists of the "RCP,USA" have openly unfurled the trotskyite banner of national nihilism. But according to the Marxist outlook, the oppression of a nation, whether or not it is capitalistically developed, means in the first place the oppression of the working class and the working masses, the further destruction of their livelihood, the suppression of their culture, the further limitation of their political rights and freedoms, and so on. This is true in the capitalist countries as in other countries. Further, as the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern pointed out, for the communists to fail to take into account the revolutionary and progressive traditions of the working class and people of a given country and instead to mock at all national sentiments, means to fall into the positions of national nihilism. The Seventh World Congress pointed out that the communists must be free of both bourgeois nationalism and national nihilism. Of course, it is one thing for a revolutionary to fall into a certain national nihilism toward his own country through inexperience or a mechanical approach to the struggle against bourgeois nationalism. But one must speak far more harshly, 1,000 times more harshly, against those who negate the anti-imperialist struggles of all other countries, as the "RCP,USA" does with respect to the large number of countries under the jackboot of their own U.S. imperialists. Such creatures are not communists but chauvinists or "socialist" jingoes of one sort or another.
Marx and Lenin Against National Nihilism
The "RCP,USA," following the tactical line of the international trend of Chinese revisionism, directs its attack on Stalin, Enver Hoxha and the Comintern. But in fact, with its banner of national nihilism it is coming out in utter opposition to Marxism-Leninism as a whole. The entire life and work of Marx, Engels and Lenin testifies against the national nihilism of the "RCP,USA." A thick book could be written on this, but here we restrict ourselves to the briefest of comments.
It is well known that in 1914 Lenin wrote his celebrated article "On the National Pride of the Great Russians" (Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 102-06). Here Lenin was writing at the outbreak of World War I, at the time of an immense wave of chauvinism among the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie and during the intense fight against social-chauvinism. Yet Lenin went out of his way to oppose national nihilism. Lenin also pointed out in this article how "unseemly" such national nihilism and disregard of national questions is for the communists of a country which oppresses other countries. Thus Lenin's article punctures "RCP,USA's" fraud that national nihilism is necessary in the struggle against social-chauvinism, and in fact points to the chauvinist nature of demanding that the world take up national nihilism and cease its struggle against the imperialists of one's own country.
Lenin also vigorously and repeatedly denounced the "imperialist economists" who negated the struggle on the questions of democracy as allegedly being opportunist or revisionist or social-chauvinist in the era of imperialism. For in World War I too, there were those who sought the roots of social-chauvinism and opportunism in the question of the struggle against national oppression or on other questions of democracy. Lenin, however, stated:
"Capitalism and imperialism can be overthrown only by economic revolution. They cannot be overthrown by democratic transformations, even the most 'ideal.' But a proletariat not schooled in the struggle for democracy is incapable of performing an economic revolution." ("Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)," Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 25)
"Imperialist war may be said to be a triple negation of democracy... but the awakening and growth of socialist revolt against imperialism are indissolubly linked with the growth of democratic resistance and unrest."(Ibid., emphasis as in the original)
Lenin made short work of the "leftist" pretensions of those who negated the democratic questions and called them "imperialist economists." He described their theory as "a caricature of Marxism."
But here we find one of the ideological foundations of the Maoism and opportunism of the "RCP,USA." It has no relation to Marxism-Leninism at all but dredges up all the discredited theses of the imperialist economists, of Bukharin, Radek, Pyatakov and so forth. Bukharin himself went on from this allegedly "leftist" theory to become a major ideologue of right opportunism, of the interests of the kulak and of the theory of the capitalists merging peacefully into socialism. Indeed, Bukharinism is one of the components that make up Mao Zedong Thought /It is the banner of Bukharin that the "RCP,USA" is raising. While it is not an accident that Bukharin also went on to ally with the trotskyites and form part of the Axis fifth column inside Soviet Russia. Other imperialist economists, such as Radek and Pyatakov, also wound up as trotskyites. Trotskyism and Bukharinism -- there one finds one of the inspirations for Mr. Avakian's theoretical atrocities and national nihilism.
The whole life and work of Marx and Engels testifies against the national nihilists. But the opportunists think they have caught Marx and Engels in a contradiction. They shout: does not the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" of Marx and Engels say that "The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got"?
Of course it does. This statement is one of the foundations of communism and the proletarian outlook. It, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with national nihilism. Marx and Engels immediately go on to say in the very next sentence: "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word." Marx and Engels have penetrated to the essence of the question. The "RCP,USA" cannot distinguish between bourgeois nationalism and the progressive sentiments of the proletariat. The "RCP,USA" is mired in imperialist chauvinism and hence cannot even conceive of opposition to bourgeois nationalism as anything but national nihilism nor that national nihilism is just the flip side of bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism. Marx and Engels ridiculed the national nihilists of their day.
Thus the national nihilism of the "RCP,USA" is an utter negation of Marxism-Leninism. The work of Stalin, the Comintern, and that of Enver Hoxha is but the loyal continuation of the work of Marx, Engels and Lenin. In denouncing the struggle against fascism and the anti-imperialist struggle in the capitalist countries, the "RCP,USA" is once again demonstrating that there is nothing in common between Mao Zedong Thought and Marxism-Leninism.
The "RCP,USA" Replaces the Internationalism of the Proletariat with the Cosmopolitanism of the U.S. Imperialist Big Bourgeoisie
In fact, the "RCP,USA," in madly scribbling against the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in general and in favor of national nihilism in particular, is echoing the trotskyites and taking up the stand of the imperialists themselves towards the cultures, revolutionary traditions and national sentiments of the world's peoples. The "RCP, USA," which lives in an oppressor country, is looking down its nose at the oppressed nationalities. It is trumpeting the present-day cosmopolitanism which the U.S. imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists use to whitewash their domination of oppressed nations and to attack the cultures and progressive values of the oppressed peoples. Hence when the "RCP,USA" demands that all the world's peoples adopt positions of national nihilism, it means that the "RCP,USA" has abandoned the struggle of the proletariat and working masses against capitalism and the oppression of imperialism. It means to betray the struggle against world imperialism, which is a complete system of the enslavement and oppression of nations. It means (whether under the conditions when the Nazi and other fascist hordes were unleashing war to put the entire world under fascist slavery or under the present conditions, when U.S. imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism and Chinese social-imperialism are trying to accomplish what Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini failed to do) to prettify the fascist and imperialist jackboot.
Mr. Avakian, turning things on their head, insists that it is the struggle against such things as the U.S. imperialist domination of various capitalist and imperialist countries that is social-chauvinism. He writes: "Basically my point is that there is no such thing as so-called 'national nihilism'.... This theory for combatting national nihilism to me is a theory of social-chauvinism." (Quoted in Revolutionary Worker, Aug. 1,1980, p. 20, col. 3-4) This is the ideological basis upon which "RCP,USA" opposes the struggle against U.S. imperialist domination of capitalist countries. Thus, the "RCP,USA" insists that it is "social-chauvinism" to combat foreign imperialist domination because it allegedly means lining up the working class behind its "own" bourgeoisie against the workers of other nations. Hence, the Marxist-Leninist communists and the revolutionary proletariat are forbidden to concern themselves with such "trifles" as fighting the subjugation and oppression of nations. Nay more, to do so allegedly means going over to the class enemy and social-chauvinism.
Of course, this "brilliant thought" emanating from the champions of Mao Zedong Thought is hardly new or original. For example, as it is well known, in the late 1960's the Progressive Labor Party also raised the trotskyite banner of national nihilism under the hoax of a struggle against modern revisionism. The PLP declared that "all nationalism is reactionary" and then proceeded to condemn both the glorious national liberation war of the Vietnamese people and the heroic struggle of the black people in the U.S. against racial discrimination and national oppression as supposedly manifestations of "reactionary nationalism." It is a striking fact that the "RCP,USA" is marching down this same neo-trotskyite path as their PLP forebears.
With their national nihilist ravings the "RCP,USA" replaces the internationalism of the proletariat with the cosmopolitanism of the U.S. imperialist big bourgeoisie. Following this ultra-imperialist outlook, the "RCP,USA" declares that it is opposed to "making a fetish out of what is ultimately a bourgeois thing, the nation, instead of pushing things forward, through stages, to the ultimate goal of communism, which means the elimination of classes on a world scale and the merging of all nations." (Ibid., p. 21, col. 3) What fine "internationalist" phrases to cover the stench of thoroughly chauvinist and imperialist garbage!
Indeed, from the perspective of a U.S. great-power chauvinist, why should the working masses who are subject to U.S. imperialist hegemony "make a fetish" out of fighting the ruthless plunder, exploitation and oppression of the U.S. multinational corporations? Why should the working masses be concerned or "make a fetish" out of being trampled upon by vast U.S. military bases or out of the fact that their youth are being mobilized as cannon fodder for U.S. imperialist wars of aggression? Or why should the working masses "make a fetish" out of the decimation of their culture when they can enjoy all the wonders of U.S. imperialist "culture" such as the straightforward fascist and national nihilist "punk rock" which the "RCP,USA" and other decadent elements find so entrancing? The working class must never concern itself with such "bourgeois things." After all, to fight as the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists advocate, against the U.S. multinationals, NATO, the CIA, "punk rock" and the other blessings of U.S. imperialism is only to create obstacles to "pushing things forward, through stages, to the ultimate goal of...the merging of nations"! The "merging of nations" through the subordination of the entire world to U.S. imperialism -- such is the essence of the "RCP,USA's" American superpower chauvinist and national nihilist ravings.
Marxism-Leninism, on the other hand, has a very different perspective on the question of the "merging of nations." The breaking down of national barriers can only be realized with the establishment of fraternal equality among nations. It cannot be realized under the slavery of German Nazism nor under U.S. imperialist domination and oppression. Rather the "merging of nations" will be realized through the uncompromising struggle of the proletariat and the working masses against national oppression in all its forms and through the overthrow of capitalism and imperialism and the establishment of socialism, without which any talk of genuine equality among nations is a fraud. Under socialism too, the nationalities will persist and indeed even flourish on the basis of fraternal equality. This has been borne out by the experience of the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin. It is the modern Soviet revisionists who have brutally introduced Russification, the national nihilist cosmopolitanism and the savage suppression and trampling on the national sentiments of the people as allegedly a step towards the single socialist people.
Social-Democratic Schematism of Mao Zedong Thought
Thus, on the one hand, there are those Chinese revisionist sects who have thrown the proletarian revolution and socialism overboard and advocate an alliance with the internal bourgeoisie under the pretext that the main struggle of the proletariat of the imperialist countries of the "second world" is for the national interests and against the two superpowers. On the other hand, there are those Chinese revisionist sects which defend the U.S. imperialists' exploitation and oppression of the working masses under the trotskyite demagogy that it is "social-chauvinism" for the proletariat to take up the struggle against this oppression as one of its banners in the socialist revolution. Whereas these two positions may appear on the surface to be opposites and mutually exclusive, in reality they are the same. Both are class collaborationist and capitulationist towards U.S. imperialist hegemony. To advocate class collaboration means necessarily to defend imperialist subjugation as well. Likewise, to condemn the struggle against imperialist oppression means to turn any talk of the class struggle and socialism into meaningless and impotent phrases, harmless to the bourgeois-imperialist order.
These complementary opportunist positions stem from the same anti-Marxist ideological roots. That is, they both flow from the social-democratic and revisionist dogmas of Mao Zedong Thought. In particular these positions are based on Mao's social-democratic schematism which creates an artificial Great Wall between the bourgeois democratic and the socialist revolution and which divides with a gaping chasm the democratic or anti-imperialist and the socialist tasks of the revolution.
It was this artificial barrier created by Mao that blocked the uninterrupted transition of the Chinese bourgeois democratic, anti-imperialist revolution into a socialist revolution. As the "RCP,USA" and other "defenders of Mao" themselves explain it, since China carried out a bourgeois democratic revolution it was, for this reason, fine for the capitalist parties to maintain positions within the state power and for the bourgeois classes to not be expropriated even decades after the liberation of China. These things are trumpeted as necessary and natural consequences of the bourgeois democratic character of China's liberation war. Furthermore, this is why on the question of the anti-imperialist and democratic revolutions of the oppressed peoples the Klonskyite "directors of the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism" of the "CPML," together with the "RCP,USA" and all the "three worldist" lackeys of Chinese revisionism, hurl abuse at the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists for allegedly "denying two-stage revolution," "combining two stages into one," and so forth and so on. This is also one of the major slanders which the Maoists reserve for the Party of Labor of Albania, which is supposedly "trotskyist" and "ultra-left" on this question as demonstrated by the fact that the anti-imperialist national liberation war of the Albanian people was transformed without interruption into a socialist revolution.
Regarding the advanced capitalist-imperialist countries of the so-called "second world" the Maoists have constructed the same kind of anti-Marxist Great Wall. As cited previously, Mao defined that "capitalist countries...in their external relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress other nations." (Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 219) Hence, either those capitalist countries which are oppressed by foreign imperialism are by definition no longer capitalist in character, or, by definition, the problem of foreign imperialist oppression is merely a figment of Stalin's or Enver Hoxha's imagination. In either case, the Marxist-Leninist perspective of the proletarian socialist revolution carrying through the anti-imperialist tasks of overthrowing U.S. imperialist oppression simply does not fit into the stereotyped formulas of Mao Zedong Thought. Hence within these imperialist states the national tasks in regard to the struggle against U.S. imperialist hegemony is detached from the socialist revolution. Either the struggle is reduced to national tasks and socialism is left by the wayside. Or the proletariat is prohibited from establishing its hegemony over the anti-imperialist struggle as a major link in the chain of the socialist revolution. Either way they both amount to the same strategy: submission to the bourgeoisie and surrender to world imperialism.
As we pointed out in our pamphlet Mao, Browder and Social-Democracy, on questions of the strategy of revolution the Chinese revisionists are social-democratic schematists; they "place the revolution into either 'purely bourgeois democratic stage' or 'purely socialist stage' compartments and then clamp down anti-Marxist-Leninist 'sacred laws' onto each stage: (a) that the bourgeois democratic revolution must be divided by a wall from the socialist revolution and therefore cannot and must not carry out any socialist tasks, nor can such a revolution be uninterruptedly carried through to the socialist stage; and (b) that the revolution cannot be socialist in character if it is still faced with democratic tasks, or to express the same 'sacred law' from the other side, the socialist revolution must be forbidden to carry out any tasks of a democratic or anti-imperialist nature. Such is the revisionist doctrinairism of Mao Zedong Thought." (p. 40)
Chinese Revisionism Is But a Current of the One Modern Revisionist Stream
Chinese revisionism, which is anti-Marxist-Leninist through and through, has its particular forms and theses which are peculiar unto itself. But in its essence, in its basic guiding ideology and strategy, it is indistinguishable from the other modern revisionist currents. Among other things, this is demonstrated by the close solidarity being demonstrated between the Chinese revisionists and their followers and the so-called Eurocommunists, the Italian, Spanish and other modern revisionist parties of Europe. On the cardinal question of the stand towards imperialism, the bourgeoisie and the socialist revolution, the Chinese revisionists and the Euro-revisionists share a common counter-revolutionary and social-democratic platform.
On the attitude towards one's "own" imperialism, just like the Chinese revisionists and their mouthpieces who whitewash the imperialist and neo-colonialist crimes of the "second world" imperialisms, the Euro-revisionists follow in the social-chauvinist footsteps of the heroes of the social- democratic Second International. For example, the French Communist Party did not wage a serious struggle in support of the Algerian war against French colonialism. This was a sign of something corrupt and unhealthy in the Party, of its vacillations and deviations towards submission to imperialism, and of its loss of revolutionary spirit. Later the Party degenerated into an utterly revisionist and social-imperialist party, that is, a Eurocommunist party. As such, it fully supports French neo-colonialism and is in brazen all-round national and social-chauvinist positions. The other Eurocommunist parties too abandoned any genuinely anti-imperialist positions long ago. They are enthusiasts of neo-colonialism and support both their own imperialism and world imperialism as a whole. They too have been in favor of "the unity of the second world and the third world" and have worked to realize this "unity" by extending the grip of European imperialism.
On this question Comrade Enver Hoxha pointed out in regard to the Euro-revisionists, in his new work Eurocommunism Is Anti-Communism, that:
"Not being for the revolution in their own countries, they are not for the revolution in other countries, either. They do not want the weakening of their imperialist and neo-colonialist bourgeoisie, therefore they can never see the revolution in the oppressed countries as a direct aid for the overthrow of the capitalist system. …
"Taken as a whole in their stand towards the revolutionary liberation movements the Eurocommunists have embraced the ideology of non-alignment, which is extremely convenient for them in order to justify the subjugation of peoples to the domination of imperialist powers and to proclaim neo-colonialism as a way for the former colonial countries to emerge from poverty and develop." (Proletarian Internationalism ed., p. 52) Thus it is clear that the whitewashing of neo-colonialism and imperialism is an objective which Chinese revisionism shares in common with the other revisionisms.
The Euro-revisionists have likewise completely abandoned the field of battle against U.S. imperialist domination. They favor and accept as the natural order of things NATO and all the other instruments of U.S. imperialist hegemony over Western Europe.
"The Eurocommunists do not want to see the existence of a major national problem, the question of American domination in Western Europe and the need for liberation from it. From the end of the Second World War down to this day, American imperialism has bound this part of Europe with all kinds of political, economic, military, cultural and other chains. Without breaking these chains you cannot have socialism....
"The Eurocommunists' denial of the existence of a national problem in their countries, concretely, the need to fight the American domination and dictate and to strengthen the national independence and sovereignty, is further proof of their political and ideological degeneration and their betrayal of the cause of revolution." (Enver Hoxha, Eurocommunism Is Anti-Communism, PI ed., p. 50)
On this question also the Chinese revisionists and the Euro-revisionists are in complete harmony. Both are in favor of the strengthening of NATO and U.S. imperialist hegemony in Europe in the name of "maintaining the balance of power" allegedly as a means of "preserving peace." Whether from the angle of the "danger of the Soviet threat" or from the angle of the open championing of national nihilism, the followers of Chinese revisionism have also thrown overboard the major problem of the struggle of the West European peoples against U.S. imperialist domination.
As to the class struggle against the bourgeoisie and the socialist revolution, both the Euro-revisionists and the Chinese revisionists are against these things. The strengthening of the capitalist monopolies of Europe through the European Common Market is their common objective. The "socialism" advocated by the Euro-revisionists is no more "socialist" than the reforms of the capitalist system advocated by social-democracy. The Euro-revisionists each advocate their own "national road to socialism." Each of these "socialisms" is to be realized through "structural reforms" and a series of minor adjustments in the status quo, reforms which all have the sole objective of rescuing from crisis and strengthening the man-eating capitalist system. But as for expropriating the bourgeoisie, destroying the capitalist- imperialist order to its foundations and building socialism as Marx and Lenin taught -- this is something that the various Euro-revisionist "roads to socialism" do not have on the agenda.
The non-socialist so-called "socialism" as prescribed by Mao Zedong Thought is another close relative to the "Italian," "French," and the other revisionist "socialisms," as well as to the "socialism" of their social-democratic brothers. Hence the common schemes for a pluralist society, the common protests that they do not have plans to expropriate the capitalist exploiters, except for maybe a small handful of families, and that only the "ultra-left," the "dogmatists" and "provocateurs" would even talk of depriving the bourgeois classes of their wealth and power. The "socialism" of modern revisionism means the maintenance of the bourgeoisie and capitalism.
Thus Chinese revisionism and Eurocommunism have taken up the same positions in glorifying neo-colonialism, in negating the struggle against the U.S. imperialist domination of Western Europe, Japan and Canada, and in advocating class collaboration with the bourgeoisie and that the bourgeoisie will march with the proletariat into a pluralist "socialism." This identity of views extends to other questions as well. Mao Zedong Thought and Eurocommunism meet on their common social-democratic platform.