First Published: June 1976.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
SEVERAL MONTHS AGO THE YENAN COLLECTIVE BEGAN AN IN-DEPTH STUDY OF THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER. THIS WAS PROMPTED BY WHAT APPEARED TO BE AN OPPORTUNIST TENDENCY IN THE GUARDIAN.
WE HAVE FOLLOWED CAREFULLY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GUARDIAN’S LINES ON THE CURRENT WORLD SITUATION, THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC), NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS, AND THEIR COVERAGE OF THE POLITICAL LINES OF MARXIST-LENINISTS IN THE U.S. AROUND QUESTIONS LIKE ANGOLA. WE HAVE ATTENDED FORUMS BY IRWIN SILBER, THE MAJOR SPOKESMAN FOR THE GUARDIAN, TALKED WITH PEOPLE WHO USE YENAN BOOKSTORE ABOUT THE GUARDIAN, AND CLOSELY WATCHED HOW THE GUARDIAN HANDLES CONTRADICTIONS WITH VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE U.S.
IT IS NOW VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT WERE OPPORTUNIST TENDENCIES IN THE GUARDIAN ARE NOW A FULLY CONSOLIDATED REVISIONIST TREND. THE GUARDIAN CONSISTENTLY PUTS FORWARD A REVISIONIST ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENT WORLD SITUATION, DISTORST THE VIEWS AND ROLE OF THE PRC, AND GIVES ONE-SIDED AND OFTEN INACCURATE COVERAGE OF NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS.
IN ESSENCE, THE GUARDIAN HAS ALIGNED ITSELF WITH THE REVISIONISTS, TROTSKYISTS, AND OTHER COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES THE WORLD OVER. CLEARLY, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO THROW THE GUARDIAN OUT OF YENAN BOOKSTORE. IN DOING SO, WE ARE DISTRIBUTING THIS POLEMIC SO THAT OUR VIEWS WILL BE UNDERSTOOD.
BEFORE DISCUSSING THE GUARDIAN’S LINE ON THE CURRENT WORLD SITUATION AND CONTRASTING THAT VIEW WITH THE MARXIST-LENINIST ANALYSIS, IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE EXAMINE THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORLD SINCE WORLD WAR II.
DURING THE COURSE OF WORLD WAR II, THE PROLETARIAT MADE GIGANTIC STRIDES WORLDWIDE. IN THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE WAR, A SOCIALIST CAMP HAD EMERGED, A BASTION FOR THE PROLETARIAT AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. THE SOCIALIST CAMP, HEADED BY THE USSR, WAS A GREAT BASE AREA FOR THE WORLD REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.
BUT ANOTHER CAMP ALSO DEVELOPED, AS THE U.S. IMPERIALISTS AND THEIR LACKEYS TRIED TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE GERMAN, ITALIAN, AND JAPANESE FASCISTS. THEY ALSO ATTEMPTED TO SUPPLANT THEIR WEAKER FORMER ALLIES, GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE. THE U.S. MONOPOLY CAPITALISTS WANTED TO DOMINATE THE INTERMEDIATE ZONES BETWEEN THE SOCIALIST CAMP AND THE U.S.. THEY TRIED TO SUPPRESS THE REVOLUTIONS OF OPPRESSED PEOPLES AND NATIONS EVERYWHERE AND TO DESTROY THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES USING COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY DUAL TACTICS (VIOLENCE AND DECEPTION). AT HOME THEY VIGOROUSLY SUPPRESSED THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT WHILE THEY CONTINUED TO OPPRESS THE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS, IN PARTICULAR THE OPPRESSED NATIONALITIES.
THEREFORE, IT WAS THE DUTY OF MARXIST-LENINISTS TO DEFEND THE WHOLE SOCIALIST CAMP AND RESOLUTELY STRUGGLE AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM, THE MAIN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD.
BUT BY THE MID 1950’s A CRACK HAD BEGUN TO DEVELOP IN THE UNITY OF THE SOCIALIST CAMP. THIS WAS DUE TO THE RAPID RISE OF MODERN REVISIONISM. THE FIRST EXAMPLES OF MODERN REVISIONISM WERE BROWDERISM IN THE CPUSA[1] AND TITOISM IN YUGOSLAVIA, WHERE IT FIRST TOOK STATE POWER.
TITO’S REVISIONIST REGIME, HEAVILY COURTED BY U.S. IMPERIALISM, DECLARED MARXISM-LENINISM OUTMODED AND SET ABOUT REVERSING SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY. IN THE EARLY 1950’s, UNDER THE SMOKESCREEN OF “WORKER’S SELF-GOVERNMENT,” UNIFIED ECONOMIC PLANNING WAS SCUTTLED. THE MANAGEMENT GROUPS OF INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISES WERE GIVEN THE “FREEDOM” TO BUY AND SELL RAW MATERIALS AND FINISHED PRODUCTS AT HOME AND ABROAD. THEY WERE ALSO “FREE” TO HIRE AND FIRE WORKERS AND SET PRODUCTION SCHEDULES – PROFITABILITY WAS RECOGNIZED AS THE PRIMARY INCENTIVE IN THE OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC UNITS.
BANK CREDITS WERE AWARDED TO ENTERPRISES ON THE BASIS OF THE HIGHEST RETURN OF INTEREST IN THE SHORTEST PERIOD OF TIME. ACCORDING TO YUGOSLAV SOURCES[2], SOME MANAGERIAL GROUPS AWARDED THEMSELVES BONUSES OFTEN 40 TIMES GREATER THAN THOSE OF THE WORKERS. IN RECENT YEARS BETWEEN 500 AND 600 ENTERPRISES CLOSED DOWN ANNUALLY.
IN SHORT, ALL THIS RESULTED IN FIERCE COMPETITION FOR PROFIT AND ANARCHY IN PRODUCTION–CAPITALISM.
YUGOSLAVIA BECAME AN OUTLET FOR IMPERIALIST INVESTMENT, OFFERING CHEAP LABOR AND RAW MATERIALS; MANY WESTERN ASSEMBLY PLANTS WERE BUILT. THUS, YUGOSLAVIA BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORLD MARKET OF WESTERN MONOPOLY CAPITAL AND DEGENERATED INTO A DEPENDENT RELATIONSHIP TO IMPERIALISM, PARTICULARLY U.S. IMPERIALISM. IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1945-63, IT RECEIVED OVER $5.5 BILLION FROM IMPERIALIST SOURCES, THE BULK OF IT AFTER 1950 FROM THE U.S.
IN 1948 THE INFORMATION BUREAU REPRESENTING THE COMBINED ASSESSMENT OF 81 COMMUNIST GOVERNMENTS AND PARTIES DENOUNCED THE RISE OF REVISIONISM IN THE YUGOSLAV PARTY, AND THE TITO CLIQUE SEVERED ITS RELATIONS WITH THE SOCIALIST CAMP. IN ONLY FOUR YEARS (1948-52), OVER 200,000 CADRE WERE PURGED FROM THE YUGOSLAV COMMUNIST PARTY AS SO-CALLED “COMINFORM ELEMENTS”, AND MANY THOUSANDS WERE IMPRISONED AND SLAUGHTERED.
ON JULY 10, 1949, DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE IN GREECE, TITO CLOSED THE YUGOSLAV-GREEK BORDER. THIS CUT OFF AN IMPORTANT REAR AREA FOR THE GREEK GUERRILLAS; AT THE SAME TIME, HE ALLOWED THE FASCIST ROYALIST TROOPS TO PASS THROUGH YUGOSLAV TERRITORY TO ATTACK THE GUERRILLAS FROM THE REAR.
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1950, THE TITO CLIQUE ATTACKED CHINA IN THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL FOR PERFORMING ITS INTERNATIONALIST DUTY IN THE KOREAN WAR. THEY ALSO VOTED FOR THE EMBARGO OF KOREA AND CHINA IN THE UN.
THE YUGOSLAVS ACTIVELY PROMOTED THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY REBELLION IN HUNGARY IN 1956; WHEN IT FAILED, THEY GAVE ITS LEADER NAGY ASYLUM IN THEIR EMBASSY IN HUNGARY. AGAIN IN 1958, IN THE FACE OF WORLDWIDE PROTEST AGAINST THE INVASION OF LEBANON BY U.S. AND BRITISH IMPERIALIST TROOPS, THE TITO REGIME REFUSED TO CONDEMN THE ACTION AND INSTEAD CALLED FOR INTERVENTION BY THE UN, AT THAT TIME A U.S. CONTROLLED ORGANIZATION.
FINALLY, IN THE SUMMER OF 1960, U.S. IMPERIALISM CARRIED OUT ARMED AGGRESSION IN THE CONGO UNDER THE FLAG OF THE UN. THE TITO CLIQUE NOT ONLY VOTED FOR INTERVENTION, IT SENT AIR FORCE PERSONNEL TO TAKE PART IN THE BLOODY SUPPRESSION OF THE CONGOLESE PEOPLE AND THE MURDER OF THEIR LEADER, PATRICE LUMUMBA.
JUST AS THE OLD OPPORTUNISTS AND REVISIONISTS FROM THE CAMP OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY WERE TURNED INTO LACKEYS AND ALLIES OF IMPERIALISM, SO THE MODERN REVISIONISTS OF THE LEAGUE OF COMMUNISTS LED BY TITO BECAME A TROJAN HORSE IN THE SOCIALIST CAMP AND A SPECIAL COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY DETACHMENT OF U.S. IMPERIALISM.
IN 1955 NIKITA KHRUSHCHOV, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION AND OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF MANY PARTIES, MADE A STATE VISIT TO BELGRADE, THE CAPITAL OF YUGOSLAVIA. HE PUBLICLY DECLARED THAT “GRAVE ERRORS HAD BEEN COMMITTED AGAINST THE YUGOSLAV PARTY AND ITS LEADERSHIP” (THE HISTORY OF THE PLA, P. 397). HE ALSO STATED HIS AGREEMENT WITH YUGOSLAVIA’S POLICY OF COOPERATION WITH WESTERN COUNTRIES, AS WELL AS THEIR “CREATIVE” APPLICATION OF MARXISM.
IN FOLLOWING YEARS KHRUSHCHOV TRIED AGAIN AND AGAIN TO FORCE VARIOUS SOCIALIST COUNTRIES AND PARTIES TO DROP THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE REHABILITATION OF THE TITO CLIQUE. THIS WAS IN SPITE OF THE YUGOSLAV REFUSAL TO UNITE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE 1957 AND 1960 MOSCOW DECLARATION AND STATEMENT OF 81 COMMUNIST AND WORKERS’ PARTIES. THE DECLARATION AND STATEMENT RECOGNIZED THAT REVISIONISM AND RIGHT OPPORTUNISM WERE THE PRINCIPAL DANGERS TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT. THEY ALSO CLARIFIED THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SOURCES OF REVISIONISM–BOURGEOIS INFLUENCE INTERNALLY AND CAPITULATION TO IMPERIALIST PRESSURE EXTERNALLY.[3]
THE RAPID RISE OF MODERN REVISIONISM WAS GIVEN A TREMENDOUS BOOST FORWARD BY THE 20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU IN 1956, WHERE THE GREAT MARXIST-LENINIST J.V. STALIN WAS ATTACKED AND SLANDERED BY THE KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE. UNDER THE GUISE OF “CRITICIZING” STALIN AND THE “CULT OF PERSONALITY,” KHRUSHCHOV OBJECTIVELY ATTACKED THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AND V.I. LENIN. IN THE WAKE OF THIS CONGRESS, KNOWN ANTI-PARTY ELEMENTS AROUND THE WORLD WERE REHABILITATED WHILE GENUINE MARXIST-LENINISTS WHO OPPOSED REVISIONISM WERE PURGED. THIS WAS TRUE IN THE SOVIET UNION WHERE, IN THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE ALONE, OVER 70% OF ITS MEMBERS WERE PURGED BETWEEN THE 19TH AND 22ND PARTY CONGRESSES (1951-61)[4].
THE FIRST MAJOR STRUGGLE WITHIN THE SOCIALIST CAMP WAS OVER THE RELATIONS OF THE CAMP TO THE REVISIONIST TITO AND YUGOSLAVIA. THE KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE BEGAN TO PREPARE THE GROUND TO ATTACK MARXISM-LENINISM AND TO COLLABORATE WITH U.S. IMPERIALISM BY ATTEMPTING TO REHABILITATE TITO, WHOSE SUCCESSES IN RESTORING CAPITALISM THEY DEEPLY ADMIRED. UNABLE TO OPENLY BRING HIM BACK INTO THE CAMP, KHRUSHCHOV ADOPTED VACILLATING AND CONFUSING TACTICS. THE HISTORY OF THE PLA DESCRIBES HIS ACTIONS THIS WAY:
Khrushchov’s policy had a demagogical, eclectic and contradictory character–a feature of every kind of revisionism...On one occasion he would praise Tito and the Yugoslav experience to the skies, on another he would call the Yugoslav revisionists ’the Trojan Horse’ and Tito a person ’who is out of step with the rest of the platoon.’ Likewise, he felt obligated to half-heartedly condemn the anti-Marxist program of the Yugoslav League of Communists. In this way, the Khrushchov group went down the road to revisionism, trying to confuse the minds of the people, jumping from opportunism to adventurism and vice versa, while preparing the final stab in the back of the socialist camp and the international communist movement. (History of PLA, pp. 449-50)
AT THE SAME TIME, KHRUSHCHOV AND HIS CRONIES LAUNCHED AN ATTACK AGAINST THE CPC, THE MAIN OPPONENT OF HIS REVISIONISM. IN 1960 THEY TURNED A CONFERENCE OSTENSIBLY FOR THE SETTING OF THE DATE AND PLACE FOR A MEETING OF THE WORLD’S COMMUNIST AND WORKERS’ PARTIES INTO A SLANDEROUS ATTACK ON THE CPC (WITHOUT FORE-WARNING TO THE CHINESE AND MANY OTHER DELEGATIONS). KHRUSHCHOV ATTEMPTED TO HAVE THE CCP AND CHINA EXPELLED FROM THE SOCIALIST CAMP. BUT THE CPSU WAS DEFEATED IN THIS ATTEMPT, THOUGH IT CONTINUED TO ATTACK MARXISM IN THE USSR AND THE CHINESE AND ALBANIANS.
AS EARLY AS 1955, KHRUSHCHOV BEGAN TO PROPAGATE THE REVISIONIST NOTION OF “PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE” WITH IMPERIALISM. THE CHINESE POINTED OUT IN REFUTING KHRUSHCHOV’S VERSION OF THIS PRINCIPLE THAT, ALTHOUGH PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IS NECESSARY BETWEEN COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT SOCIAL SYSTEMS, “IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE ’ALL-ROUND COOPERATION’ BETWEEN SOCIALIST AND CAPITALIST COUNTRIES.” EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY NOTED THAT, “PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE CANNOT REPLACE THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLES OF THE PEOPLE.”[5]
IT WAS AT THE 22ND CONGRESS OF THE CPSU THAT THE KHRUSHCHOVITE CLIQUE TURNED THE GREAT PARTY OF THE SOVIET PROLETARIAT INTO ITS OPPOSITE, INTO A PARTY OF THE NEW BOURGEOISIE. CUTTING THE HEART OUT OF MARXISM, KHRUSHCHOV ADVANCED THE “3 PEACEFULS”–”PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, COMPETITION, AND TRANSITION.” THESE MEANT PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE WITH IMPERIALISM TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLES OF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE, PEACEFUL COMPETITION BETWEEN SOCIALIST AND CAPITALIST STATES TO REPLACE PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALIST AID TO REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLES, AND PEACEFUL TRANSITION FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM, DENYING THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE NECESSITY OF ARMED STRUGGLE.
THE NEW TSARS ALSO PUT FORWARD THAT THERE, “ARE NO LONGER ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE IN THE SOVIET UNION,” AND THAT, “THE MAIN WORK OF THE PARTY ORGANS IS PRODUCTION.”[6] THE REVISIONISTS FIRST DENIED THE CLASS NATURE OF THE PARTY, FOR, AS THE CHINESE HAVE CORRECTLY SAID,
The class struggle in socialist society is inevitably reflected in the Communist Party. The bourgeoisie and international imperialism both understand that in order to make a socialist country degenerate into a capitalist country, it is first necessary to make the Communist Party degenerate into a revisionist party. (“On Khrushchov’s Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World”, FLP, p. 9)
ALONG WITH THE “PARTY OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE,” THE NEW BOURGEOISIE “ELIMINATED” THE CLASS NATURE OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT; THE STATE BECAME “A STATE OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE.” MARXISTS UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE IS ALWAYS A WEAPON OF CLASS STRUGGLE AND THAT THE KEY LIES IN WHO CONTROLS THE STATE–THE PROLETARIAT OR THE BOURGEOISIE.
Every state is the dictatorship of a definite class. So long as the state exists, it cannot possibly stand above class or belong to the whole people...The formula of abolishing the dictatorship of the proletariat while keeping a state of the whole people reveals the secret of the revisionist Khrushchov clique; that is, they are firmly opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat but will not give up state power till their doom. The revisionist Khrushchov clique know the paramount importance of controlling state power. They need the state machinery for repressing the Soviet working people and the Marxist-Leninists. They need it for clearing the way for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. These are Khrushchov’s real aims in raising the banner of the ’state of the whole people’ and ’democracy for the whole people.’ (Ibid. , pp. 34 & 43)
WITH THE CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF THE STATE CAME CHANGES IN THE WHOLE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ORDER OF THE USSR. AS THE PLA HAS POINTED OUT,
Between politics and the economy, the superstructure and the base, there is a dialectical relationship. Politics is not simply and only a product of the economy, but it plays an active role, and generally, in each country, defines the very fate, the road of development, of the economy and the whole social order. (“About Some Actual Problems of the Struggle Against Modern Revisionism.,” Fiqret Shehy)
USING ITS REVISIONIST THEORIES AS ITS PREMISES, THE NEW BOURGEOISIE BEGAN TO CONSOLIDATE POWER IN THE USSR. THE PARTY WAS DIVIDED INTO “INDUSTRIAL” AND “AGRICULTURAL” SEGMENTS, CADRE WERE “ROTATED” OUT OF THE FACTORIES, AND GENUINE MARXIST-LENINISTS WERE PURGED AT ALL LEVELS OF THE PARTY. THE EFFECT OF THESE MOVES WAS TO CONSOLIDATE THE KHRUSHCHOVITE CLIQUE’S POSITION IN THE PARTY AND ELIMINATING OPPOSITION. THOSE WHO ATTEMPTED TO FIGHT THE REVISIONISTS’ THESES WERE PURGED UNDER THE GUISE OF COMBATTING “STALINISM.” THE DOORS TO THE PARTY WERE THROWN OPEN TO MANAGERS AND BUREAUCRATS WHO WERE EXPLICITY TOLD TO PUT PRODUCTION AHEAD OF POLITICS.
CENTRAL PLANNING HAD BEEN ABOLISHED IN 1957, IN THE INTERESTS OF “DECENTRALIZATION.” LIKE TITO’S EARLIER “WORKER’S SELF-GOVERNMENT” SCHEME, THIS EFFECTIVELY ABOLISHED SOCIALIST PLANNING, LED TO BLACKMARKETING, AND COMPETITION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISES. AFTER NEARLY FORTY YEARS, ANARCHY OF PRODUCTION RETURNED TO THE SOVIET UNION.
IN AGRICULTURE KHRUSHCHOV REVERSED THE DIRECTION OF SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION BY SELLING THE STATE-OWNED MACHINE AND TRACTOR STATIONS TO THE INDIVIDUAL COLLECTIVE FARMS. SMALL PRODUCTION IN THE COUNTRYSIDE WAS ENCOURAGED BY ALLOWING PEASANTS TO FARM THEIR OWN PLOTS AND TO SELL THE PRODUCE AS BEST THEY COULD FOR THE BEST POSSIBLE PRICE.
MATERIAL INCENTIVES WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE ECONOMY AND A PRIVILEGED CLASS OF MANAGERS, BUREAUCRATS, AND PARTY FUNCTIONARIES EMERGED. ONCE AGAIN THE SOVIET WORKING CLASS WAS FORCED TO SELL ITS LABOR TO A PRIVILEGED CLASS, A BOURGEOISIE WHICH, BECAUSE IT CONTROLLED THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, WAS ABLE TO EXPROPRIATE THE SURPLUS VALUE OF THE PROLETARIAT’S LABOR FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT.[7]
SINCE CAPITALIST PROPERTY IN THE USSR WAS BORN AND CREATED AS THE RESULT OF THE DEGENERATION OF SOCIALIST STATE PROPERTY, IT DEVELOPED AS STATE MONOPOLY CAPITALISM.
Just as the financial oligarchy is the true owner of the state capitalist enterprises and with the assistance of the capitalist state exploits the working class, so, too, the new Soviet bourgeoisie is the true owner of the Soviet state enterprises and with the assistance of the state exploits the working class and the whole Soviet people. (“Some Questions of Socialist Construction in Albania and of the Struggle Against Revisionism”.)
ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS OF ACTUALLY RESTORING CAPITALISM IN THE USSR WAS NOT COMPLETED OVERNIGHT, WITH THE PROGRAMME OF THE 22ND CONGRESS, COMMUNISTS AROUND THE WORLD KNEW WHAT LAY AHEAD FOR THE SOVIET PEOPLE. YET COMMUNISTS, ESPECIALLY THE CPC AND PLA, CONTINUED TO STRUGGLE WITH THE CPSU AND ITS REVISIONIST LINE.
THE KHRUSHCHOV RENEGADES, HOWEVER, TRIED TO BULLY OTHER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES INTO ACCEPTING THE REVISIONIST PROGRAMME OF THE 22ND CONGRESS AS THEIR OWN. THE SOVIET UNION WITHDREW ALL FORMS OF AID FROM THOSE COUNTRIES THAT REFUSED THE REVISIONISTS’ PROGRAMME. ALBANIA AND CHINA BORE THE BRUNT OF THESE ATTACKS.
IN 1960 THE SOVIETS WITHDREW ALL ECONOMIC AID AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL FROM CHINA. THIS PARTICULARLY AFFECTED HEAVY INDUSTRY. 150 INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION USING SOVIET ADVISORS, EQUIPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY. IN THE SPACE OF ONE MONTH, ALL CONSTRUCTION ON THESE SITES STOPPED, THE SOVIET TECHNICIANS TOOK ALL THE BLUEPRINTS WITH THEM AND NO MORE SUPPLIES OR EQUIPMENT WERE PROVIDED. THE WITHDRAWAL OF THIS AID CAME AT A TIME WHEN CHINA FACED MASSIVE CROP FAILURE, DUE TO NATURAL DISASTERS SOCH AS FLOOD AND DROUGHT. IN 1961, 85% OF THE CULTIVATED LAND WAS SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY NATURAL DISASTER. THE REVISIONISTS REFUSED AID TO HELP MEET THESE CALAMITIES.[8]
THE ALBANIANS ALSO FACED HEAVY REPRISALS FOR THEIR OPPOSITION TO REVISIONISM. THE USSR CUT OFF ALL COMMERCIAL, TECHNICAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL RELATIONS WITH ALBANIA IN 1961. THIS WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A LETTER WHICH STATED THAT ALBANIA, “COULD NO LONGER HOPE TO GET AID FROM THE SOVIET UNION ON THE FORMER BASIS (INTERNATIONALIST AID TO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES – YC), FOR ONLY FRIENDS AND BROTHERS WERE ENTITLED TO THAT AID.”[9] RAISING IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES TO THE LEVEL OF STATE TO STATE RELATIONS, THE SOVIET REVISIONISTS CANCELLED ALL MILITARY AND ECONOMIC AID AND EVEN EXPELLED ALBANIA FROM THE WARSAW TREATY, A SERIOUS BLOW TO THE SECURITY OF SOCIALIST ALBANIA.
BUT CHINA AND ALBANIA STOOD FIRM. THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE PLA SAID AT THE TIME,
The struggle that has been imposed upon our Party and people will be long and difficult, but difficulties have never frightened our Party and people. (“History of the PLA”, p. 500)
IT WASN’T EASY FOR THE KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE TO RESTORE CAPITALISM IN THE SOVIET UNION, NOR WAS IT EASY FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO WAVE THE RED FLAG INTERNATIONALLY WHILE PUSHING THEIR REVISIONIST THEORIES. AT HOME, THE HEROIC SOVIET PEOPLE RESISTED THE BETRAYAL OF THE PROLETARIAN STATE. AND, INTERNATIONALLY, CHINA AND ALBANIA RIGOROUSLY DEFENDED MARXISM-LENINISM, REVEALING THE TRUE COLORS OF THE NEW TZARS. THESE WERE THE TWO PRIMARY FACTORS THAT FORCED THE NEW BOURGEOIS RULING CLASS TO IMPOSE A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP OF THE HITLER TYPE.
BY FASCISM WE MEAN,
...a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie– bourgeois democracy (deception as its main aspect – YC) – by another form – open terrorist dictatorship (violence as its main aspect – YC).
THIS IS
...the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital. (emphasis added) (United Front by Dimitroff)
BY HITLER TYPE FASCISM WE MEAN THE SAME TYPE AS HITLER’S “NATIONAL SOCIALISM” IN GERMANY DURING THE ’30’s AND ’4O’s. THIS VARIETY IS THE MOST REACTIONARY TYPE AND ACTS “...AS THE SPEARHEAD OF INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-REVOLUTION, AND THE CHIEF INSTIGATOR OF IMPERIALIST WAR...” [10]
AT HOME THE SOVIET REVISIONISTS ARE “MORBIDLY AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE AND CAN ONLY RELY ON THE MOST BARBAROUS FASCIST DICTATORSHIP TO BUTTRESS UP ITS REACTIONARY RULE.” (PEKING REVIEW) IT HAS THROWN OVER ONE MILLION SOVIET WORKERS AND PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THE REGIME INTO “LABOR REFORM CAMPS,” AND THE NUMBER IS GROWING RAPIDLY. THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THESE CONCENTRATION CAMPS ARE POLITICAL AND/OR NATIONAL MINORITY PRISONERS. ALL FORMS OF PHYSICAL AND MENTAL TORTURES ARE USED.
AS A FORMER INMATE SAID,
...they (prisoners) are sent back to society physical and moral cripples. This is the result of deliberate penal policy, worked out by experts... with cynicism worthy of the concentration camps of the Third Reich. (Peking Review)
THIS IS THE MOST REACTIONARY FORM OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE.
SIMULTANEOUSLY, BREZHNEV AND CO. HAVE STEPPED UP NATIONAL OPPRESSION, A GOOD EXAMPLE BEING MONGOLIA. THE SCHOOLS THERE ARE DOMINATED BY RUSSIAN TEXTS AND LANGUAGE. MONGOLIAN NATIONAL CULTURE IS RUTHLESSLY SUPPRESSED, AND THE POPULAR MEDIA, SUCH AS NEWSPAPERS AND FILMS ARE CONTROLLED BY THE OPPRESSOR NATION.
OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS, THE SOVIET UNION MASQUERADES AS A SOCIALIST COUNTRY, THE “FRATERNAL ALLY” OF NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS. AND, NOT BEING THOROUGHLY EXPOSED AS AN IMPERIALIST SUPERPOWER, IT CONTINUES TO BRANDISH ITS “SIGN BOARD OF SOCIALISM”, AND THE “INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOR” TO PLUNDER THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD.
THIS TRANSITION, FROM A SOCIALIST COUNTRY PLAYING THE LEADING ROLE IN THE SOCIALIST CAMP, INTO A FASCIST SOCIAL IMPERIALIST SUPERPOWER VYING WITH THE US IMPERIALISTS, HAS BROUGHT ABOUT DRASTIC CHANGE IN THE WORLD SITUATION. DUE TO THE EMERGENCE OF THE SOCIAL IMPERIALISTS AND THEIR EFFORTS TO SWALLOW THE SMALLER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES, THE SOCIALIST CAMP DISINTEGRATED. AND DUE TO THE LAW OF UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM, THE WESTERN IMPERIALIST BLOC ALSO BEGAN TO FALL APART.
THESE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES HAVE CREATED THE SITUATION WHERE OBJECTIVELY THERE ARE NOW THREE WORLDS, WHICH ARE AT ONCE INTERCONNECTED AND IN CONTRADICTION WITH ONE ANOTHER. THE TWO IMPERIALIST SUPERPOWERS, THE US AND THE USSR, MAKE UP THE FIRST WORLD. THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES OF ASIA, AFRICA AND LATIN AMERICA AND OTHER REGIONS COMPRISE THE THIRD WORLD. THOSE COUNTRIES ALREADY DEVELOPED INTO CAPITALIST STATES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THIRD WORLDS CONSTITUTE THE SECOND WORLD. THESE INCLUDE THE EASTERN EUROPEAN SATELLITES OF THE USSR.
THE FIRST WORLD IS IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE SECOND AND PARTICULARLY WITH THE THIRD WORLD. AT THE SAME TIME, THE TWO SUPERPOWERS ARE IN CONTRADICTION WITH EACH OTHER AS THEY INVARIABLY CONTEND FOR HEGEMONY.
IMPERIALISTS ALWAYS STRIVE TO DOMINATE BROAD SECTIONS OF THE WORLD. BUT, FOR A PERIOD AFTER THE EMERGENCE OF THE SOVIET UNION AS AN IMPERIALIST POWER, IT WAS IN NO POSITION TO DIRECTLY CHALLENGE POWERFUL US IMPERIALISM FOR WORLD HEGEMONY. SO SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISM AT FIRST COLLUDED WITH US IMPERIALISM TO BIDE ITS TIME UNTIL ITS CHANCE CAME TO MAKE AN OPEN BID FOR SECTIONS OF THE US EMPIRE.
NOW, WITH THE STRATEGIC DEFEAT OF US IMPERIALISM AT THE HANDS OF THE INDO-CHINESE PEOPLE, THE US LIES WEAKENED AND CLEARLY EXPOSED TO THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD AS A REACTIONARY FORCE. THIS BY NO MEANS IMPLIES THAT US IMPERIALISM WILL DIE PEACEFULLY. IT MUST BE DEALT HAMMER BLOWS BEFORE IT WILL FALL. BUT THE SOVIET UNION IS A RISING SUPERPOWER AND IS NOW AGGRESSIVELY EXPANDING IN AN EFFORT TO REPLACE US IMPERIALISM AS THE PRINCIPLE EXPLOITER OF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE. IT REPRESENTS THE MAIN DANGER OF A NEW WORLD WAR.
WHEN EXAMINING THE GUARDIAN’S LINE, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE GET TO THE ESSENCE OF THAT LINE AND SEE THE FORM IN WHICH IT IS CONCEALED. TO DO THIS, WE MUST LOOK AT IT OVERALL AND CLOSE-UP.
THE GUARDIAN’S WORLD ANALYSIS OVERALL IS AN ECLECTIC PATCHWORK QUILT – AN EFFORT TO SEW TOGETHER TWO WORLD VIEWS, A REVISIONIST VIEW AND A MARXIST-LENINIST ONE. SUCH A SHODDY CREATION IS REALLY ONLY A COVER FOR REVISIONISM.
THIS FORM – THIS PATCHWORK – IS A BORROWED DESIGN, A PATTERN WITH A “HERITAGE.” IT HAS BEEN PASSED DOWN FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION AMONG ALL OPPORTUNISTS AND REVISIONISTS FROM KAUTSKY TO KHRUSHCHOV.
THE GUARDIAN’S VERSION, PUT FORWARD IN THE “WHOLE” LAST JANUARY 7, IN THE “NEW YEAR’S OUTLOOK,” DOES HAVE AN APPEAL FOR CERTAIN ELEMENTS, PEOPLE WHO CAN PLAY A PROGRESSIVE ROLE IN THE PROLETARIAT’S STRUGGLES AGAINST IMPERIALISM AND FOR SOCIALIST REVOLUTION. THESE FORCES INCLUDE THOSE WHO ARE STILL NOT CONVINCED OF THE RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM IN THE USSR, BUT WHO HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED SOME OF THE TREACHEROUS DEEDS OF THE USSR IN THE PAST DECADE. THEY ALSO INCLUDE PETTY BOURGEOIS INTELLECTUALS WHO FEAR REVOLUTION AND HAVE A DISDAIN FOR THE SCIENCE OF MARXISM-LENINISM. FOR THESE FORCES, THE GUARDIAN’S PATCHWORK IS A COMFORTER.
BUT THE REAL ROLE OF THE GUARDIAN’S LINE, ITS OBJECTIVE FUNCTION, IS A COVER FOR THE REVISIONISTS AND THE OPPORTUNISTS WHO WOULD APOLOGIZE FOR SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISM.
LET’S EXAMINE THE GUARDIAN’S LINE.
IN THE CURRENT WORLD SITUATION, ACCORDING TO THE GUARDIAN, U.S. IMPERIALISM “STANDS FULLY REVEALED AS THE NUMBER ONE ENEMY OF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE.” U.S. IMPERIALISM IS THE, “MOST ACTIVE FORCE IN THE WORLD OPPOSING THE PEOPLE’S LIBERATION STRUGGLES,” THOUGH, “SETBACKS TO U.S. IMPERIALISM HAVE BEEN GLOBAL,” AND IT IS A “WEAK AND DYING SYSTEM.” “BUT,” THEY CONTINUE,
The U.S. does not stand alone in the world as an imperialist superpower. A new and dangerous force...Soviet social imperialism, has reversed the socialist path of the peoples of the USSR and is in the process of restoring capitalism and building its own worldwide imperialist network...
While the struggle against U.S. imperialism continues to be the main aspect of the revolutionary tide, the defence of national sovereignty by all peoples requires constant vigilance against both superpowers...The struggle to prevent a third world war must be based primarily on deepening and intensifying the struggle against all forms of imperialism by promoting genuine national independence and by opposing all strategies of ’limited sovereignty’ whether in the form of blatant colonialist intervention by U.S. military power or in the guise of ’defending socialism’ by Soviet abrogations of the rights of nations.
This is the real content of the worldwide United Front against the two superpowers which all U.S. communists have the responsibility to aid in building.
The working out of this strategy in practice imposes serious obligations on all genuine anti-imperialist and left forces in the U.S...For them, there can be no wavering or hesitation in singling out the principal target–the U.S. monopoly capitalists. (emphasis ours) “New Year’s Outlook,” GUARDIAN, Jan. 7, 1976
WE CAN GLEAN THE FOLLOWING POINTS FROM THE GUARDIAN’S ANALYSIS: CAPITALISM IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING RESTORED IN THE USSR; THE PRINCIPAL ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD IS U.S. IMPERIALISM–SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISM IS A SECONDARY DANGER.
THE GUARDIAN HAS BEEN VERY CAREFUL IN CONSTRUCTING THIS VIEW OF THE WORLD. FIRST, IT MUDDLES THE NATURE OF THE SOVIET STATE AND ECONOMY, WHILE “RECOGNIZING” CERTAIN ASPECTS OF ITS DESPICABLE ROLE IN THE WORLD THIS PAST DECADE. SECONDLY, THE GUARDIAN OVERLOOKS THE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED WORLDWIDE SINCE THE 1960’S. IT IGNORES THE BREAKUP OF BOTH THE SOCIALIST AND CAPITALIST CAMPS, AND THE DEVELOPMENT, AS A CONSEQUENCE, OF THREE WORLDS.
FINALLY, THE GUARDIAN CONFUSES THE “REAL CONTENT” OF A UNITED FRONT IN THE CURRENT SITUATION. BY POINTING TO U.S. IMPERIALISM AS THE “NUMBER ONE ENEMY,” AND THE “PRINCIPAL TARGET,” YET SOFTLY PUTTING FORWARD A CALL FOR A UNITED FRONT AGAINST THE TWO SUPERPOWERS, THE GUARDIAN LEAVES ITSELF ROOM FOR CONCILLIATION WITH SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISM.
LET US TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE GUARDIAN’S LINE.
WE MUST BEGIN BY ASKING THESE QUESTIONS: IF THE SOVIET UNION IS NO LONGER SOCIALIST, YET CAPITALISM HAS NOT BEEN FULLY RESTORED THERE, THEN WHAT IS THE CHARACTER OF THE SOVIET STATE AND ECONOMY? IS THE USSR NEITHER SOCIALIST NOR CAPITALIST–IS IT IN A STATE OF LIMBO? AND HAS THIS BEEN THE CASE FOR FIFTEEN YEARS?!
IRWIN SILBER WAS ASKED SIMILAR QUESTIONS AT A FORUM HELD RECENTLY AT LANEY COLLEGE IN OAKLAND. DURING THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD, CAREFULLY CONTROLLED BY SILBER TO AVOID ANY MEANINGFUL DEBATE, HE SAID THAT WITHIN THE SOVIET UNION THERE IS A BOURGEOISIE, AND, IN FACT, THE BOURGEOISIE HOLDS STATE POWER. BUT, HE SAID, THEIR POWER HAS NOT YET BEEN “FULLY CONSOLIDATED.” HE ALSO SAID THERE ARE CAPITALIST RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION IN THE USSR, AND THAT AT CERTAIN TIMES THE SOVIET UNION ACTS AS AN IMPERIALIST POWER.
BY ADMITTING THAT WITHIN THE SOVIET UNION THERE ARE CAPITALIST RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION, IN ESSENCE SILBER SAYS THAT THERE IS A CLASS OF LABORERS WHO ARE FORCED TO SELL THEIR LABOR AS A COMMODITY TO A BOURGEOISIE. THE BOURGEOISIE, BECAUSE IT CONTROLS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, IS ABLE TO EXPROPRIATE THE SURPLUS VALUE OF THE PROLETARIAT’S LABOR FOR ITS OWN PRIVATE PROFIT.
THE CONTROL OF CAPITAL BY A BOURGEOISIE – THE CONDITIONS WHEREBY A CLASS OF LABORERS IS FORCED TO SELL IT LABOR AS A COMMODITY TO A BOURGEOIS CLASS – THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF CAPITALISM. IF THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS IN THE USSR TODAY, HOW COULD THE SOVIET UNION BE ANYTHING BUT A CAPITALIST COUNTRY? YET THE GUARDIAN AND SILBER KEEP PUTTING FORWARD THIS ABSURD VIEW THAT CAPITALISM IS “IN THE PROCESS OF BEING RESTORED.”
WHY DOES THE GUARDIAN PRESENT SUCH A LINE?
SUCH AN ABSURD VIEW IS EXPLAINABLE ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GUARDIAN’S EFFORTS TO COVER FOR THE SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISTS.
BY MAINTAINING THAT CAPITALISM HASN’T BEEN FULLY RESTORED IN THE USSR, THE GUARDIAN CAN SIDESTEP THE REAL BASIS OF SOCIAL IMPERIALISM. THE GUARDIAN CAN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN SOVIET INTERVENTION IN ANGOLA AS, “A WAY OF HELPING TO SEAL U.S. ISOLATION IN WEST AFRICA,” AND “A CHANCE TO REGAIN SOME LOST POLITICAL GROUND FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.” (“FAN THE FLAMES,” 2/11/76)
THIS ANALYSIS SEES IMPERIALISM AS A POLICY OF THE SOVIET UNION, AN EFFORT TO GAIN DIPLOMATIC LEVERAGE AND AT THE SAME TIME HELP ISOLATE ITS RIVAL, U.S. IMPERIALISM.
BUT IMPERIALISM IS NOT A POLICY, NOR IS IT A TACTICAL MANEUVRE.
Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is (1) monopoly capitalism; (2) parasitic, or decaying capitalism; (3) moribund capitalism. V.I. Lenin “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”
BECAUSE CAPITALISM HAS BEEN RESTORED IN THE USSR – IN THE FORM OF STATE MONOPOLY CAPITALISM – THE SOVIET UNION IS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF IMPERIALISM.
Lenin said, ’The deepest economic foundation of imperialism is monopoly.’ In an imperialist country it is finance capital that rules supreme. Politically, it is bound to go completely reactionary; in national and state relations, it is bound to strive to ’annex... every kind of country.’ (Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism.”) This essential feature of monopoly has found its most naked expression in Soviet social-imperialism. Just as Chairman Mao has pointed out, ’The Soviet Union today is under the dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the German fascist type, a dictatorship of the Hitler type.’ In relations between nations and states, the ’joint ownership’ and economic integration’ introduced by the Soviet revisionists to the member states of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance in a big way are virtual acts of annexation. In Soviet foreign trade between 1955 and 1973, exchange of unequal values alone caused the five East European countries to suffer a loss of 19,000 million U.S. dollars. As far as the Soviet revisionists are concerned, trade and ’cultural exchanges’ are nothing but channels for infiltration, ’aid’ and loans are a mere synonym for the export of capital while ’friendship treaties’ are but a vehicle to control and meddle in other countries internal affairs. As to the so-called Warsaw Treaty Organization, it serves as both military backing for Soviet economic annexation and a tool of aggression in further expanding Soviet spheres of influence. (Peking Review, #45, Nov. 7, 1975)
THE GUARDIAN’S VIEW OF SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISM, STEMMING FROM ITS ERRONEOUS LINE ON THE RESTORATION OF CAPITALISM IN THE USSR, IS SIMILAR TO THE KAUTSKYITE VIEW OF IMPERIALISM, A VIEW LONG AGO DEFEATED BY LENIN. IN EXPOSING KAUTSKY’S REVISIONISM, LENIN SAID HE (KAUTSKY),
...refuses to regard imperialism as a ’phase of capitalism’ and defines it as a policy ’preferred’ by finance capital...
LENIN SAID THAT SUCH A VIEW,
...divorces imperialist politics from imperialist economics...divorces monopoly in politics from monopoly in economics...The whole purpose and significance of this theoretical falsity is to obscure the most profound contradictions of imperialism and thus justify the theory of ’unity’ with the apologists of imperialism, the outright social-chauvinists and opportunists. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”
THE GUARDIAN’S ANALYSIS, SIMILAR TO KAUTSKY’S, SERVES THE EXACT SAME PURPOSE – A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE THEORY OF UNITY WITH THE APOLOGISTS OF IMPERIALISM.
THE GUARDIAN IN RECENT MONTHS HAS TIME AND TIME AGAIN SLANDERED AND THEN ATTACKED CHINA’S LINE ON THE WORLD SITUATION AND CHINA’S FOREIGN POLICY. THIS IS AN EFFORT TO DISTRACT ATTENTION AWAY FROM ITS OWN ROTTEN LINE AND AT THE SAME TIME COVER FOR THE SOCIAL IMPERIALISTS.
IN EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE GOALS, THE GUARDIAN HAS ERECTED A STRAW MAN– A FALSE ISSUE. IT HAS DISTORTED THE LINE OF THE CCP INTO ONE WHICH ALLEGEDLY SEES THE SOVIET UNION AS THE MAIN DANGER IN THE WORLD AND THE U.S. AS A SECONDARY DANGER. FURTHERMORE, THE GUARDIAN HAS TRIED TO SUGGEST THAT CHINA HAS CONSIDERED FORMING A UNITED FRONT WITH THE U.S. IMPERIALISTS AGAINST THE USSR.
IN ERECTING THIS STRAW MAN, NOT ONCE HAS THE GUARDIAN QUOTED CHINESE SOURCES WHEN LAYING OUT THE CHINESE POSITION. INSTEAD, IT HAS QUOTED (AND DISTORTED) THE VIEWS OF ONE AMERICAN AUTHOR WHO, WHILE BEING A HIGHLY RESPECTED CONTRIBUTOR OF INFORMATION ABOUT CHINA, IS CERTAINLY NOT A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CCP NOR MARXIST-LENINISTS IN THE U.S.
IF THE GUARDIAN IS WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE – A “FRIEND” OF CHINA’S – WHY HASN’T IT QUOTED CHINESE SOURCES WHEN DEPICTING THE CHINESE LINE? WHY DOES IT RELY ON THE OPINION OF ONE MAN?
IT IS THE GUARDIAN THAT HAS IN PRACTICE REDUCED THE UNITED FRONT AGAINST IMPERIALISM TO A UNITED FRONT AGAINST ONLY ONE OF THE SUPERPOWERS. THE GUARDIAN HAS CONSISTANTLY HELD THAT THE MAIN DANGER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD IS U.S. IMPERIALISM AND THAT SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISM IS A SECONDARY DANGER. JACK SMITH, WHO SOME TIME BACK WROTE A SERIES OF ARTICLES FOR THE GUARDIAN ABOUT CHINA’S FOREIGN POLICY AND WHO HAS NOW JOINED IN ON THE ATTACK ON CHINA, RECENTLY RESTATED THE GUARDIAN’S ANALYSIS:
...our position was and is that the principal contradiction in the world is between U.S. imperialism and the oppressed people and nations of the world, but that the Soviet superpower was a secondary contradiction. Revisionism in state power, or social-imperialism had to be stopped, but the main enemy was U.S. imperialism. (GUARDIAN, 5/26/76)
THE CCP HAS CONSISTANTLY CALLED FOR A UNITED FRONT AGAINST BOTH THE SUPERPOWERS, AND HAS REPEATEDLY URGED COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW THE PATH OF SELF-RELIANCE AND INDEPENDENCE FROM BOTH SUPERPOWERS.
CHINA HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE WORLD ARE INTENSIFYING, AND THAT THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE TWO SUPERPOWERS IS BOUND TO LEAD TO WORLD WAR.
IT IS WITHIN THIS FRAMEWORK THAT THE CCP HAS SAID THAT THE U.S. AS A SUPERPOWER IS ON THE DECLINE WHILE THE USSR IS ON THE RISE. AND, BECAUSE THE SOVIET UNION MUST BATTLE THE U.S. IMPERIALISTS FOR TERRITORES ALREADY “STAKED OUT,” THE USSR IS THE MORE AGGRESSIVE OF THE TWO AND IS THE MAIN DANGER OF WAR.
THE SOVIET UNION HAS MASQUERADED AS A SOCIALIST COUNTRY FOR TWENTY YEARS. CHINA, ALBANIA, AND MARXIST-LENINISTS AROUND THE WORLD HAVE RIPPED THIS MASK OFF THE SOCIAL IMPERIALISTS.
THE GUARDIAN HAS CONSISTANTLY TRIED TO COVER FOR THE SOVIET UNION. IN ORDER TO COVER ITS OWN LINE AND DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM THE RISING MENACE OF SOCIAL IMPERIALISM, THE GUARDIAN WAS FORCED TO ERECT ITS STRAW MAN AND SLANDER THE POSITION OF CHINA AND ALL MARXIST-LENINISTS.
THE GUARDIAN NOW POINTS AT ITS OWN STRAW MAN AND SHOUTS, “LOOK AT THAT THING! HIT IT! SMASH IT!” AND WHILE SOME EAGERLY SWING AT IT, STRAW, DUST, AND TORN CLOTHING FLYING IN THE AIR, THE GUARDIAN STANDS IN FRONT OF THE SOCIAL IMPERIALISTS, TRYING TO HIDE THEIR UGLY FACES.
WHY IS IT THAT U.S. IMPERIALISM IS ON THE DECLINE WHILE SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISM IS ON THE UPSWING?
IN THE PAST DECADE, THE U.S. IMPERIALISTS HAVE SUFFERED MAJOR MILITARY DEFEATS IN ITS COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY WORLD STRATEGY. GLOBALLY, THE U.S. HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXPOSED AS AN IMPERIALIST SUPERPOWER.
AT HOME, IN THE WAKE OF ITS MILITARY DEFEATS AND IN THE GRIPS OF THE WORST CRISES OF IMPERIALISM SINCE THE 1930’S, THE RULING CLASS IS DIVIDED AS TO WHAT TACTICS TO EMPLOY TO HOLD UP ITS HEGEMONIC IMPERIALIST RULE. A TREMENDOUS MASS MOVEMENT AROSE IN THE 1960’S WHICH HINDERS THE PLANS OF THE BOURGEOISIE, AND OFTEN PREVENTS THEM FROM ACTING OVERTLY IN COUNTRIES LIKE ANGOLA.
POLITICAL SCANDALS, THE WORST RECESSION IN DECADES, RISING WORKER MILITANCY, AND A CONTINUAL SERIES OF DEFEATS IN THEIR IMPERIALIST ENDEAVORS, HAVE WEAKENED THE U.S. IMPERIALISTS THOUGH THEY ARE STILL THE DEADLY ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. U.S. IMPERIALISM MAY BE WOUNDED, BUT LIKE TIGERS, IMPERIALISTS WILL FIGHT EVEN MORE FIERCELY WHEN HURT.
THE SOVIET UNION, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS A RISING IMPERIALIST SUPERPOWER. WAVING THE RED FLAG, THE USSR STILL CLAIMS TO BE A SOCIALIST COUNTRY. IT DECLARES ITSELF TO BE THE “NATURAL ALLY” OF LIBERATION MOVEMENTS THE WORLD OVER BUT REALLY ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE SUCH MOVEMENTS. THIS CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN BY THE SOVIET UNION’S SUPPORT OF LON NOL IN CAMBODIA AND ITS ROLE IN ANGOLA.
The combining of monopoly capitalism with the state apparatus of the bureaucrat-monopoly capitalist class has made it possible for the Soviet Union, in its bid for world hegemony, to pool its economic as well as political, military, and other strength and, while lagging behind the U.S. in economic strength, to become a superpower contending with U.S. imperialism for hegemony and taking the offensive in the contention. This is the path similar to that which Germany travelled at the beginning of this century to climb to the ’throne’ of the world’s number one imperialist power. As Lenin put it, ’Germany’s large-scale state capitalism combined with the bureaucracy–and Germany beat all records.’ (“Speech in Polytechnical Museum, August 23, 1918.) This is the logical result of the uneven political and economic development under capitalism. (Peking Review, #45, Nov. 7, 1975)
BECAUSE THE SOVIET UNION LAGS BEHIND ITS U.S. OPPONENT IN ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL STRENGTH, AND BECAUSE IT HAS TO BATTLE THE U.S. FOR TERRITORIES ALREADY “CLAIMED,” IT IS THE MORE AGGRESSIVE OF THE SUPERPOWERS AND POSES THE GREATEST DANGER OF WAR.
IN FACT, THE SOVIET UNION IS PREPARING FOR WORLD WAR. THE ENTIRE SOVIET ECONOMY HAS TAKEN ON A PECULIAR FORM OF WAR ECONOMY. RELYING ON THE MOST BARBAROUS FASCIST DICTATORSHIP TO MAINTAIN ITS REACTIONARY RULE, DEVELOPING THE ARMAMENT INDUSTRY TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE OVERALL ECONOMY AND THE SOVIET PEOPLE, THE USSR HAS INCREASED MILITARY SPENDING TO THE POINT WHERE, IN 1974, THE PROPORTION OF MILITARY OUTLAY IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY WAS OVER 19.6%. DISCUSSING THIS INCREASEINGLY HIGHER OUTLAY FOR MILITARY SPENDING, PEKING REVIEW POINTED OUT:
As far as the proportion is concerned, the Soviet Union has not only surpassed prewar Hitlerite Germany (19%), but also greatly outstripped U.S. imperialism at the time of its wars of aggression in Korea (15%) and in Viet Nam (10%). (Peking Review, 1/30/76, #5)
THE SOVIET ARMED FORCES HAVE GROWN FROM THREE MILLION MEN IN THE 1960’S TO THE PRESENT 4.2 MILLION. AND, SOVIET RESERVES OF BOTH MEN AND OFFICERS TOTAL OVER 25 MILLION, OF WHOM NEARLY SIX MILLION HAVE SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
WHILE THE U.S. AND THE USSR MATCH EACH OTHER IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE SOVIET UNION HAS SURPASSED THE UNITED STATES BY ALMOST 100 PER CENT IN THE NUMERICAL STRENGTH OF MILITARY FORCES.
THE GUARDIAN, BY OBSCURING THE REAL SITUATION IN THE WORLD TODAY COVERS UP FOR THE SOVIET IMPERIALISTS, GLOSSES OVER THE DANGER OF WORLD WAR AND THE RISING DANGER OF FASCISM IN THE U.S.. THIS EFFECTIVELY DISARMS THE PEOPLE.
IN THE CURRENT WORLD SITUATION, AS THE TWO SUPERPOWERS CONTEND FOR HEGEMONY, WAR IS INEVITABLE. THE FOCUS OF THEIR CONTENTION IS EUROPE. AT PRESENT, BOTH SOVIET AND AMERICAN TROOPS RING EUROPE AND ITS SOUTHERN FLANK, THE MIDDLE EAST.
BUT, THOUGH THE FACTORS FOR WAR ARE INCREASING THE FACTORS FOR REVOLUTION ARE ALSO ON THE RISE. ALL THE BASIC CONTRADICTIONS IN THE WORLD ARE SHARPENING. THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD SHOULD NOT FEAR WAR NOR THE TWO SUPERPOWERS.
Social imperialism and capital imperialism are both paper tigers; fierce in appearance, their social systems are actually decaying and moribund and resemble ’a dying person who is sinking fast, like the sun setting beyond the western hills,’ and will soon be relegated to the museum. It is really the revolutionary people the world over who are really powerful, who are really possessed of strength. The two overlords, the United States and the Soviet Union, can never decide the fate of the world. ’The people, and the people alone, are the motive in the making of world history’. (“Social Imperialism” reprints from Peking Review)
“COUNTRIES WANT INDEPENDENCE, NATIONS WANT LIBERATION, AND THE PEOPLE WANT REVOLUTION. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID,” CRIED IRWIN SILBER AT THE GUARDIAN’S RECENT FORUM IN OAKLAND. AND THIS IS TRUE–THE GUARDIAN HAS ALWAYS WAVED REVOLUTIONARY SLOGANS AROUND FRANTICALLY IN ITS EFFORTS TO APPEAR REVOLUTIONARY. BUT SUCH SLOGANS ARE NOT FLAGS AND THE GUARDIAN CANNOT HIDE BEHIND THEM.
COUNTRIES WANT INDEPENDENCE, NATIONS WANT LIBERATION, AND THE PEOPLE WANT REVOLUTION. THIS IS AN HISTORICALLY PROVEN TREND. ITS MEANING IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE TO THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM, BECAUSE BEFORE A COUNTRY CAN BE FREE TO DEVELOP ALONG ITS OWN PATH, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT IT BE INDEPENDENT FROM IMPERIALISM, COLONIALISM, NEO-COLONIALISM, AND HEGEMONISM.
IN THE THIRD WORLD, REVOLUTIONS MUST DEVELOP IN STAGES. CONCRETELY, THIS MEANS FIRST BUILDING THE UNITED FRONT AGAINST IMPERIALISM (ALL IMPERIALISMS) AND THE NEW DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION. THIS WAS HOW REVOLUTION WAS MADE IN RUSSIA AND CHINA.
TODAY, THE UNITED FRONT AGAINST IMPERIALISM MUST MEAN UNITING ALL WHO CAN BE UNITED TO OPPOSE ANY AND ALL IMPERIALIST SCHEMES, ESPECIALLY THOSE HATCHED BY THE TWO SUPERPOWERS.
ALTHOUGH THE GUARDIAN CALLS FOR “VIGILANCE” AGAINST SOCIAL IMPERIALISM, ON ANY CONCRETE QUESTION IT REDUCES THE UNITED FRONT TO ONE AGAINST U.S. IMPERIALISM ONLY.
AND, IN ORDER TO COVER ITS CONCILLIATION WITH THE SOCIAL IMPERIALISTS, THE GUARDIAN SEEMS TO HAVE DEVELOPED ITS OWN CRITERIA FOR SUPPORTING NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS. THESE CRITERIA APPEAR TO BE: (1) DO THEY OPPOSE U.S. IMPERIALISM; (2) DO THEY HAVE RELATIVE STRENGTH; AND (3) DO THEY CALL FOR SOCIALISM?
WHAT IS THE CORRECT MARXIST-LENINIST BASIS FOR SUPPORTING NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS? COMRADE STALIN CLEARLY EXPLAINS IT:
The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates, and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such ’desperate’ democrats and ’Socialists,’ ’revolutionaries,’ and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tseretelli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its result was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. (Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism)
THE CORRECT BASIS FOR SUPPORTING NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS IS DETERMINED BY WHETHER THEY TEND TO WEAKEN, TO OVERTHROW IMPERIALISM, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE LED BY NON-PROLETARIAN FORCES. FOR THE GUARDIAN TO INSIST THAT LEBERATION GROUPS CALL FOR SOCIALISM WOULD IN PRACTICE ONLY TEND TO UNDERMINE THE PEOPLE’S FORCES FIGHTING IMPERIALISM.
THE MINIMUM PROGRAMME OF PROLETARIAN PARTIES OF THE OPPRESSED NATIONS OF THE THIRD WORLD TODAY IS TO OVERTHROW IMPERIALISM AND ITS LACKEYS. SOCIALIST REVOLUTION AND CONSTRUCTION BECOMES THE PROGRAMME ONLY AFTER THE OVERTHROW OF IMPERIALISM AND THE CREATION OF AN ECONOMIC BASE FOR SOCIALISM.
IN THE THIRD WORLD, BROAD SECTIONS OF THE POPULATION REFUSE TO BE THE SLAVES OF IMPERIALISM. THESE FORCES INCLUDE WORKERS, PEASANTS, INTELLECTUALS, AND PETTY BOURGEOISIE, AND ALSO THE PATRIOTIC NATIONAL BOURGEOISIE AND EVEN CERTAIN KINGS, PRINCES, AND ARISTOCRATS WHO ARE PATRIOTIC. ON THE BASIS OF THE WORKER-PEASANT ALLIANCE, THE PROLETARIAT AND ITS PARTY MUST UNITE ALL THE CLASSES AND STRATA THAT CAN BE UNITED TO ORGANIZE THE BROAD UNITED FRONT AGAINST IMPERIALISM AND ITS LACKEYS.
THIS IS THE CORRECT LINE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA AND ALL MARXIST-LENINISTS.
THE GUARDIAN WAVES THE FLAGS OF “SELF RELIANCE” AND “PEOPLES WAR.” BUT ONCE AGAIN, THESE ARE ONLY ORNAMENTS. THE GUARDIAN HAS GLOSSED OVER THEIR SCIENTIFIC MEANING AND APPLICATION.
WHAT IS MEANT BY SELF RELIANCE? COMRADE MAO TSETUNG CLEARLY EXPLAINS THAT IT MEANS:
’In the fight for complete liberation, the oppressed people rely first of all on their own struggle and then, and only then, on international assistance.’ (Talk with African Friends in August, 1963) The historical experiences–both positive and negative, successes and setbacks–of the national liberation movement have repeatedly proved this principle to be correct. Today, under the signboard of ’international aid,’ Soviet revisionist social imperialism is imposing its counter-revolutionary line on others, and betraying strangling the national liberation movement. Under these circumstances, all oppressed nations and Asian, African, and Latin American countries and people will find themselves in a passive position and in a blind alley if they do not adhere to the principle of maintaining independence and keeping the initiative in their own hands and relying on their own efforts. Chairman Mao has pointed out: ’On what should our policy rest? It should rest on our own strength, and that means regeneration through one’s own efforts.’ (The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan.) Self-reliance means integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the revolutionary practice of one’s own country to formulate the correct line, principles and policies suited to the country’s concrete conditions. Self-reliance means relying on the manpower and resources of one’s own country to continually overcome difficulties that will inevitably arise in the course of the revolution. Self-reliance means fully mobilizing and closely relying on the country’s broad masses, especially the workers and peasants. At present, the two superpowers are colluding and contending with each other in their attempt to dominate the world. They always hatch plots to strangle the national liberation movement. The oppressed nations and peoples must adhere to the principle of maintaining independence and keeping the initiative in their own hands and relying on their own efforts in order to break through all kinds of complicated and difficult situations, crush all the schemes to undermine the national liberation movement and win victory. (”On Studying World History,” Peking Review Reprints.)
THE GUARDIAN MAKES A CALL FOR PEOPLES WAR, FOR SELF RELIANCE IN THE ABSTRACT, AND CHARGES MARXIST-LENINISTS WITH “OBJECTIVE COLLABORATION WITH THE U.S. BOURGEOISIE” WHEN COMMUNISTS CALL FOR IT IN THE CONCRETE. THE GUARDIAN MAKES EXCUSES FOR SOVIET INTERVENTION, MOST NOTABLY IN ANGOLA, AND HEAPS PRAISES ON MERCENARIES THAT DO THE SOVIETS’ DIRTY WORK. IT CALLS SUCH INTERVENTION “PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM.”
WE MUST ASK THE GUARDIAN HOW IT IS THAT MARXIST-LENINISTS ARE COLLABORATING WITH THE U.S. BOURGEOISIE BY DEMANDING THAT BOTH THE SUPERPOWERS AND SOUTH AFRICA GET OUT OF ANGOLA? HOW IS IT THAT COMMUNISTS ARE UNDERMINING THE ANGOLAN REVOLUTION BY DEMANDING THAT THE ANGOLAN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION?
THE GUARDIAN WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT RELYING ON 13,000 MERCENARY TROOPS IS THE WAY TO FIGHT PEOPLES WAR.
WHAT THE GUARDIAN REALLY ADVOCATES IS COLLABORATION WITH SOCIAL IMPERIALISM.
THE CLEAREST EXAMPLE OF HOW THE GUARDIAN HAS DISTORTED THE TRUTH IN ORDER TO COVER FOR THE REVISIONISTS AND ATTACK CHINA IS THE QUESTION OF THE ANGOLAN “CIVIL WAR.”
BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION GENERATED AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF PROPAGANDA TO HIDE THE REAL NATURE OF THE WAR IN ANGOLA. THE ESSENCE OF THAT WAR WAS CONTENTION BETWEEN THE US AND THE USSR FOR WORLD DOMINATION. THE SOVIET UNION IN PARTICULAR IS THE RISING IMPERIALIST POWER AND WAS THE MAIN CULPRIT CAUSING THE SPLIT AMONG THE THREE ANGOLAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATIONS.
FOR 400 YEARS, THE ANGOLAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HEROICALLY FIGHTING THE RUTHLESS DOMINATION OF PORTUGUESE COLONIALISM. SINCE 1961, THREE LIBERATION ORGANIZATIONS HAVE RISEN IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY BASED ON DIFFERENT TRIBAL GROUPS TO LEAD THE PEOPLE IN THEIR JUST STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM.
ALL THREE OF ANGOLA’S LIBERATION GROUPS SPRANG FROM THE DESIRE OF ITS PEOPLE TO BE FREE OF COLONIALIST RULE AND HAVE VALIANTLY FOUGHT FOR THIS END.
THE MPLA WAS FORMED IN 1956 AND IS CREDITED WITH INSTIGATING ARMED RESISTANCE BY ITS ATTACK ON SAO PAULO FORTRESS IN THE CAPITAL CITY, LUANDA, IN MARCH 1961. THE FNLA (ORIGINALLY UPA), FORMED IN 1957, HAD AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE SPONTANEOUS NORTHERN PEASANT UPRISINGS IN MARCH 1961 AND FOR SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THAT PLAYED THE MAJOR ROLE IN ARMED RESISTANCE TO THE PORTUGUESE. UNITA, FORMED IN 1967, HAS BEEN THE ONLY GROUP RESISTING PORTUGUESE COLONIALISM BASED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE ANGOLAN BORDERS. THE SLANDER THAT TWO OF THE LIBERATION GROUPS ARE NOT GENUINELY ANTI-COLONIALIST FLIES IN THE FACE OF REALITY.
ALL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE LIBERATION GROUPS IN ANGOLA WERE OVERRIDDEN BY THEIR COMMON OPPOSITION TO COLONIALISM. IN THE NAKURU AND ALVOR AGREEMENTS OF JANUARY AND JUNE 1975, THE THREE ORGANIZATIONS, HAVING DEFEATED COLONIALISM, JOINED TOGETHER TO SCHEDULE WITHDRAWAL OF PORTUGUESE TROOPS, FORM A GOVERNMENT AND ARMY OF NATIONAL UNITY AND “PUT THE INTERESTS OF THE ANGOLAN PEOPLE ABOVE IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES.” RECOGNIZING THAT THE THREE ORGANIZATIONS HAD BOTH THE BASIS AND THE NEED FOR UNITY, THE ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY (OAU) CORRECTLY SUPPORTED THE AGREEMENTS AND THE UNITY GOVERNMENT. IF THE CHARGE THAT TWO OF THE GROUPS ARE “PAID AGENTS” OF U.S. IMPERIALISM IS TRUE, THEN WHY DID THE “ONLY REVOLUTIONARY” GROUP TRY SO OFTEN TO UNITE WITH THEM?
PRIOR TO THE INDEPENDENCE ACCORDS, THE U.S. PROPPED UP THE SALAZAR REGIME, AND ARMED PORTUGUESE TROOPS WITH NATO WEAPONS. AT THE SAME TIME, THE CIA TRIED TO KEEP THE BACK DOOR OPEN BY TRICKLING SMALL AMOUNTS OF AID TO ONE OF THE LIBERATION ORGANIZATIONS–THE FNLA. THE SOVIET UNION GAVE A SMALL AMOUNT OF AID TO ONLY ONE OF THE THREE GENUINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATIONS–THE MPLA, AND IGNORED THE OTHERS. NEITHER SUPERPOWER HAD THE INTERESTS OF THE ANGOLAN PEOPLE AT HEART WHEN THEY INTERFERED.
THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA PLAYED A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ROLE. STRESSING SELF-RELIANCE AND THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE MASSES OF PEOPLE MUST BE THE MAIN FORCE IN A WAR OF LIBERATION, CHINA AIDED ALL THREE ORGANIZATIONS AND TREATED THEM EQUALLY. UNLIKE THE TWO SUPERPOWERS WHO INCREASED THEIR INTERFERENCE WITH THE SIGNING OF THE NAKURU ACCORD, CHINA SENT NO NEW AID INTO ANGOLA. THE CHARGE THAT CHINA SUPPORTS ONLY ONE OF THE ANGOLAN ORGANIZATIONS IS A LIE DESIGNED TO CONFUSE PEOPLE ABOUT THE ROLE CHINA PLAYS IN THE WORLD TODAY.
AFTER THE DEFEAT OF PORTUGUESE COLONIALISM, THE SOVIET UNION ATTEMPTED TO SABOTAGE THE UNITY FO THE THREE ORGANIZATIONS BY DECLARING ONE OF THEM (THE MPLA) “REVOLUTIONARY”, “PATRIOTIC FORCES” AND SLANDERED THE OTHER TWO (THE FNLA AND UNITA) AS “REACTIONARY” PAID AGENTS OF U.S. IMPERIALISM. THE GUARDIAN HAS CONSISTENTLY REPEATED THIS SAME LIE.
USING THESE SINISTER JUSTIFICATIONS, THE SOVIET UNION PUMPED IN AN UNPRECEDENTED AMOUNT OF ARMS WHICH WAS “MISSING” DURING THE 15 YEARS OF ARMED STRUGGLE AGAINST THE PORTUGUESE COLONIALISTS. THESE WEAPONS INCLUDE HELICOPTERS, TANKS, ARMOURED CARS, SAM MISSLES AND OTHER HEAVY WEAPONS THAT THE OTHER LIBERATION GROUPS DID NOT HAVE. COMBINED WITH 13,000 CUBAN TROOPS, ALL THIS MODERN HARDWARE MADE THE MPLA MILITARILY SUPERIOR TO THE OTHER TWO ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ONLY HEIGHTENED THE ANTAGONISMS BETWEEN THE THREE GROUPS. ONE MUST ASK, IF THE SOVIET UNION WAS REALLY TRYING TO HELP THE ANGOLAN PEOPLE, WHY DID IT STEP UP “AID” ONLY AFTER THE COLONIALISTS WERE SMASHED?
THE SOVIET UNION AND THEIR MENTORS HAVE SINCE CLAIMED THAT SOVIET INTERVENTION BEGAN ONLY AFTER SOUTH AFRICAN TROOPS ENTERED ANGOLA. THIS IS ANOTHER LIE.
IN JANUARY 1975, ABOUT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OF THE ALVOR AGREEMENT ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF ANGOLA, OVER ONE HUNDRED SOVIET MILITARY ADVISERS ARRIVED IN ANGOLA. LARGE CONSIGNMENTS OF ARMS SOON FOLLOWED THEM IN MARCH OF THAT YEAR. IN JULY, FOUR MONTHS LATER, THE SOVIET UNION HELPED STIR UP A CIVIL WAR IN THAT COUNTRY. IN SEPTEMBER, LARGE GROUPS OF CUBAN TROOPS WERE DUMPED IN CAXITO, NORTHERN ANGOLA.
FROM SEPTEMBER 25 TO OCTOBER 23 LAST YEAR, MOSCOW SENT FIVE SHIPLOADS OF WEAPONS AND OVER 2,400 MERCENARIES INTO THAT COUNTRY, AND IN THE WEEK ENDING OCTOBER 18, MORE THAN 750 CUBAN SOLDIERS WERE TRANSPORTED INTO ANGOLA. ALL THESE FACTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS. MOSCOW CANNOT DODGE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: SINCE SOUTH AFRICA INTRUDED INTO ANGOLA ON OCTOBER 23, JUST WHO WERE THE MERCENARIES FIGHTING? WERE SOUTH AFRICAN FORCES THE TARGET OF ATTACK IN THE CAXITO AREA AND ON THE NORTHERN FRONT IN ANGOLA? WAS IT THE SOUTH AFRICAN RACISTS THAT THE SOVIET UNION DESCRIBED AS “THE REACTIONARY FORCES IN ANGOLA”? WERE THE THOUSANDS KILLED BY THE MERCENARIES’ GUNFIRE SOUTH AFRICANS?
WHY DID THE SOVIET UNION AND ITS FOLLOWERS CLING TO THEIR STATEMENT THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER OCTOBER 23 THAT THEY DISPATCHED TROOPS INTO ANGOLA? THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT THEY URGENTLY NEEDED TO USE THE SOUTH AFRICAN INVASION AS A PRETEXT FOR THE EXTENSION OF THEIR OWN INTERFERENCE IN ANGOLA. THE SOVIET UNION SURREPTITIOUSLY DISPATCHED MERCENARIES INTO ANGOLA BEFORE OCTOBER 23, AND AFTER SOUTH AFRICA’S INVASION IT OPENLY WENT INTO ACTION ON A BIG SCALE. (SOURCE OF INFORMATION, PEKING REVIEW #15, April 9, 1976)
THE INTENSIFICATION OF SUPERPOWER CONTENTION FOR WORLD DOMINATION BEARS OUT WHAT REVOLUTIONARY PEOPLE HAVE KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME–WAR IS BORN OF IMPERIALISM AND CANNOT BE PREVENTED BY TALK OF “DETENTE”. BEHIND THE DETENTE SMOKESCREEN, BOTH SUPERPOWERS ARE ENERGETICALLY EXPANDING ARMS PRODUCTION, BOTH NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL, AND BUILDING TROOP STRENGTH. JUST AS THE IMPERIALISTS PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II LAUDED PEACE TO THE SKIES, SO WILL THE SOVIET UNION AND U.S. CLAMOUR ABOUT DETENTE UNTIL MUTED BY THE OUTBREAK OF WAR.
THERE IS A SLOGAN THAT WARNS THAT “IN KICKING THE WOLF OUT OF THE FRONT DOOR, BEWARE OF THE TIGER COMING IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR”. BUT WHILE VIGOROUSLY COMBATTING U.S. IMPERIALISM AT THE FRONT DOOR, MANY HAVE BEEN BLIND TO THE LATEST INTRIGUES OF THE SOVIET UNION AT THE BACK DOOR. SELF-DETERMINATION IS THE JUST RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF ANGOLA AND CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED BY KICKING OUT ALL IMPERIALIST AGGRESSORS.
THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE SUPERPOWERS AND SOUTH AFRICA IN ANGOLA IS ALSO A STRUGGLE AGAINST THE DANGER OF WORLD WAR. THE PEOPLE OF U.S. HAVE THE SAME ENEMIES AS THE ANGOLAN PEOPLE – U.S. AND SOVIET SOCIAL IMPERIALISM. WE ALSO FACE TOGETHER THE DANGER OF WORLD WAR. VIEWPOINTS WHICH IGNORE THE IMPERIALIST NATURE OF THE SOVIET UNION HIDE THE GROWING DANGER OF WAR AND PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GETTING PREPARED.
FOR PEOPLE IN THE U.S. THE RISING DANGER OF WAR MEANS THE RISING DANGER OF REPRESSION AND FASCISM. THE ONLY REAL WAY TO PREVENT WORLD WAR AND FASCISM IS REVOLUTION. WHETHER REVOLUTION PREVENTS WORLD WAR OR WORLD WAR GIVES RISE TO REVOLUTION, THE PEOPLE WILL INEVITABLY DEFEAT IMPERIALISM.
BEFORE CONCLUDING, IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS THE GUARDIAN’S ERRONEOUS VIEWS ON INTERNATIONAL LINE AND ON THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ML PARTIES. IN THE “FAN THE FLAMES” COLUMN OF DECEMBER 24, 1975, SILBER STATED:
...if a party jealously guards its independence vis-a-vis other parties while deepening its ties with its own toiling masses, using ML as its theoretical compass, its views on all questions have to be treated with respect. And it is certainly to be expected that, especially in the absence of an agreed-upon center to the world revolutionary movement, each party’s experience may lead it to somewhat different conclusions on different international questions.
THE M-L VIEW IS THAT DIFFERENCES OVER THE INTERNATIONAL LINE ARE CRUCIAL, ESPECIALLY IN THE AGE OF IMPERIALISM. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT DIFFERENT PARTIES DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIFFERENT VIEWS AND TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS. THE POSITION OF THE CPC IS THAT THE RELATIONS BETWEEN FRATERNAL PARTIES MUST BE BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM, INDEPENDENCE, AND EQUALITY.
HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT ALL PARTIES ARE EQUALLY CORRECT IN THEIR ANALYSES AND POSITIONS. WHEN THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN VIEWS BETWEEN PARTIES, THERE IS ONLY ONE CORRECT ANALYSIS. BOTH CONTRADICTORY VIEWS CANNOT BE EQUALLY CORRECT AT THE SAME TIME, AS SILBER TRIES TO MAKE US BELIEVE.
WHILE ALL KNOWLEDGE IS RELATIVE, IN THAT IT CAN ONLY COME CLOSER AND CLOSER TO APPROXIMATING THE OBJECTIVE CONDITIONS, THERE ARE CERTAIN GENERAL TRUTHS IN ML THAT CANNOT BE DISCARDED OR VIOLATED. THE DUTY OF MLs IS TO “SEEK TRUTH FROM FACTS”, TO CORRECTLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG VIEWS, AND TO INTEGRATE THE GENERAL TRUTHS OF MLMTT WITH THE CONCRETE CONDITIONS IN THE U.S.
UNLIKE SILBER, MARXIST-LENINISTS HOLD THAT EVER SINCE THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE SOCIALIST CAMP CAUSED BY THE RISE OF MODERN REVISIONISM THERE HAS EMERGED A NEW CENTER TO THE WORLD REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT. THIS CENTER IS THE CORRECT LINES ON THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION OF CHINA AND ALBANIA, WHO HAVE CONSISTENTLY UPHELD ML AND WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE VANGUARD IN COMBATTING MODERN REVISIONISM AND SOCIAL IMPERIALISM.
IN YEARS PAST, THE GUARDIAN PLAYED A PROGRESSIVE ROLE AS AN ANTI-IMPERIALIST NEWSPAPER. IT COVERED THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLES OF PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD, CARRIED ARTICLES ABOUT SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION IN CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES, AND EVEN PLAYED A ROLE IN INTRODUCING PEOPLE TO MARXISM-LENINISM.
WHILE THE GUARDIAN DID PLAY A PROGRESSIVE ROLE OVERALL IN THE PAST, IT ALSO FREQUENTLY MADE ERRORS. NEVERTHELESS, WE CARRIED THE GUARDIAN AND PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IT IN OUR STORE BECAUSE DESPITE ITS ERRORS, IT REMAINED A PROGRESSIVE FORCE.
HOWEVER, BEFORE LONG WHAT WERE ERRORS ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS DEVELOPED INTO AN OPPORTUNIST TENDENCY. THE GUARDIAN BEGAN TO DISTORT THE POSITIONS OF MARXIST-LENINISTS IN THE U.S. AROUND A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. IT BEGAN TO ALLY ITSELF WITH REVISIONIST FORCES AND CONCILIATE WITH REVISIONISM. SOON, AROUND QUESTIONS LIKE ANGOLA, THE GUARDIAN DISTORTED THE FACTS AND COVERED FOR SOVIET SOCIAL-IMPERIALISM.
IN THE FALL OF 1975, THE YENAN COLLECTIVE BEGAN A THOROUGH STUDY OF THE GUARDIAN. IT WASN’T LONG BEFORE WE HAD ESTABLISHED THAT WHAT WAS AN OPPORTUNIST TENDENCY HAD BECOME A CONSOLIDATED REVISIONIST TREND.
THIS TREND IS REVEALED IN THE WAY THE GUARDIAN HAS 1) SLANDERED AND ATTACKED THE REVOLUTIONARY LINE OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 2) GLOSSED OVER THE NATURE OF THE ECONOMY AND STATE IN THE USSR AND THE MATERIAL BASIS OF SOVIET SOCIAL-IMPERIALISM, AND 3) CONSISTENTLY PUT FORWARD AN ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT WORLD SITUATION WHICH OBJECTIVELY COVERS FOR SOVIET SOCIAL-IMPERIALISM.
THE GUARDIAN HAS ATTEMPTED TO FUSE TWO WORLD VIEWS – MARXISM-LENINISM AND REVISIONISM. THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF CENTRISM, AND, AS THE ALBANIANS POINT OUT
...the line of conciliation today, as in the past, is the line of centrism which in essence, although it tries to stand in both world camps, is disguised opportunism and revisionism which has compromised with opportunism, with revisionism as its ideological basis...In the present struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism as a manifestation of the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, there is and there can be no middle ground.
WHEN THIS REVISIONIST TREND DEVELOPED, OUR INITIAL ACTION WAS TO GIVE THE GUARDIAN LESS PROMINENCE IN THE STORE AND POST A SIGN OUTLINING OUR DISAGREEMENTS WITH ITS ANALYSIS. WE CARRIED ON MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE GUARDIAN’S LINE WITH FRIENDS AND CUSTOMERS, AND SOLICITED THEIR VIEWS ABOUT THROWING THE GUARDIAN OUT OF YENAN.
BECAUSE OF THE PAST ROLE PLAYED BY THE GUARDIAN, IT WAS QUITE INFLUENTIAL AMONG ANTI-IMPERIALIST FORCES. WE FELT IT EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT ITS LINE BE EXPOSED. SO, IN APRIL, WE BEGAN WORK ON THIS POLEMIC AND WE CONTINUED TO SELL IT.
THEN, IN ITS MAY 7TH ISSUE, THE GUARDIAN OPENLY SLANDERED AND ATTACKED THE REVOLUTIONARY LINE OF CHINA. THIS ATTACK ON CHINA VIOLATED YENAN’S PRINCIPLES OF UNITY, SO WE IMMEDIATELY THREW THE GUARDIAN OUT.
BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO THOROUGHLY EXPOSE THE GUARDIAN, WE WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP A CURRENT COPY OF IT ON OUR REFERENCE SHELF, AND CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ITS LINE.
WE ALSO ENCOURAGE DISCUSSION AND CRITICISM OF THIS POLEMIC.
WE EXPECT THAT THE GUARDIAN WILL SCREAM AND SHOUT “REPRESSION”, CALLING US “DOGMATISTS” AND SO ON. BUT, WHILE THE GUARDIAN INSISTS ON ITS FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE, ITS FREEDOM TO PUT FORWARD A REVISIONIST LINE, ITS FREEDOM TO SLANDER THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT AND THE CPC, WE INSIST UPON OUR FREEDOM TO PURGE THE GUARDIAN AND ITS REVISIONIST LINE FROM OUR STORE.
LENIN, IN COMBATTING THOSE WHO ADVOCATED ’FREEDOM OF CRITICISM’ IN THE EARLY 1900’s, SAID:
...if we judge people not by the brilliant uniforms they don, not by the high sounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions, and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that ’freedom of criticism’ means freedom for an opportunistic trend in Social-Democracy...
LENIN MAKES AN ANALOGY:
We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance under constant fire. We have combined voluntarily, precisely for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not to retreat into the adjacent marsh, the inhabitants of which from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now several among us begin to cry out: let us go into this marsh! And when we shame them, they retort: how conservative you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to a better road! Oh, yes gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us for we too are ’free’ to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh! (Lenin, What Is To Be Done)
[1] History of the Party of Labor of Albania (PLA), Tirana, 1971.
[2] Is Yugoslavia a Socialist Country?, Foreign Language Press (FLP), Peking.
[3] A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement, Foreign Language Press, Peking 1963.
The Leaders of the CPSU are Betrayers of the Declaration and the Statement, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1965.
[4] The Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1961.
On Khruschov’s Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons For the World, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1964.
[5] Peaceful Coexistence – Two Diametrically Opposed Policies, Foreign Language Press, 1963.
Two Different Lines on the Question of War and Peace, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1963.
[6] Marx, Engels, and Lenin on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1975.
Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (Documents), Foreign Language Press, 1973.
[7] Some Questions of Socialist Construction in Albania and of the Struggle Against Revisionism, Tirana, 1971.
“The Soviet Economy – A Completely and Definitely Capitalist Economy”, Albania Today, July-August, 1975.
Social Imperialism. Peking Review Reprints, Yenan Books, 1974.
How The Soviet Revisionists Carry Out All-Round Restoration of Capitalism in the U.S.S.R., Foreign Language Press, 1968.
[8] The Chinese Road to Socialism, Wheelwright and McFarlane, Monthly Review Press.
[9] History of the PLA, Tirana, 1971.
[10] The United Front Against War and Fascism, Georgi Dimitrov, published by Gamma Publishing and Proletarian Publishers.
Fascism and Social Revolution, R. Palme Dutt, Proletarian Publishers.
MLMTT: Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought
YC: Yenan Collective
PLA: Party of Labor of Albania