Category Archives: Dengism

Djibouti: Chinese troops depart for first overseas military base

The Chinese navy has visited Djibouti previously, with a ship docking at the tiny African nation’s port in 2015

Ships carrying Chinese troops are heading to Djibouti to set up Beijing’s first overseas military base, reports state media.

China says the support base will be used for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid in Africa and West Asia.

It will also be used for military co-operation, naval exercises and rescue missions, Xinhua said.

China has ramped up investment in Africa, as well as rapidly modernised its military in recent years.

The Xinhua report said the ships departed from the port city of Zhanjiang in China’s southern Guangdong province on Tuesday.

It did not specify the number of troops or ships that departed for Djibouti, nor when the base would start operations.

The report said the Djibouti base came after “friendly negotiations” between the two countries. Previous reports said construction began last year.

The base is widely seen as a move by China to stake its military presence in the region.

But an editorial (in Chinese) on Wednesday in the state-run Global Times said that the “essential purpose of China’s development of its military might is to protect ‘China’s safety’, and is not about seeking to control the world”.

The newspaper pointed out that the US, Japan and France also have military bases in Djibouti.

Djibouti, a tiny country at the Horn of Africa, is favoured for its location as it sits near a busy shipping route. It is also seen as a stable country in an otherwise volatile region.

China has invested in a railway that connects Djibouti to the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa

In 2015, at a major summit with African nations, China pledged to invest $60bn(then £40bn) in Africa’s development.

Besides becoming the continent’s largest trading partner, it has also poured in funds and manpower for infrastructure projects.

Many of them are railways linking up African countries, including one that connects Djibouti with the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, as well as railways in Angola, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia.

In return, Africa supplies China with natural resources, minerals and energy.

China also embarked on its first foreign peacekeeping mission in South Sudan in 2015.



Lin Biaoism and the Third World: How Idealism Distorts Class


by Espresso Stalinist

An odd phenomenon is haunting the halls of Maoism – a chauvinist set of ideas loosely forged from the writings of Chinese military officer and politician Lin Biao. These ideas, to the extent to which they form coherent ideology at all, can roughly be termed “Lin Biaoism.” To be perfectly clear, I am under no impression that “Lin Biaoism” is an entirely new ideology. Lin Biao’s works are not significant enough to constitute a new stage of revolutionary science. What does exist is a wing of Maoism, usually associated with the “third-worldist” variety, that upholds the works of Lin Biao in theory and practice. The ideology, such as it is, is not worth refuting. However, its underlying assumptions about proletarian internationalism, imperialism, revolutionary theory and practice are.

I fully expect upon publication these thoughts will have piles of ashes heaped upon them as “first worldism,” as “a total misrepresentation” of the ideas I criticize, and overall rejection of this piece as a reactionary and revisionist writing dedicated to attacking Lin Biao’s theories. But this is par for the course with “third-worldists” of all kinds, who much like anarchists dismiss all criticisms by claiming the author knows not what they criticize. In this essay, I am not concerned with what I allegedly do not know – I am only concerned with what we do know. In this case, what we know about the problems in Lin Biao’s theories.

Lin Biao (1907-1971) was a Chinese revisionist military officer and politician. Born in December 5th, 1907, he graduated from the famous Whampoa Military Academy, then under the command of Chiang Kai-shek. After graduation he joined the armed forces of the Kuomintang (KMT) or Nationalists. During the Northern Expedition he joined the Communist Party. Following the 1927 Shanghai massacre of thousands of workers, trade unionists and Communist Party members, which began the Chinese Civil War, Lin defected to the Red Army. He participated in the Long March and became known as one of the CPC’s most brilliant military commanders and an authority on guerrilla warfare. During the Japanese invasion of China, Lin commanded troops in the Battle of Pingxingguan, one of the few battlefield successes for the Chinese during the first period of the Second Sino-Japanese War. He was forced to retire from active service in 1937 after a serious battlefield injury complicated by tuberculosis and left for Moscow, where from 1937 to 1942 he acted as the representative of the CPC to the Executive Committee of the Communist International, or Comintern.

After the end of World War II and the Soviet liberation of Manchuria from the Japanese, fighting resumed between the Communists and Nationalists. Lin led victorious campaigns of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in Manchuria and throughout Northern China against the KMT forces, including the famous Pingjin Campaign, which led to the liberation of Beijing in 1949. His forces then resumed attacks on the KMT in the southeast, which led to securing the major cities of Wuhan and Guangzhou. He was named one of the “Ten Marshals” after the Communist victory and the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Lin mostly abstained from participating politics in the 1950s. In 1962 Lin succeeded Peng Dehuai as commander of the PLA, starting a rectification program among officers and soldiers stressing political education, eventually culminating in the abolition of ranks in the PLA. Lin would rise to political prominence again during the Cultural Revolution.

Lin Biao was the most prominent supporter of the cult of personality around Mao, working to develop it within the PLA in particular. In 1964 it was he who compiled some of Mao’s writings into a handbook, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, also known as the Little Red Book, and ensured it was mass-produced and distributed, first within the PLA, and then throughout the entire People’s Republic.

In September 1965, Lin Biao’s most famous work, “Long Live the Victory of People’s War!” was published, which contains the vast majority of his political theories. It heavily promoted Mao Tse-tung’s theory of people’s war:

“Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s theory of people’s war has been proved by the long practice of the Chinese revolution to be in accord with the objective laws of such wars and to be invincible. It has not only been valid for China, it is a great contribution to the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples throughout the world. [….] Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s theory of people’s war is not only a product of the Chinese revolution, but has also the characteristics of our epoch.”

And even proclaimed it to be universal:

“It must be emphasized that Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s theory of the establishment of rural revolutionary base areas and the encirclement of the cities from the countryside is of outstanding and universal practical importance for the present revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed nations and peoples, and particularly for the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America against imperialism and its lackeys.”

It heavily supported the Maoist theory of the revolutionary movement spreading from the countryside to the cities:

“The countryside, and the countryside alone, can provide the broad areas in which the revolutionaries can manoeuvre freely. The countryside, and the countryside alone, can provide the revolutionary bases from which the revolutionaries can go forward to final victory.”

Lin Biao believed this even to the point of arguing against the modernization of the PLA in favor of people’s war. More significantly, in perhaps the most influential part of his pamphlet to modern-day “Lin Biaoists,” Lin Biao applies the Maoist concept of people’s war to the international situation:

“Taking the entire globe, if North America and Western Europe can be called ‘the cities of the world’, then Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute ‘the rural areas of the world’. Since World War II, the proletarian revolutionary movement has for various reasons been temporarily held back in the North American and West European capitalist countries, while the people’s revolutionary movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America has been growing vigorously. In a sense, the contemporary world revolution also presents a picture of the encirclement of cities by the rural areas. In the final analysis, the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples who make up the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.”

At the 11th Plenum of the 8th CC in August 1966, a meeting presided over by Mao and guarded by Lin’s troops, the famous big-character poster reading, “Bombard the Headquarters!” was unveiled, written by Mao himself. This was a declaration of war against the “right” elements Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and other leaders of the party apparatus, and the practical launching of what would come to be called the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.” During the Cultural Revolution, after initial control by the Red Guards proved too tenuous the PLA under Lin Biao’s command effectively took over the role of controlling the country previously held by the Communist Party. The GPCR had virtually destroyed the Communist Party and liquidated its organizations, but had greatly strengthened the political role of the army, which largely controlled the provincial Revolutionary Committees and many Ministries and economic enterprises.

The Ninth Congress of the Communist Party of China was held in 1969, during which former President Liu Shaoqi was removed from all posts and expelled from the party. During this Congress Lin built up the cult of Mao more than ever, declaring Mao’s though to be a “higher and completely new stage” of Marxism. He summed up the ideology of Maoism, then called “Mao Tse-tung Thought,” thusly:

“The Communist Party of China owes all its achievements to the wise leadership of Chairman Mao and these achievements constitute victories for Mao Tsetung Thought. For half a century now, in leading the great struggle of the people of all the nationalities of China for accomplishing the new-democratic revolution, in leading China’s great struggle for socialist revolution and socialist construction and in the great struggle of the contemporary international communist movement against imperialism, modern revisionism and the reactionaries of various countries, Chairman Mao has integrated the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of revolution, has inherited, defended and developed Marxism-Leninism in the political, military, economic, cultural, philosophical and other spheres, and has brought Marxism-Leninism to a higher and completely new stage. Mao Tsetung Thought is Marxism-Leninism of the era in which imperialism is heading for total collapse and socialism is advancing to world-wide victory. The entire history of our Party has borne out this truth: Departing from the leadership of Chairman Mao and Mao Tsetung Thought, our Party will suffer setbacks and defeats; following Chairman Mao closely and acting on Mao Tsetung Thought, our Party will advance and triumph. We must forever remember this lesson. Whoever opposes Chairman Mao, whoever opposes Mao Tsetung Thought, at any time or under any circumstances, will be condemned and punished by the whole Party and the whole country.”

During his report to the Ninth Congress, Lin went so far as to proclaim that according to Marxist theory, the main component of the state is the military:

“The People’s Liberation Army is the mighty pillar of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Chairman Mao has pointed out many times: From the Marxist point of view the main component of the state is the army.”

Lin Biao was built up as Mao’s successor to such an extent that during the Ninth Congress, one of the very few congresses held in Chinese history, the idea of Lin as successor in the event of Mao’s resignation or death was literally written into the Constitution of the CPC. It was passed on April 14th, 1969. It stated:

“Comrade Lin Piao has consistently held high the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s Thought and he has most loyally and resolutely carried out the defended Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s proletarian revolutionary line. Comrade Lin Piao is Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s closest comrade-in-arms and successor.”

This favored position would not last. A mere four years later, on August 1973, the Tenth Party Congress stated:

“The Congress indignantly denounced the Lin Piao anti-Party clique for its crimes. All the delegates firmly supported this resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China: Expel Lin Piao, the bourgeois careerist, conspirator, counter-revolutionary double-dealer, renegade and traitor from the Party once and for all.”

The events leading up to this posthumous denunciation are highly controversial. Lin Biao, along with several members of his family, died mysteriously in a plane crash over Mongolia in September 1971 in circumstances that are still heavily in dispute. It is generally accepted he was trying to flee to the Soviet Union. According to the official Chinese version of events, Lin Biao had attempted to initiate a pro-Soviet coup d’etat that would topple Mao Tse-tung and Zhou En-lai from power to establish a military dictatorship in China, and when he failed in this endeavor, he attempted to flee and sought refuge in the U.S.S.R. As the plane approached the Mongolian border, a gun fight broke out, causing it to crash. Whatever the case, Lin Biao and all on board died in the crash.

In his political diary, Albanian Marxist-Leninist leader Enver Hoxha characterized the Lin Biao affair as more frivolous than a James Bond thriller:

“The question arises: Why should Lin Piao murder Mao and why take his place, when he himself occupied precisely the main position after Mao, was his deputy appointed by the Constitution and by Mao himself? Lin Piao had great renown in China. The Cultural Revolution, ‘the work of Comrade Mao’, had built up his prestige. Then, what occurred for this ‘mutual political trust and the same ideological conviction’ between Mao and Lin Piao to suddenly disappear to the point that the latter organized an attempt on Mao’s life? And this act looks like an episode from ‘James Bond’”

(Hoxha, Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 465).

The rift between Mao and Lin needs to be expressed in solid political terms and not personal terms such as “lust for power” or “jealously” as bourgeois historians are so fond to do. Hard evidence on this matter seems to be scarce due to a lack of surviving evidence, but a few things are undeniable.

For example, Lin was on his way to the Soviet Union because of a split with Mao and his supporters over domestic and foreign policy. In September 1970, the grouping around Mao Tse-tung pressed for a Fourth Five-Year-Plan, which involved a massive program for mechanization of agriculture to be financed by reducing expenditure on the armed forces. This reduction was to be made possible by bringing about a détente with the United States. Lin Biao’s pro-Soviet faction opposed détente with the U.S. This was denounced by Mao and Zhou’s group as “ultra-leftism.” In December 1970, a movement began for a revival of the provincial Communist Party committees, which had been shattered by the Cultural Revolution. This was strongly opposed by Lin and the army leadership, since it would threaten the military’s ascendancy.

I see only two possibilities to this story, and both are somewhat related:

1) Lin Biao did plan and attempt to carry out a military coup against Mao because he wanted to “save” the country and the party from what he saw as a wrong course, or;

2) It was a conspiracy of the more pro-American elements of the CPC, including Mao and Zhou Enlai, to eliminate the most prominent opponent to their domestic and foreign policy.

In either case, clearly there was a huge rift with Mao’s policies, including regarding military control following the GPCR, and the controversial Chinese foreign policy of the late 1960s and 70s.

It is clear that the contradiction between Mao Tse-tung and Zhou Enlai’s group and Lin Biao’s group was a conflict between the wings of the CPC supporting reconciliation and alignment with U.S. imperialism and modernization of society, and supporting rapprochement with Soviet social-imperialism and the continuation of Lin’s “people’s war’ policies, respectively. In December 1970, Mao Tse-tung said American journalist Edgar Snow that he would like to meet President Nixon, and in July 1971, U.S. diplomat Henry Kissinger made a secret visit to China. People’s Daily announced soon after that Zhou Enlai had extended an invitation to Nixon to visit China. This no doubt further inflamed conflicts, and it was obvious there were rifts in the Party from 1970-71.

Declassified transcripts of Mao’s conversations with Nixon record him making an unmistakable reference to the “Lin Biao Affair” in 1972:

President Nixon: When the Chairman says he voted for me, he voted for the lesser of two evils.

Chairman Mao: I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right.

President Nixon: And General DeGaulle.

Chairman Mao: DeGaulle is a different question. They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.

President Nixon: I think the important thing to note is that in America, at least at this time, those on the right can do what those on the left talk about.

Dr. Kissinger: There is another point, Mr. President. Those on the left are pro-Soviet and would not encourage a move towards the People’s Republic, and in fact criticize you on those grounds.

Chairman Mao: Exactly that. Some are opposing you. In our country also there is a reactionary group which is opposed to our contact with you. The result was they got on an airplane and fled abroad.

Prime Minister Chou: Maybe you know this.

Chairman Mao: Throughout the whole world, the U.S. intelligence reports are comparatively accurate. The next was Japan. As for the Soviet Union, they finally went to dig out the corpses, but they didn’t say anything about it.

Prime Minister Chou: In Outer Mongolia.”

Before long, China threw off its former policy of anti-imperialism, arguing for a strengthening of NATO, support for German reunification and West European integration, support for U.S.-Japanese Security Treaty, declining support for national liberation movements in South Asia, its support for reactionary “liberation” movements supported by imperialist powers (such as UNITA in Angola), and its support of the semi-colonies of imperialist powers, such as Iran, Pakistan, Zaire, fascist Chile and the Philippines.

So, now that I’ve finished this grand history lesson, how does this relate back to modern Maoism? More than you might think after reading, actually. Maoist supporters of the “new-democratic” theory of the Chinese Revolution, as well as the peasant-based theory of “people’s war” largely seek their justifications in Lin’s pamphlet. We have already examined Lin’s representation of the international situation in his 1965 pamphlet. Lin Biao, in an attempt to apply the Maoist concept of people’s war to the international struggle, pioneered an early version of Mao’s later “theory of three worlds” which perceives the world as being a global countryside surrounding a global city. His line as expressed in “Long Live The Victory of People’s War!” represents the absolutizing of the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations – and that, more than anything else, is what is key. Lin Biao’s ideas do not speak of the contradiction (at the time) between two opposing systems, socialism and capitalism, or of the contradiction between capital and labor in the capitalist countries, or of the contradiction between the imperialist powers. He misunderstands the entire foundation for the modern revolutionary movement, and raises his vision of the “global countryside” surrounding the “global city” out of dialectical context, treating it as the principal contradiction in the world.

Modern third-worldism is largely based on Lin Biaoism, though it has perhaps its earliest roots in the theories of Mirza Sultan-Galiyev. Sultan-Galiyev was a Tatar pan-Islamic nationalist opposed by Lenin and Stalin. He later began conspiratorial activity, including tried to ally with Trotsky but was rejected, and had ties to the anti-Soviet counterrevolutionary Bashmachi movement. Among other beliefs, Sultan-Galiyev thought that the Muslim peoples were “proletarian peoples” and thus national movements among them were socialist revolutions, that in places inhabited by Muslims, the Communist Party should “integrate” with Islam, which should be brought about by a special Muslim party, and that geographically large territorial units should be formed embracing as many Muslims as possible. He had dreams of creating a pan-Turanian Turkish-Tatar state stretching across Central Asia. He was eventually arrested for his conspiratorial activity and died in prison. Like Sultan-Galiyev, Lin Biao’s analysis is not class-based, and in fact Lin’s pamphlet contains theses very similar to that of “Sultan-Galiyevism”:

“If North American and western Europe can be called ‘the cities of the world’, then Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute ‘the rural areas of the world’…the contemporary world revolution…presents a picture of the encirclement of cities by the rural areas. In the final analysis, the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples.”

Obviously, no Marxist can deny the contradiction between the imperialist powers and the colonial and semi-colonial countries, which is a major contradiction in the world we live in. Independence and national liberation struggles for independence and national sovereignty led against imperialism is a just struggle which deserves the support of Marxist-Leninists and the world proletariat. But that’s not all Lin Biao does. Here, while recognizing the existence of revolutionary situations and movement in countries in the “third world,” he treats the “third world” as an undifferentiated whole, exaggerating this situation into one in which the entire “third world” is ripe everywhere for revolution. What is also striking about his “countryside versus city” division of the world is his non-class view of the “third world,” its omission of the basic contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and its disregarding of classes and class struggle within those countries, and an utter lack of analysis of the class nature of the regimes which rule there. This way the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and the reactionary and pro-imperialist powers is absolutized.

But the modern preachers of Lin Biaoism go further than to label the “third world” as leader of the liberation movement or the main force in the struggle against imperialism – frequently they proclaim it the only revolutionary force in the world. But to speak about the “third world” as the main force against imperialism and as the main force of the revolution such as the followers of Lin Biaoism, of third-worldism and other theories do ignores (or in some cases intentionally glosses over) the objective fact that the majority of the countries of the “third world” are ruled by agents of imperialism and neo-colonialism. The international view of Lin Biaoism belittles the size and importance of the comprador bourgeoisie and other pro-imperialist forces of the “third world.” To speak of the “third world” as a undifferentiated whole without making any distinction between genuine anti-imperialist revolutionary forces and pro-imperialist, reactionary and fascist ruling classes is to abandon the class struggle and the teachings of Marxism-Leninism openly. It means nothing less than to preach opportunism which cause confusion and disorder among the revolutionary proletariat.

Further, Lin Biaoism says that these countries are the “main anti-imperialist force” in the world. It logically stands to reason that it is not the business of revolutionaries to topple this “main force.” By now, it becomes increasingly apparent that Lin Biaoism is not a scientific approach to Marxism and is in opposition to proletarian internationalism. Lin Biao’s theories deny the role of the vanguard party in both the “third world” and the “first world” nations. Lin Biao’s concepts obscure the character of class struggle, creates illusions and misleads the people. Lin Biaoism is claimed by its followers to be the strategy for revolution today, and yet this strategy has no place for the proletariat or the Marxist-Leninist party. It claims to be a valuable contribution towards a proper analysis of the forces of the world, and yet classes are not mentioned.

Lin Biao’s theoretical understanding is eerily similar to that put forward by Karl Kautsky at the beginning of the century. Kautsky, on the eve of the First World War, postulated that in the field of international relations, a new age was approaching “in which the competition among states will be disabled by their cartel relationship.” He argued “there is nothing further to prevent […] finally replacing imperialism by a holy alliance of the imperialists.” This state of affairs is what he referred to as “Ultra Imperialism.” Kautsky falsely predicted the onset of a new phase of the elimination of contradictions between imperialist and capitalist states. This gave way to reformism, since it remained purely focused on combating “hegemonism” and sees imperialism as a policy, which could be adopted or rescinded at the whim of the ruling class, instead of the latest stage in the development of capitalism. Lenin in contrast, viewed imperialism as the highest and last stage of capitalism – monopoly capitalism that needs the domination of other countries and war. Lenin strongly criticized this theory of Kautsky’s, pointing out his denial of the connection between the rule of monopolies and imperialism, as well as his attempts to portray the rule of finance capital as somehow “lessening” the contradictions inherent in the world economy, when in reality it increases and aggravates them. Lenin summed up thusly:

“The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?”

(V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism).

Uneven development among nations means that capitalists internationally frequently have radically different interests and not all of these interests can be met by full integration of their economic activity within the global marketplace. Any alliance, any “unity” within the capitalist camp is subject to how it benefits the profits of the individual capitalists within such an alliance. Unlike workers, who are able to reap benefits from the struggles of workers all over the world, a capitalist isn’t necessarily benefited by the success of other capitalists. As capitalists are forced to compete for what they perceive to be a limited number of material and market resources, the bonds which have formerly bound them begin to deteriorate.

Lin Biaoist formulations of the world proclaim no actual, concrete program for anti-imperialist struggle, or even for support of national liberation movements of oppressed peoples. What they do, quite in the style of the idealists of the past, is to cloak the question of revolution in bombastic-sounding phrases. Lin Biaoism implicitly capitulates to imperialism by including the reactionaries and comprador bourgeoisie in the same ranks as the people and the revolutionaries of the “third world.” This can only lead to obscuring the radical contradictions characteristic of the monopoly stage of capitalism. Interestingly, Lin Biao portrays imperialism as the main enemy of the world’s people, and yet the same set of theories were used by Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping to ally themselves with imperialism. This is not just a lesson for those in the “first,” “second” or “third” worlds, but the entire world. While some of the supporters of the theory may disagree with specific tactics in the examples I have cited, the overall logic is inescapable.

Of course, there are a never-ending stream of national-chauvinist Marxists who stand ready and willing to assure us that this position of Lin’s conforms more closely to reality than, say, those of Trotsky, who in this case acts as a stand-in for anyone opposed to Lin Biao’s theories, or J. Sakai’s, or Sultan-Galiyev’s, or whoever they happen to be cheering on. These chauvinists are usually quick to conjure demons from oblivion at the sign of the slightest opposition to their theories, such as “Trotskyism” or “Eurocentric” Marxism. Sometimes they are even brave enough to challenge traditional Marxism, which they characterize as ‘Eurocentric” or “mechanical.” As we all know, Marxism consists of choosing between envisioning a dramatic repetition of the events of the Chinese Revolution on a global scale with isolated urban areas in a sea of peasant revolution, or being accused of Euro-chauvinism ourselves. The endless need of revisionists to figure out which demonstrably incorrect line is “closer” to reality never ceases to amaze me, and the debate between Trotskyism, a stand-in for supposedly “Eurocentric” traditional Marxism and Lin Biaoism and its proclamation that the the entire so-called “third world” or “global south” is ready and ripe for revolution is no exception to that.

Today there is much talk about the “first,” “second” or “third” world, a world of “colonized” countries versus “colonizer” countries, of the “global south versus the global north,” etc. All of these terms, of course, conceal the real class nature of these countries. But this is not all, oh no dear reader, not quite all indeed! For recently, these ideas have further paved the way for its modern adherents to apply class labels to entire nations, saying that the “first world” represents a global bourgeoisie and making such claims as the first world populations not representing the true proletariat. Some go even further, and take Lin Biaoist views to outright denying the first world proletariat’s revolutionary potential, dismissing it as inherently reactionary as a class. At first glance, nothing would appear stranger than a group of so-called Marxists in the first world decrying the revolutionary potential of its people. But in fact, it’s no secret that this odd trend of Maoism has emerged as one of the most outwardly vocal, if not particularly politically effective, voices on the American left in recent years.

Whether they claim there are no significant exploited groups in the first world, or that internally colonized peoples are the only real proletariat, or some other variation thereof, modern third-worldism attempts to peddle the same Lin Biaoist theories, despite what differences they may have. Some confuse class as income, while others do not. Some claim that class is one’s personal ideology, i.e. reactionary workers are bourgeois or labor aristocrat, while others do not. Some, like author J. Sakai, claim that every person of European descent in the United States is a net exploiter from the American colonies onwards, and that the U.S. has no proletariat of its own but exists parasitically on colonial peoples, oppressed nations and national minorities, whom he labels the “true proletariat.” Therefore, the entire white working class is reactionary rather than revolutionary and this has always been the case, and therefore working class solidarity between whites, blacks, Hispanics, Natives, Asians and other peoples is impossible. He recognizes white privilege in the form of Euro-American workers being a privileged labor aristocracy which possesses a petty-bourgeois reformist ideology rather than a revolutionary proletarian one. Sakai’s solution is to call for a kind of Bundist separatism, with each racial group creating its own independent organization.

Before I continue, it must be made clear that the labor aristocracy, that is, the stratum of highly-paid and privileged workers bribed by the imperialist bourgeoisie by means of superprofits extracted from colonies and neo-colonies, certainly exists. This has been recognized by all the Marxist classics ever since the strata of the labor aristocracy emerged in Britain in the mid-19th century. This tendency was recognized by Marx and Engels, and they traced this opportunism within the working class movement directly back to British imperialism:

“[T]he English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat. In the case of a nation which exploits the entire world this is, of course, justified to some extent”

(F. Engels, “Engels to Marx in London,” 7 October 1858).

These views remained consistent over the course of several decades, as seen in this letter from Engels to Kautsky dated twenty-four years later:

“You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general: the same as what the bourgeois think. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies”

(F. Engels, “Engels to Karl Kautsky in Vienna,” 12 September 1882).

V.I. Lenin also identified the source of bribery for the labor aristocracy as the commercial and industrial monopoly of the imperialist countries and their export of capital to the colonial countries:

“Before the war [World War I – E.S.], it was calculated that the three richest countries—Britain, France and Germany—got between eight and ten thousand million francs a year from the export of capital alone, apart from other sources.

It goes without saying that, out of this tidy sum, at least five hundred millions can be spent as a sop to the labour leaders and the labour aristocracy, i.e., on all sorts of bribes. The whole thing boils down to nothing but bribery. It is done in a thousand different ways: by increasing cultural facilities in the largest centres, by creating educational institutions, and by providing co-operative, trade union and parliamentary leaders with thousands of cushy jobs. This is done wherever present-day civilised capitalist relations exist. It is these thousands of millions in super-profits that form the economic basis of opportunism in the working-class movement. In America, Britain and France we see a far greater persistence of the opportunist leaders, of the upper crust of the working class, the labour aristocracy; they offer stronger resistance to the Communist movement. That is why we must be prepared to find it harder for the European and American workers’ parties to get rid of this disease than was the case in our country. We know that enormous successes have been achieved in the treatment of this disease since the Third International was formed, but we have not yet finished the job; the purging of the workers’ parties, the revolutionary parties of the proletariat all over the world, of bourgeois influences, of the opportunists in their ranks, is very far from complete.”

(V.I. Lenin, “The Second Congress of the Communist International”)

“They [Social-Democrats] are just as much traitors to socialism… They represent that top section of workers who have been bribed by the bourgeoisie… for in all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting ‘gain’ from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of ‘their own’ country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain superprofits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution.”

(V.I. Lenin., “Letter to the Workers of Europe and America,” Pravda; No. 16, January 24, 1919)

Exploitation of the world by imperialist countries and their monopoly position on the global market, as well as their colonial possessions, allowed sections of their proletariat to become bourgeois, and allowed a section of their proletariat to allow themselves to be bribed by the bourgeoisie. Unlike modern third-worldists however, who dismiss the whole of the population of imperialist countries as unexploited and bourgeois, while recognizing the social and economic basis for opportunism and revisionism in the more developed countries, Lenin spoke of the labor aristocracy as a minority of the workers, and that it was the task of the revolutionaries to expose them:

“Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the ‘defenders of the fatherland’ in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution…”

(V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”).

He continued:

“The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism […]”

(V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”).

Enver Hoxha analyzed the origins and class nature of the labor aristocracy, and noted its role in the advent of revisionism and reformism in the Communist Parties as well, particularly in Europe:

“The development of the economy in the West after the war [World War II – E.S.] also exerted a great influence on the spread of opportunist and revisionist ideas in the communist parties. True, Western Europe was devastated by the war but its recovery was carried out relatively quickly. The American capital which poured into Europe through the ‘Marshall Plan’ made it possible to reconstruct the factories, plants, transport and agriculture so that their production extended rapidly. This development opened up many jobs and for a long period, not only absorbed all the free labour force but even created a certain shortage of labour.

This situation, which brought the bourgeoisie great superprofits, allowed it to loosen its purse-strings a little and soften the labour conflicts to some degree. In the social field, in such matters as social insurance, health, education, labour legislation etc., it took some measures for which the working class had fought hard. The obvious improvement of the standard of living of the working people in comparison with that of the time of the war and even before the war, the rapid growth of production, which came as a result of the reconstruction of industry and agriculture and the beginning of the technical and scientific revolution, and the full employment of the work force, opened the way to the flowering amongst the unformed opportunist element of views about the development of capitalism without class conflicts, about its ability to avoid crises, the elimination of the phenomenon of unemployment etc. That major teaching of Marxism-Leninism, that the periods of peaceful development of capitalism becomes a source for the spread of opportunism, was confirmed once again. The new stratum of the worker aristocracy, which increased considerably during this period, began to exert an ever more negative influence in the ranks of the parties and their leaderships by introducing reformist and opportunist views and ideas.

Under pressure of these circumstances, the programs of these communist parties were reduced more and more to democratic and reformist minimum programs, while the idea of the revolution and socialism became ever more remote. The major strategy of the revolutionary transformation of society gave way to the minor strategy about current problems of the day which was absolutized and became the general political and ideological line.”

(Enver Hoxha. Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1980. pp. 82-83.)

So as we can see, the correct Marxist-Leninist analysis of the labor aristocracy was upheld by all the classics. However, none of this says that a proletariat ceases to exist in those countries. In contrast, modern “third-worldism,” sometimes called “Maoism Third-Worldism” and sometimes not, is the belief that first world workers are non-revolutionary and have the status of a global labor aristocracy lacking a proletarian revolutionary consciousness or revolutionary potential at all, since supposedly imperial capital has tamed them with flashy electronics and consumer products, thus bribing them into passivity. Thus, according to this mode of thought, first world leftists must place their hopes for a revolution on the peoples of the third world. This set of ideas was a common theme in the Maoist-inspired student movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Others since then, particularly since the 1980s, have taken this further and claimed that first world workers actually aren’t exploited at all, and are paid more than the value of their labor, thus making them part of the bourgeoisie complicit in exploiting the third world. In this version of the formulation, the first world is outright reactionary altogether. The only debate between the two types is whether there are any significantly exploited groups in the first world at all, such as prisoners, lumpenproletarians, blacks, Chicanos, etc., or if these people also share in the exploitation of the third world along with their white counterparts.

One of the most common characteristics of modern third-worldism is the tendency to blame the “first world” masses for not rising against capital, and to uphold this as evidence that they posses no revolutionary potential at all. This is especially curious as third-worldists exist almost exclusively within the “first world” themselves, and then mostly in the United States. To explain how they arrived at their revolutionary consciousness, such as it is, they are obliged to make metaphors to individuals like John Brown, and claim that the real reason socialism is not victorious in “first world” countries is that the people there recognize their material interests in following the imperialist bourgeoisie. Some even negate class as an economic classification by saying having a reactionary ideology also makes them labor aristocrats. Of course, if one blames “first world” workers for following and identifying with the dominant ideology of the bourgeoisie, the logical conclusion is to use that same standard for the large amounts of reactionary ideology in the “third world,” too, which tellingly, none of them dare to do. As Marx famously wrote:

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it”

(Karl Marx, “The German Ideology”).

What third-worldists fail to realize is that part and parcel of the material conditions in the U.S. is being subjected to the most powerful, most all pervasive, most advanced apparatus of ideological hegemony the world has ever known. In essence they are asking why socialist ideas are not more widely accepted in the country with the most powerful, advanced, developed and pervasive capitalist media. Most chauvinist of all their justification in relying on the “third world” workers to make the revolution there is that in contrast to the workers in developed countries, who apparently enjoy too many benefits in their minds, the “third world” workers are truly the only one who “have nothing to lose but their chains.” Words cannot describe how incredibly ignorant, and more than that patronizing it is for someone living in the “first world” to point their finger at the entire working class of various nations and declare that they have “nothing to lose” and thus should rise up and potentially face maiming, torture and death so that the third-worldist can sit in his comfortable air-conditioned domicile and post photos expressing “solidarity” on social media. It is strictly up to the parties, organizations and workers themselves in those countries to determine if the time and conditions are ripe for a revolution. Until then, it is arrogant, and dare I say racist, to declare that the entire working population of vast nations have “nothing to lose.” If these renegades actually visited a developing country, they might find that everywhere they went they could find people who would strongly disagree they have “nothing to lose.”

The absolutizing of the phrase which famously ends the Manifesto, namely that the workers “have nothing to lose but their chains,” is just one more example of a recent trend of making political stances out of simple slogans, and increased sloganeering to disguise political dishonesty or even reaction. It’s obvious to any ready that the original phrase was meant by Marx and Engels as a rallying call, instead of an excuse to only classify those people who “have nothing to lose” as revolutionaries or workers. Everyone on the planet, even those living in the most miserable conditions, have “something to lose,” if only their lives and their families. 

It is accurate to say that the roots of modern third-worldism are based in Maoism itself, in the peasant-based theories of Mao and especially Lin Biao. The three worlds theory, or the “theory of the three-part world” developed by Mao Tse-tung in 1974 was based entirely on China’s strategic interests. It was part of Chinese foreign policy in the 1970s as I have mentioned, and part of it was claiming U.S. imperialism was weak, citing for example its defeat in Vietnam, whereas Soviet social-imperialism was a rising and more dangerous imperialist power and a growing threat to humanity, akin to Nazi Germany. This position was supported dogmatically under Hua Guofeng but quietly dropped in the 1980s after the rise of Deng Xiaoping to the leadership of China when Sino-Soviet ties improved. But, as reactionary and mistaken as Mao’s three worlds theory might have been, and opportunist and anti-communist as was the Chinese foreign policy during that era, one cannot say Mao Tse-tung was a third-worldist in the modern sense by any stretch of the imagination. As perverse as the “theory of the three worlds” might be, present-day third-worldists are a perversion even of that shaky theoretical basis.

Modern “third-worldism” – which is an ideological variety of Lin Biaoism – existing outside of the internet has always been negligible. While some early third-worldist movements did exist as activists, none of them have been particularly large and were soon reduced almost exclusively to an internet presence. This has been the case since then. It can therefore be (rightly) inferred that third-worldists almost never have first-hand experience of life and material conditions or conditions of struggle in “third world” countries. It’s always struck me as curious that third-worldism has little to no following in the “third world” itself.

Indeed, the most commonly heard statement comrades from the “third world” made to American Marxist-Leninists is that our struggle here, in the very heart of imperialism, will be decisive. Mao Tse-tung himself made many such statements, such as this one from 1970:

“While massacring the people in other countries, U.S. imperialism is slaughtering the white and black people in its own country. Nixon’s fascist atrocities have kindled the raging flames of the revolutionary mass movement in the United States. The Chinese people firmly support the revolutionary struggle of the American people. I am convinced that the American people who are fighting valiantly will ultimately win victory and that the fascist rule in the United States will inevitably be defeated”

(Mao Tse-tung, “People of the World, Unit and Defeat the U.S. Aggressors and All Their Running Dogs”).

As far back as 1949, Mao spoke of the class struggles within the United States between the people and the ruling class:

“To start a war, the U.S. reactionaries must first attack the American people. They are already attacking the American people – oppressing the workers and democratic circles in the United States politically and economically and preparing to impose fascism there. The people of the United States should stand up and resist the attacks of the U.S. reactionaries. I believe they will”

(Mao Tse-tung, “Talk with American Correspondent Anna Louise Strong”).

As well, in a telegram to William Z. Foster in 1945, Mao wrote regarding the defeat of of Earl Browder’s revisionist and liquidationist line:

“Beyond all doubt the victory of the U.S. working class and its vanguard, the Communist Party of the United States, over Browder’s revisionist-capitulationist line will contribute signally to the great cause in which the Chinese and American peoples are engaged the cause of carrying on the war against Japan and of building a peaceful and democratic world after the war”

(Mao Tse-tung, “Telegram to Comrade William Z. Foster”).

In 1963, Mao also issued a statement supporting working class solidarity in the United States against systematic racism:

“I call upon the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie, and other enlightened personages of all colours in the world, white, black, yellow, brown, etc., to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practiced by U.S. imperialism and to support the American Negroes in their struggle against racial discrimination. In the final analysis, a national struggle is a question of class struggle. In the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling clique among the whites which is oppressing the Negro people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals, and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists, headed by the United States, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are carrying out oppression, aggression and intimidation against the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. They are the minority, and we are the majority. At most they make up less than ten percent of the 3,000 million people of the world”

(Mao Tse-tung, “Statement Supporting the Afro-Americans in their Just Struggle Against Racial Discrimination by U.S. Imperialism”).

And again in 1968:

“Racial discrimination in the United States is a product of the colonialist and imperialist system. The contradiction between the Black masses in the United States and the U.S. ruling circles is a class contradiction. Only by overthrowing the reactionary rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class and destroying the colonialist and imperialist system can the Black people in the United States win complete emancipation. The Black masses and the masses of white working people in the United States have common interests and common objectives to struggle for. Therefore, the Afro-American struggle is winning sympathy and support from increasing numbers of white working people and progressives in the United States. The struggle of the Black people in the United States is bound to merge with the American workers’ movement, and this will eventually end the criminal rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class”

(Mao Tse-tung, “A New Storm Against Imperialism”).

As I’ve already shown, Lin Biao’s line, which is much more closely followed by modern third-worldists, saw the primary contradiction in the world as between the global city and global countryside, or the exploited poor countries versus the wealthy imperialist countries, imagining people’s war on a global scale. Some even go as far to say that the waging of people’s war is the true test if a movement is truly communist or not. Third-worldists today uphold the theories of Lin Biao and largely reject the Chinese policies during this period, accusing the Chinese leadership, and even Mao Tse-tung himself, of “first-worldism” for supporting the class struggles of the workers in the “first world.” Of course, revolutionaries in the “third world” saying the working class in the “first world” also wage a decisive struggle are not limited to Mao himself.

Cuban poet and revolutionary José Martí once spoke a phrase which was popularized by Ernesto “Che” Guevara: “I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all – you live in the heart of the beast.”

During the anti-colonial wars in Vietnam against the French, Ho Chi Minh spoke of the French working class as an ally against the French imperialists:

“If the French imperialists think that they can suppress the Vietnamese revolution by means of terror, they are grossly mistaken. For one thing, the Vietnamese revolution is not isolated but enjoys the assistance of the world proletariat in general and that of the French working class in particular.”

(Ho Chi Minh, “Appeal made on the Occasion of the Founding of the Indochinese Communist Party”).

Ho Chi Minh further said he considered the French and Vietnamese proletariat as two forces which ought to unite together in a common struggle against the French ruling class:

“The mutual ignorance of the two proletariats [French and Vietnamese] gives rise to prejudices. The French workers look upon the native as an inferior and negligible human being, incapable of understanding and still less of taking action. The natives regard all the French as wicked exploiters. Imperialism and capitalism do not fail to take advantage of this mutual suspicion and this artificial racial hierarchy to frustrate propaganda and divide forces which ought to unite”

(Ho Chi Minh, “Some Considerations of the Colonial Question”).

He even spoke of the line, notably from the Second International, that people in developed countries and people in colonial and semi-colonial countries should not unite, supporting the line of Lenin and Stalin in calling it reactionary:

“I will explain myself more clearly. In his speech on Lenin and the national question Comrade Stalin said that the reformists and leaders of the Second International dared not align the white people of the colonies with their coloured counterparts. Lenin also refused to recognize this division and pushed aside the obstacle separating the civilized slaves of imperialism from the uncivilized slaves.

According to Lenin, the victory of the revolution in Western Europe depended on its close contact with the liberation movement against imperialism in enslaved colonies and with the national question, both of which form a part of the common problem of the proletarian revolution and dictatorship.

Later, Comrade Stalin spoke of the viewpoint which held that the European proletarians can achieve success without a direct alliance with the liberation movement in the colonies. And he considered this a counter-revolutionary viewpoint”

(Ho Chi Minh, “Report on the National and Colonial Questions at the Fifth Congress of the Communist International”).

In 1926, J.V. Stalin wrote the following in regards to the workers of Western Europe in supporting the Bolshevik revolution:

“Without the support of the workers of the West we could scarcely have held out against the enemies surrounding us. If this support should later develop into a victorious revolution in the West, well and good. Then the victory of socialism in our country will be final”

(J.V. Stalin, “The Possibility of Building Socialism in our Country”).

Modern third-worldists, whether they base themselves on Lin Biao, Franz Fanon, Sultan-Galiyev, J. Sakai or any number of other theoreticians, claim there is a divergence between “European” socialism and oppressed nations, the countries of the “third world.” These ideas are responsible for the strengthening of the notions of “African socialism,” “Arab socialism” and various other incarnations which claim that Marxism and Leninism are only for Europeans, only for white people. It must be asked: what then, separates the Lin Biaoists from bourgeois nationalists? Indeed, what separates them at all from anti-communists? As we can see, to disparage “first world” workers as an overall counterrevolutionary class and proclaim that “third world” workers are the only ones with truly nothing to lose, and to reject solidarity between them is anti-Marxist, liquidates proletarian internationalism and ignores any idea of revolutionary connectivity between the “third” and “first” worlds. The American left has had to put up with constant subversion of revisionist, counterrevolutionary and bourgeois politics which derail the worker’s movement, and that includes those embracing the Lin Biaoist or third-worldist line.

Lin Biao, like Mao Tse-tung during his “three worlds” period, like Karl Kautsky during his opportunist period, and like the sorry assortment of modern Lin Biaoists, rely on empty and bombastic phrase-mongering, petty-bourgeois pipe dreams represented as the highest r-r-revolutionary Utopianism coupled with a lack of analysis of the real functioning and foundations of the modern economic system.

For some of these pseudo-Marxists, they do not qualify either as Lin Biaoists or third-worldists because of some various trivial minutiae, such as not outwardly calling themselves such labels, such complexity does their ideology have, you see, that it defies categorization except that which is convenient for its defenders. I do not seek to say that all the differing theories I use as examples of this tendency are precisely the same; what I’d like to point out is the common failing between Lin Biaoism, the theories of Sultan-Galiyev, Kautsky’s “ultra-imperialism,” Mao’s “theory of the three worlds,” and modern third-worldists.

What these theories demonstrate is that there are problems when one is too quick to apply phenomenon which can be empirically understood at the national level to phenomena occurring internationally. Many theorists have made such non-class-based arguments in which the old notions of class struggle and imperialism are replaced by more “global” perspectives which perceive the main contradictions within capitalism taking place globally. Inevitably, these ideas later lead those theorists and their adherents to anti-Marxist, anti-scientific conclusions which would render their theories less useful for a concrete understanding of capitalism on the world stage. There are problems which arise in trying to mechanically and haphazardly apply these contradictions in a global way.

The triumph and realization of the proletarian revolution is the main aim of our historical epoch. It must and will necessarily permeate all countries without exception, among them the ones in both the “third” and “first” worlds, regardless of their level of development, and regardless at which stages the revolution will be accomplished. Disregarding this universal law and theorizing about whole nations being labor aristocrats, forgetting the fight against the comprador bourgeoisie, evaluating “third world” countries in a chauvinist way and opposing proletarian internationalism can only mean being neither for national liberation or for proletarian revolution. The proletarian revolution must and will triumph in Africa, Asia, the Americas and in Europe, too. Whoever forgets or distorts this perspective and doesn’t actively fight towards this aim, but instead preaches that the revolution has shifted and that the proletariat of certain countries has to either acknowledge itself as inherently reactionary, or ally itself with its “third world” bourgeoisie, is someone who takes a revisionist and reactionary stance.

While Lin Biao deserves credit for his distinguished career as a military officer in the Chinese Civil War, his theories are not a suitable replacement for the Leninist understanding of imperialism and revolution. Given the profound theoretical problems in Lin Biao’s conceptions of a “global countryside” and “global city,” and the evolution of his supporter’s chauvinist theories, I argue based on the evidence I have presented that the Leninist model is still the best framework for understanding the machinations of the capitalist and imperialist system internationally, even in this moment where ephemeral fashionable words like “third world” and “global south” are on everyone’s lips.

In conclusion, perhaps Lenin said it best:

“The flight of some people from the underground could have been the result of their fatigue and dispiritedness. Such individuals may only be pitied; they should be helped because their dispiritedness will pass and there will again appear an urge to get away from philistinism, away from the liberals and the liberal-labour policy, to the working-class underground. But when the fatigued and dispirited use journalism as their platform and announce that their flight is not a manifestation of fatigue, or weakness, or intellectual woolliness, but that it is to their credit, and then put the blame on the ‘ineffective,’ ‘worthless,’ ‘moribund,’ etc., underground, these runaways then become disgusting renegades, apostates. These runaways then become the worst of advisers for the working-class movement and therefore its dangerous enemies”

(V.I. Lenin, “How Vera Zasulich Demolishes Liquidationism”).

Social-Imperialist China Praises Lee Kuan Yew

The then Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping with Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing on August 7, 2008 (REN HAIXIA)

The following article appeared in Beijing Review on April 2, 2015. It praises capitalist oligarch Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore as a great man and his government and economy as a democratic model for developing countries, smeared only by Westerners. It is just another example of the degeneration of China and of the publication, which went from writing articles like “Imperialist Plunder — Biggest Obstacle to the Economic Growth of ‘Underdeveloped’ Countries” in 1965 to praising the monopoly capitalist dictatorial model for other countries to emulate. I posted this article on social media when it first came out. It was largely ignored by supporters of the modern Chinese social-imperialist state, some of which must think it is entirely reasonable for an ostensibly communist publication to recommend that other countries follow the governing style of a deceased bourgeois autocrat. I however, do not.

– E.S.

Lee Kuan Yew’s China Connections

Remembering a wise friend of the Chinese people

By Yu Lintao

Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew died on March 23 at the age of 91, triggering an outpouring of grief from its citizens and many others around the world. Under Lee’s leadership, Singapore made a stunning transformation from a poor island country to one of the most developed nations within just one generation.

The rapid development of Singapore is well connected with its governance model which was mainly created by Lee–known today as “the Singapore model.” The political model draws on Western political systems without merely copying them. Despite being underplayed by some Western theorists as pseudo-democracy, the Singapore model has shown a clear record as a strong governance style. It ensures the Singaporean Government’s high efficiency, incorruptibility and vitality which lead the country to attain an economic leap forward.

Lee’s political model has not only benefited the development of his own country but also become a model for many countries striving to build a first-world economy. The model indicates that the Western way of governance is not the only way leading to a country’s prosperity and its people’s wellbeing.

In a message posted on the website of the State Council of China, Premier Li Keqiang stated that “Mr Lee Kuan Yew had worked together with the pioneering generation of Chinese leaders in opening the gate for the friendly cooperation between China and Singapore ? His contributions to the China-Singapore relations and China’s reform and opening up will surely be marked by history.”

In a message of condolences to Singapore’s President Tony Tan Keng Yam over the passing away of Lee, Chinese President Xi Jinping hailed Lee as an old friend of the Chinese people and the founder, pioneer and promoter of China-Singapore relations.

Lee was regarded as the founder of close Sino-Singaporean relations. He was one of the few world leaders who met with all five of China’s top leaders and visited China as many as 33 times since his first visit in 1976.

As a visionary politician, Lee seized the momentous opportunity of China’s reform and opening up, advanced Sino-Singaporean cooperation to promote the further development of his country.

In the early phase of China’s reform and opening up, Lee helped China attract investment from overseas businessmen in Southeast Asia, and he also made Singaporean participation in and support for China’s transformation a long-term policy. In the meantime, Lee cemented Singapore’s position in the global economy alongside China’s meteoric rise.

Since the establishment of their official relations in 1990, the bilateral trade between China and Singapore grew from $2.83 billion in 1990 to $91.43 billion in 2013. China has become the largest trading partner of Singapore while Singapore is the 11th largest trading partner of China.

Lee’s proposed Suzhou Industrial Park, the largest cooperative project between China and Singapore, was inaugurated in 1994 in east China’s Jiangsu Province, creating an icon of China-Singapore cooperation. It has also served as a model for China’s economic cooperation with other foreign countries.

The late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping with Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing in the 1980s (CNS)

The late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping with Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing in the 1980s (CNS)

The then Chinese President Jiang Zemin with Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing on June 13, 2000 (MAO JIANJUN)

The then Chinese President Jiang Zemin with Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing on June 13, 2000 (MAO JIANJUN)

The then Chinese President Hu Jintao with Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing on June 19, 2004 (MAO JIANJUN)

The then Chinese President Hu Jintao with Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing on June 19, 2004 (MAO JIANJUN)


General Vo Nguyen Giap’s Economic Views


“He was regarded as an elder statesman whose hard-line views had softened with the cessation of the war that unified Vietnam. He supported economic reform and closer relations with the United States while publicly warning of the spread of Chinese influence and the environmental costs of industrialization. [….]

In his final years, General Giap was an avuncular host to foreign visitors to his villa in Hanoi, where he read extensively in Western literature, enjoyed Beethoven and Liszt and became a convert to pursuing socialism through free-market reforms.

‘In the past, our greatest challenge was the invasion of our nation by foreigners,’ he told an interviewer. ‘Now that Vietnam is independent and united, we can address our biggest challenge. That challenge is poverty and economic backwardness.’

Addressing that challenge had long been deferred, he told the journalist Neil Sheehan in 1989. ‘Our country is like an ill person who has suffered for a long time,’ he said. ‘The countries around us made a lot of progress. We were at war.’”


Enver Hoxha on the Rise of China as an Imperialist Superpower

Enver Hoxha Raised Fist

“With the policy China is pursuing, it is becoming even more obvious that it is trying to strengthen the positions of capitalism at home and to establish its hegemony in the world, to become a great imperialist power, so that it, too, occupies, so to say, the ‘place it deserves.’


We are now witnessing the efforts of another big state, today’s China, to become a super power because it, too, is proceeding rapidly on the road of capitalism. But China lacks colonies, lacks large-scale developed industry, lacks a strong economy in general, and a great thermo-nuclear potential on the same scale as the other two imperialist superpowers.

To become a superpower it is absolutely essential to have a developed economy, an army equipped with atomic bombs, to ensure markets and spheres of influence, investment of capital in foreign countries, etc. China is bent on ensuring these conditions as quickly as possible. This was expressed in Chou En-lai’s speech in the People’s Assembly in 1975 and was repeated at the 11th Congress of the Communist Party of China, where it was proclaimed that, before the end of this century, China will become a powerful modern country, with the objective of catching up with the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Now this whole plan has been extended and set out in precise detail in what is called the policy of the “four modernizations”. But what road has China chosen so that it, too, will become a superpower?

At present, the colonies and markets in the world are occupied by others. The creation of an economic and military potential equal to that of the Americans and Soviets, within 20 years, and with their own forces, as the Chinese leaders claim they will do, is impossible.

In these conditions, in order to become a superpower, China will have to go through two main phases: first, it must seek credits and investments from US imperialism and the other developed capitalist countries, purchase new technology in order to exploit its local wealth, a great part of which will go as dividends for the creditors. Second, it will invest the surplus value extracted at the expense of the Chinese people in states of various continents, just as the US imperialists and Soviet social-imperialists are doing today.

China’s efforts to become a superpower are based, in the first place, on its choice of allies and the creation of alliances. Two superpowers exist in the world today, US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism. The Chinese leaders worked out that they must rely on US imperialism, on which they have pinned great hopes of getting assistance in the fields of the economy, finance, technology and organization, as well as in the military field. In fact, the economic-military potential of the United States of America is greater than that of Soviet social-imperialism. This the Chinese revisionists know well, though they say that America is declining. On the course which they are following, they cannot rely on a weak partner, from which they cannot gain much. Precisely because it is powerful, they have chosen the United States of America to be their ally.


The group ruling today in China lays great stress on the “third world” in which, not fortuitously and not without a purpose, it includes China, too. The “third world” of the Chinese revisionists has a well-defined political aim. It is part of the strategy which aims at transforming China into a superpower as quickly as possible. China wants to rally round itself all the countries of the “third world” or the non-aligned. countries or the “developing countries”, in order to create a large force, which will not only increase the overall Chinese potential but will also help China to counterpose itself to the other two superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, to carry greater weight in the bargaining over the division of markets and spheres of influence, to gain the true status of an imperialist superpower.


However, like every country with imperialist aims, China is fighting and will fight harder still for markets in the world. It is striving and will strive harder still to spread its influence and extend its domination. These plans are apparent even now. China is opening its own banks, not only in Hong Kong, where it has had them for a long time, but also in Europe and elsewhere. It will strive especially to open banks in and export capital to the countries of “the third” world.. For the present it is doing very little in this field. China’s “aid” amounts to the building of some cement factory, railway, or hospital, for its possibilities are limited. Only when the American, Japanese and other investments in China begin to yield the fruits it desires, that is, when its economy, trade and military technology are developed, will China be able to embark on a venture of real large-scale economic and military expansion. But to achieve this, time is needed.


The more China develops economically and militarily, the more it will want to penetrate into and dominate the small and less developed countries by means of its exports of capital, and then it will no longer charge a 1-2 percent interest for its credits, but will act like all the others.


China cannot carry on positive revolutionary propaganda in the countries of the “third world”, also, because it would come into collision with that superpower from which it is hoping to get investments of capital in China and advanced technology. China cannot conduct such propaganda, also, because the revolution would overthrow precisely those reactionary cliques ruling in a number of countries of the so-called third world, which China is supporting and helping to stay in power.


China cannot go ahead with its course of transforming itself into a superpower without intensifying the exploitation of the broad working masses at home. The United States of America and the other capitalist states will seek to secure superprofits from the capital they will’ invest there, they will also press for rapid and radical transformations of the base and superstructure of Chinese society in the capitalist direction. The intensification of the exploitation of the multimillion strong masses to maintain the Chinese bourgeoisie and its gigantic bureaucratic apparatus and to meet the repayment of the credits and interest to the foreign capitalists, will undoubtedly give rise to deep contradictions between the Chinese proletariat and peasantry, on the one hand, and the bourgeois-revisionist rulers, on the other. This will bring the latter into confrontation with the working masses of their own country, a thing which cannot fail to lead to sharp conflicts and revolutionary outbursts in China.”

Enver Hoxha, “Imperialism and the Revolution” Excerpts from “China’s Plan to Become a Superpower”

Enver Hoxha on Africa


Africa is a mosaic of peoples with an ancient culture. Each African people has its own culture, customs, way of life, which, with some variations, are at a very backward stage, for well-known reasons. The awakening of the bulk of these peoples has only recently begun. De jure, the African peoples, in general, have won their freedom and independence. But there can be no talk of genuine freedom and independence, since most of them are still in a colonial or neo-colonial state.

Many of these countries are governed by the chieftains of the old tribes who have seized power and rely on the old colonialists, or the US imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists. The methods of government in these states at this stage are not and cannot be other than a marked survival of colonialism. The imperialists are ruling most of the African countries again through their concerns, their capital invested in industry, banks, etc. The overwhelming bulk of the wealth of these countries continues to flow to the metropolises.

Some of the African countries have fought for that freedom and independence they enjoy today, while the others have had it granted without fighting. During their colonial rule in Africa, the British, French and other colonizers oppressed the peoples but they also created a local bourgeoisie, more or less educated in the Occidental manner. The leading figures today, have also emerged from this bourgeoisie. Among them there are many anti-imperialist elements, fighters for the independence of their own countries, but the majority either remain loyal to the old colonizers, in order to preserve the close relations with them even after the f ormal abolition of colonialism, or have entered into economic and political dependence on the US imperialists or the Soviet social-imperialists.

The colonizers did not make large investments in the past. This was the case, for instance, with Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. However, the colonizers drained the wealth of all these countries, seized large tracts of land, and developed a proletariat, by no means small in number, in some special branches of the industry, such as in the extraction and processing of raw materials. They also drew large numbers of workers to the metropolises, such as to France, for instance, but also to Britain, as a cheap labour force which worked in the colonizers mines and the factories.

In the other parts of Africa, especially in Black Africa, industrial development remained more backward. All the countries of this region were divided up, especially between France, Britain, Belgium and Portugal. Great underground riches, like diamonds, iron, copper, gold, tin, etc., were discovered there long ago, and industry to mine and process minerals has been set up there.

In many African countries, large, typically colonial cities, were built, where the colonizers lived a fabulous life. Now, on the one hand, the local great bourgeoisie and its wealth is growing and developing there, while on the other hand, the impoverishment of the broad masses of working people is increasing still more. In these countries a certain degree of cultural development has been achieved, but it has more of a European character. The local culture has not developed. It has generally remained at the stage reached by the tribes and is not represented outside them, in the centres with towering sky-scrapers. This has come about because, outside the large centres, were the colonizers lived, stark misery and extreme poverty existed, hunger, disease, ignorance and ruthless exploitation of the people, in the full meaning of the term, reigned supreme.

The African population remained culturally and economically undeveloped and continuously diminished in numbers, declining because of colonial wars, the savage racial persecution, and the traffic in African negroes, who were sent to the metropolises, the United States of America, and other countries to work like animals in the plantations of cotton and other crops, as well as in the heaviest jobs in industry and construction.

For these reasons, the African peoples still have a great struggle ahead of them. This is and will be a very complicated struggle, differing from one country to another, because of the state of their economic, cultural and educational development, the degree of their political awakening, the great influence which the different religions, such as the Christian and Moslem religions, the old pagan beliefs, etc., exert on the masses of these peoples. This struggle becomes still more difficult since many of these countries are actually under the domination of neo-colonialism combined with that of local bourgeois-capitalist cliques. The law there is made by those powerful capitalist and imperialist states which subsidize or control the ruling cliques, which they set up and remove whenever the interests of the neo-colonialists require or when the balance of these interests is upset.

The policy pursued by the big landowners, the reactionary bourgeoisie, the imperialists and the neo-colonialists is intended to keep the African peoples in permanent bondage, in ignorance, to hinder their social, political and ideological development, and to obstruct their struggle to gain these rights. At present we see that those same imperialists who used to lord it over these peoples in the past, as well as other new imperialists, are trying to penetrate into the African continent, by meddling in every way in the internal affairs of the peoples. As a result of this, the contradictions among imperialists, between the peoples and the bourgeois-capitalist leaderships of most of these countries, and between the peoples and the new colonizers, are becoming more and rnore severe every day.

These contradictions must be utilized by the peoples, both to deepen them and to benefit from them. But this can be achieved only through resolute struggle by the proletariat, the poor peasantry, by all the oppressed and the slaves, against imperialism and neo-colonialism, against the local big bourgeoisie, the big landowners and their whole establishment. A special role in this struggle devolves upon progressives and democrats, the revolutionary youth and patriotic intellectuals, who aspire to see their own countries advancing free and independent, on the path of development and progress. Only through continuous and organized struggle by them will life be made difficult for the local and foreign oppressors and exploiters and government impossible. This situation will be prepared in the specific circumstances of each African state.

British and US imperialism have not given to the peoples of Africa any freedom. Everybody can see what is happening in South Africa, for instance. The white racists, the British capitalists, the exploiters, are ruling there, savagely oppressing the coloured peoples of that state, where the law of jungle prevails. Many other countries of Africa are dominated by the concerns and capital of the United States of America, Britain, France, Belgium, and other old colonialists and imperialists, who have become somewhat weaker, but who still hold the keys to the economies of these countries.

In irreconcilable struggle against the revisionists and other opportunists, against all the lackeys of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, against Castroite, Khrushchevite, Trotskyite, <<three worlds>>, and other such views and practices, they have worked out a correct political line and accumulated sufficient experience in the struggle to put this line into practice, becoming the bearers of all the revolutionary tradition of the past, in order to use it and develop it further to the advantage of the workers’ and liberation movement, the preparation and raising of the masses in revolution.

The revolutionary situations existing today make it essential for these parties to maintain the closest possible contacts and consult with one another as frequently as possible, to be able to gain the maximum benefits from one another’s experience and co-ordinate their stands and actions on the common problems of the struggle against the reactionary bourgeoisie and imperialism, against Soviet, Chinese and other brands of modern revisionism, and on all the problems of the revolution.

Now that the peoples have awakened and refuse to live any longer under the imperialist and colonial yoke, now that they are demanding freedom, independence, development and progress, and are seething with anger against foreign and internal oppressors, now that Africa, Latin America and Asia have become a boiling cauldron the old and new colonialists are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to dominate and exploit the peoples of these countries by means of the previous methods and forms. They are quite unable to do without their plunder and exploitation of the wealth, the toil and the blood of these peoples. That is why all these efforts are being made to find new methods and forms of deception, plunder and exploitation, to dispense some alms, which, again, do not benefit the masses, but the bourgeois-land owner ruling classes.

Meanwhile the question has been made even more complicated, because Soviet social-imperialism long ago began to penetrate and entrench itself more and more deeply in the former colonies and semi-colonies, and because social-imperialist China has begun to make feverish efforts to get in there, too.

The revisionist Soviet Union carries out its expansionist interference under the guise of its allegedly Leninist policy of aid for the peoples’ liberation struggle, posing as the natural ally of these countries and peoples. As a means to penetrate into Africa and elsewhere, the Soviet revisionists employ and spread slogans of a socialist colour in order to deceive the peoples who aspire to liberate themselves, to liquidate oppression and exploitation, and who know that the only road to complete national and social liberation is socialism.

The Soviet Union also involves its allies, or better, its satellites in its interference. We are seeing this concretely in Africa, where the Soviet social-imperialist and their Cuban mercenaries are intervening on the pretext that they are assisting the revolution. This is a lie. Their intervention is nothing but a colonialist action aimed at capturing markets and subjugating peoples.

The intervention of the Soviet Union and its Cuban mercenaries in Angola is of this nature. They have never had the slightest intention of assisting the Angolan revolution, but their aim was and is to get their claws into that African country which had won a certain independence after the expulsion of the Portuguese colonialists. The Cuban mercenaries are the colonial army dispatched by the Soviet Union to capture markets and strategic positions in the countries of Black Africa, and to go on from Angola to other states, to enable the Soviet social-imperialists, too, to create a modern colonial empire.

Under the cloak of aid for peoples’ liberation the Soviet Union and its mercenary, Cuba, are intervening in other countries with armies equipped with artillery and machine-guns, allegedly to build socialism, which does not exist in either the Soviet Union or Cuba. These two bourgeois-revisionist states intervened in Angola in order to help a capitalist clique seize power, contrary to the aims of the Angolan people who had fought to win their freedom from the Portuguese colonialists. Agostinho Neto is playing the game of the Soviets. In the struggle against the other faction, in order to seize power for himself, he called in the Soviets to help him. The struggle between the two opposing Angolan clans did not have anything of a people’s revolutionary character.

The fight between them was a struggle of cliques for power. Each of them was supported by different imperialist states. Agostinho Neto emerged the winner from this contest, while socialism did not triumph in Angola. On the contrary, following the intervention from abroad, Soviet neo-colonialism has been established there.

Social-imperialist China, too, is making great efforts to penetrate into the former colonial and semi-colonial countries.

An example of how China intervenes is provided by Zaire, a country ruled by the clique around Mobutu, the wealthiest and most bloodthirsty clique on the African continent. In the fighting which flared up in Zaire recently, the Moroccans of the Sherifian Kingdom of Morocco, the French air force, and China, too, all rushed to the aid of Mobutu, the murderer of Patrice Lumumba. The assistance given by the French is understandable, because with their intervention they were defending their concessions and concerns in Katanga, and at the same time, protecting their men, as well as Mobutu and his clique. But what do the Chinese revisionists want in Katanga? Whom are they assisting there? Are they helping the people of Zaire who are being suppressed by Mobutu and his clique and by the French, Belgian, US and other concession holders? Or are not they, too, assisting the blood-thirsty Mobutu clique? The fact is that the Chinese revisionist leadership is assisting this clique not indirectly, but quite openly. To make this assistance more concrete and more demonstrative, it sent its foreign minister, Huang Hua there, as well as military experts and military and economic aid. Thus, it acted in an anti-Marxist, anti-revolutionary way. China’s interference has exactly the same features as that of King Hassan of Morocco and that of France.

The Chinese social-imperialists are interfering not only in the affairs of that country, but also in other affairs of the peoples and countries of Africa and other continents, especially in those countries into which they are striving to penetrate in every way, in order to establish economic, political and strategic bases there.

Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution, Excerpts from “The Peoples’ Liberation Struggle – a Component Part of the World Revolution”

China overtakes US as world’s largest trading country

AFP Photo / China out

AFP Photo / China out

China has passed the US as the world’s biggest trading nation as measured by the sum of exports and imports in 2012. It’s a position the US has held for over six decades.

US exports and imports of goods last year amounted to $3.82 trillion, the US Commerce Department said last week. China’s trade in goods was $3.87 trillion, according to the country’s customs administration report in January. 

While the US recorded a surplus in services of $195.3 billion last year and a goods deficit of more than $700 billion, according to Bureau Economic Analysis, China’s 2012 trade surplus, measured in goods, totalled $231.1 billion.

The main reason for this growth is the Chinese government policy directed at stimulating domestic demand, which improves imports to growth,” Andrey Shenk, an economic expert at Investcafe, told RT. He said China increased its import volumes 5 fold in the last five years, and that allowed it become the biggest trading nation. 

For so many countries around the world, China is rapidly becoming the most important bilateral trade partner,” Jim O’Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs’s asset management division and the economist who bound Brazil to Russia, India and China to form the BRIC investing strategy, told Bloomberg. And that can even “disrupt regional trading blocs,” for instance, “Germany may export twice as much to China by the end of the decade as it does to France,” O’Neill added.

The figures indicate the trend that China is already outpacing the US, the world’s biggest economy, in some respects. According to various estimates, China has the world’s biggest new car market, is the biggest energy user, and holds the largest foreign currency reserves. China became the world’s biggest exporter in 2009, and its GDP growth rate has averaged 9.9% a year since the 1970s. In 2011 China’s GDP growth rate stood at 9.20%, compared to 1.80% in the US during the same year.  

In November last year China surpassed the US as the world’s leading trade partner, with 124 countries considering China their largest trading partner and only 76 having that relationship with the US. This was a major shift since 2006, when the US was the larger trading partner for 127 countries, while China dominated among 70. Some historical allies of the US now consider China their top trading partner, including Australia and South Korea. Trade with China was on average 12.4% of GDP for its foreign partners in 2012, compared to only 3% in 2002 – a rate that is higher than trade with the US has been in the past 30 years.

The US dominated as the world’s main trading power since after WWII, but as the recession hit US businesses hard, China’s growth continued, and its pace has already recovered from seven straight quarters of decline, reaching 7.9% in 4Q 2012. 

Still, the US economy is double the size of China’s, according to World Bank data. In 2011, the US GDP reached $15 trillion while China’s totalled $7.3 trillion. In 2012 China’s nominal gross domestic product was $8.3 trillion, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics’ report. However, the US remains the biggest importer, taking in $2.28 trillion in goods last year compared with China’s $1.82 trillion of imports. The US exports innovative products in the automobile industry, aerospace, medicine, computers, finance and pharmaceuticals.  

At the same time, a significant portion of China’s trade involves importing raw materials and parts to be assembled into finished products and re-exported, an activity that provides “only modest value added,” Eswar Prasad, a former International Monetary Fund official, now a professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, told Bloomberg.


China & Neocolonialism: Let’s Be Clear About the Facts


Yesterday and today I noticed many people passing around an article from China Daily which attempts to defend China’s relations with Africa and defend it against the accusation of neocolonialism. This is my response.

Let’s be clear about one thing: Africa IS dominated by neocolonialism. All of the so-called “leaders” of Africa in fact preside over neocolonial governments ruling territories whose borders are the direct result of European imperialism. They are representatives of the African petty bourgeoisie and their class interests are directly opposed to those of African workers and poor peasants. And yes, I include such people as Robert Mugabe in this description.

These are the governments with whom China is now making deals. For example, China made deals with the so-called “Congo” – a neocolonial entity. They also have had extensive dealings with the neocolonial government of Sudan – this in fact was on the primary motivations behind American, Israeli and other efforts to detach South Sudan, further fracturing the continent.

Outside of Africa China has various deals with the Zionist State of Israel, an outright white power, settler-colonial entity whose existence is entirely at the expense of the colonially dominated Palestinian and Arab peoples. China even provides arms and funding to the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka, yet another neocolonial entity, that has long attempted to violently put down the aspirations for national liberation of the Tamil people.

And that’s China today. Let’s not even start on “Maoist” China’s support for Mobuto in “Zaire” and Pinochet in Chile. The latter was a betrayal so great that many Maoists in Chile actually chose to take their own lives rather than face facts and join up with the nascent armed resistance lead by the MIR and FPMR.

Yes, certainly Chairman Mao was a great revolutionary, but Mao did not equal China or the Chinese Communist Party. If you are to believe the historical analysis of modern Maoists’ then by 1971-73 Mao had already lost control of China’s foreign policy to the rightists around Deng Xiaoping with the beginning of the collapse of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Regardless of whether you accept what the modern Maoists have to say or not (and I am by no means sold of their analysis), what this teaches us, or at least should teach us, is that China’s involvement in neocolonialism isn’t even a new phenomena, or even a phenomena of the era marked by the political collapse of the USSR.

In fact, we must be clear that what this all boils down to on the part of leftists outside of China who defend its modern policies is a line that is objectively anti-African (and anti-other colonized peoples) in its orientation and practice. It covers over the lack of self-determination for Africans and other colonized peoples.

So to echo comrade Jesse Alexander Nevel of the African People’s Solidarity Committee and Uhuru Solidarity Movement, how the fuck can anyone defend this?

However, all of this about China being said it must also be added that while we must be clear about the role of China and all foreign powers in Africa at this juncture, we must never lose sight of the fact that the #1 enemy of Africans and other colonized peoples is US imperialism. The destruction of imperialism’s domination over Africa can only be achieved by the complete liberation and unification of Africa and Africans worldwide under an all African socialist government (which is exactly what the African Socialist International is struggling towards).

When African workers and peasants control their own resources and economies then the stage will be set for the possibility of mutual cooperation between sovereign nations. The key thing for the African Revolution is that the African working class is the only social force capable of leading Africa out of the colonially imposed poverty and oppression — not the US, not Europe, not China, not India, etc, but AFRICANS.


A View of the Reforms in China

by Vladimir Chechentsev

Review of Zbigniew Wiktor’s book, China on the course of the socialist modernisation.

A major work (546 pages) has been printed by Adam Marszalek Publishing, Poland, by the Professor of Social Sciences of the University of Wroclaw, Zbigniew Wiktor, entitled Chiny na drodze socialistycznej modernizacji (‘China on the Course of the Socialist Modernisation’, Torun, 2008).

It represents the result of Wiktor’s long-term studies of the development of social relations in the People’s Republic of China, its economic and political system, supplied by observations during his stay in China in Autumn 2005, including his scientific work in the University of Wuhan.

China’s enormous size, with 1.3 billion inhabitants, a diversity of lifestyles, its rapid development in the last thirty years, its continuous flow of reforms in politics and economics – all this sets extremely difficult tasks before a social scientist – not only to give an objective reflection of reality, but to determine the tendencies of the motive forces in its future development. While Wiktor has quite successfully accomplished the former task, he has not quite managed the latter; more details will be given below.

As Wiktor notes in the beginning, ‘The problems outlined are really vast. This made me refer to various kinds of sources, to the literature and to apply different research methods, including historical and comparative methods, to apply the political and state-law analysis, and first of all, the method of historical and dialectical materialism, so as to enable the reflection and analysis of the relations between the economics and politics in the People’s Republic of China’ (p. 11).

(The translations from the Polish hereinafter are done by the author of this review.)

Note that Wiktor refers to Marxism as his main research method. The author of this review also advocates these views. However, this does not stop us from assessing the Chinese reality from another viewpoint.

Let us now pass onto the analysis of Wiktor’s book, starting with the conclusion from the book (quoted from the English afterword of the Polish book, with minor stylistic amendments).

‘The essence of the modernisation and reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping and continued by his successor was the new attitude towards the market. The Chinese leader has stated (contrary to his predecessor – Mao Zedong) that the market does not have to be an alien and hostile category and mechanism for the socialist economy but it can lead to a huge increase of production and contribute to dynamism and modernisation in the socialist economy. This modernisation had significant effects not only for practical activities but also influenced theoretical discussion on the basic thesis of Marxist political economy and the theory of scientific socialism. New categories such as socialist market and socialist market economy (which since 1992 has been a constitutional principle of the PRC) were created.

Modernisation and Deng Xiaoping’s reforms were based on the assumption that the dogmatism of Mao Zedong (who had huge successes in leading the socialist revolution in China and creating the basis of socialism but also was not free from numerous mistakes) must be given up. Mao Zedong implemented equalising principles of socialism under the conditions of historical economic backwardness of China – with a quite high pace of development but from a very low initial level, when even extreme poverty was common and its sign was the ‘iron rice bowl’. Poverty and want – said Deng Xiaoping – even shared justly cannot be ideals of socialism like the ‘barracks socialism’ promoted by Maoists also at the international level. The CPC considered that China is still in the initial stage of socialism, when small economy dominates the countryside and plays a significant role in the cities, and that it needs to be steered towards fast development under state and legal control and the socialist state economy. It has also considered that this aim can be achieved through broad international cooperation with foreign capital and trade relations. In this issue the Chinese leadership has used earlier Soviet experience from the 1920s when V. I. Lenin proposed, after huge destruction during the civil war, a new course for the Soviet state – the New Economic Policy (NEP), which put an end to chaos after the revolution, rebuilding of the economy, reviving of international trade and, what is most important, preparing the state for the realisation of the new tasks during later period.’

The text quoted above shows that Wiktor shares the CPC’s official view that socialism is compatible with commodity-money relations, i.e. market relations. We cannot agree with such a position if we are to base ourselves on the model of scientific socialism. The errors in this position will be obvious if we understand by socialism the social system with the comradely mode of production, where wage labour is eliminated. Thus everybody becomes a worker taking part in productive labour, where the exploitation of people by people is liquidated, where the contradiction between the city and countryside and the contradiction between intellectual and physical labour are done away with, where many state functions have withered away. Socialism is the first stage of communism.

It is clear that modern China with its mixed-mode economy, with capitalist and small-production modes, is nowhere near to satisfying these criteria. The free-market socialism in the PRC is the social system of transition between capitalism and socialism.

Actually, Wiktor writes, ‘the CPC foresees that China will complete the transformations inherent to the transition period between socialism and capitalism only by 2050’.

‘This means that it is half way there; in terms of the maturity of socialist relations, it is only in the initial phase of socialist construction.’

Obviously Wiktor has not quite thought this question through, because in the Russian-language summary (p. 531) he states that China is in the initial stage of socialist construction, while in the English-language summary (p. 521) he says it is ‘in the initial stage of socialism’. Everybody would agree that the two things are not the same.

Wiktor states that the practice of economic reforms in China demands the discussion and revision of the fundamental positions of Marxism-Leninism. We are confident that there are no grounds for such statements; defending these fundamental positions, including the versatile development incorporating new aspects, is a vital task for Marxist-Leninists.

The tragic experience of the dismantlement of the USSR and Eastern European countries has shown everybody that in the end, socialism in its early stage was defeated due to the course taken for free market and privatisation. The continuous economic growth during the reforms, the fact that these reforms were carried out in the backward conditions of China’s production shows the impossibility of restricting oneself just to the planned economy.

At the same time, loosening free-market relations, assisting their functioning in all sectors of economy, means blocking the road to socialism.

The book includes four chapters and the author’s Chinese diaries. To understand the complicated processes taking place in the course of economic reforms in China the central portion of the book is Chapter 1, the Contradiction in China.

These contradictions are analysed from the viewpoint of the PRC’s international position and at the internal level. China’s current economic policy is directed at incorporating the country into international relations.

Quite symbolic is the quote in this chapter by the Vice-President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Li Shenming, ‘China has to be active and remain calm in the processes of economic globalisation. There are no other options. Globalisation carries a risk. All countries and peoples have merits and specifics which have to be honoured. So all countries have to carry out the policy of openness in relation to others. In this century with its rapid development of science and technology, no country can afford to cut itself from the international influence. These countries would remain backward, would be passive and would be subject to attacks’ (p. 12).

This incorporation into the system of international relations is taking place under conditions where world imperialism headed by the USA confronts the peoples’ drive to social and national liberation. In relation to this, Wiktor notes, ‘The United States is willing to take control of the course of globalisation today in different aspects of international relations; this is the USA that since the 1990s has wanted to implement a uni-polar system of international relations. Globalisation in military techniques means the US’ drive to new hegemony, whose expression is the expansion of NATO, the growth of armaments, the appearance of new generations of armaments, and the US-instigated local wars, under the guise of the UN and NATO. Globalisation’s other problems are the expansion of the population in the so-called Third World, the energy crisis, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, international terrorism grown beyond any reasonable limit; to stop it, actions on an international scale are necessary. Globalisation in the area of politics and culture engenders other consequences, whose analysis requires special attention’ (p. 15).

This kind of analysis of the modern world is insufficient, as it does not address the main contradiction of modern times – the contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of appropriation under capitalism, engendering the antagonistic contradiction of labour and capital, leading inevitably to economic crises and social upheavals, preparing the conditions for world wars and social revolution.

A major part of Chapter 1 is devoted to the analysis of changes taking place in the relations of production in China, in the class structure of the society, in the process of class struggle and in the corruption that has affected social life.

Relations between two economic modes are considered. ‘In the last twenty years the social sector has become an important element in the free-market economy’. This is exactly the way it is described in the up-to-date version of the Constitution of the Peoples’ Republic of China. In the years of reforms, the privately-owned enterprises grew; many have turned into big corporations with multi-billion-dollar turnovers, among them the Peking Corporation of Hanjan, the Guandong Meidi, Liaoning Panpan, Zheijang Younger Group (p. 28). The private sector in the cities, which has grown in size, is complemented by the huge small-business sector in the countryside, which constantly engenders capitalist relations.

‘Private property in China has grown to the extent,’ Wiktor affirms, ‘that despite the fact that the State sector in the cities maintains the dominant position, some reviewers and theoreticians doubt the socialist character of public relations in the People’s Republic of China’ (pp. 25-26).

Wiktor notes the positive results established through the reforms in the state sector of the economy. But one of the processes draws one’s attention, the strong dependence of the results of the State sector on the external market.

Given the background of the enormous changes in all aspects of social life, Wiktor has paid much attention to the class contradictions in the modern China. According to the data given, the class structure of China has the following layout:

Workers in the production sector: 160 million people

Unemployed: 14 million people

Workers in other sectors in the economy: 146 million people

Workers in the services, the intelligentsia: 140 million people.

Economically active population (including the unemployed): 760 million (p. 76)

No doubt the relative political weight of the capitalist class is much higher than its numerical proportion of the total population. No matter how actively the representatives of this class swear to socialist principles, the class struggle of the capitalist exploiters against the working class is an undeniable fact.

‘The politics of reform and modernisation of China has led to the growth of private capital, invested in special sectors of the economy; first of all, home capital has been unleashed and is increasing its power many times over. It is now seen by a large part of party members as a major threat to the socialist relations in the future’ (p. 102).

Wiktor believes that the CPC and PRC leadership will be able respond to the new challenges of the class struggle.

Another expression of class struggle in China discussed by Wiktor is corruption. The processes of socialist market economy have made material stimuli more important. The gap between the wealth of the new bourgeoisie and the poverty of the working-class masses, the employees and the peasantry, has greatly increased. Under these conditions, bribery of full-time state and party workers has been a very important aspect in the activity of Chinese business people, especially those who have multi-billion dollar assets. However, the book has no reasonable answers to questions arising from this fact. Wiktor draws much attention to considering the changes in the property relations in the course of economic reform that have led to the differentiation of incomes among the Chinese population.

Of special interest is his detailed investigation of the influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution on the development of the liberation movement in China that led to the foundation of the People’s Republic and its influence on Chinese communists searching for the course of socialist construction appropriate to the national situation.

Part two considers the specific features of the political system in the PRC, its changes in the initial stage of socialist construction in the course of the economic reform. Its other features are analysed, such as the leading role of the CPC, the interaction of the CPC with democratic parties represented in the National People’s Congress, expressing the interests of the existing classes and layers in Chinese society, the implementation of the people’s dictatorship. The stages of development of the political system in the People’s Republic of China starting from 1949 are considered, including the basic statements in the Constitutions of the PRC of 1954, 1975 and 1982 and the five amendments to the current Constitution of 1982. Wiktor considers the principle of the democratic dictatorship of the people proclaimed in the Constitution of the PRC as the expression of the proletarian dictatorship in the specific conditions of the transition period leading from capitalism to socialism. We do not think this is correct. The replacement of the proletarian dictatorship, as a principle, by a people’s dictatorship, is evidence of the tendency to compromise in the political thinking of the CPC leadership. But what do they lead to?

For a long time now, the CPC’s theory and practice has not been based on a class approach when assessing the course of the reforms taken and international events.

‘As a result of action by internal and international facts,” Wiktor states, “the class struggle will exist in a limited form for a long period of time, and it may be aggravated under certain conditions. However, this is not the main contradiction…’ (p. 66).

Such an approach inevitably strengthens the positions of the national bourgeoisie, which is aligning with the bureaucrats in the administrative, economic and party apparatuses.

The tendency to abandon the class approach in the assessment of social events has been further developed in Jiang Zemin’s Three Representatives concept. It is aimed at merging the economic elite (the bourgeoisie) brought up in the reforms since 1978 into the CPC. Thus, instead of admitting and theoretically outlining the continuous antagonistic class struggle in China, there is an attempt to reconcile their economic interests and to call for their collaboration in the name of prosperity in China.

Unless we are driven by the illusion of capitalism being rooted in socialism, the political power of the working class (the proletarian dictatorship) is aimed at steadily rooting out capitalist relations of production and at establishing new ones, and would not be stopped by the prospect of applying justified violence against the exploiters. ‘Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another’ (K. Marx, F. Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party).

The report on the activity of the CPC CC Disciplinary Commission at the 16th Congress of the CPC stated unequivocally, ‘getting rid of corruption is an important political struggle, whose course is a matter of life and death for the Party and for the State’ (p. 88). No coincidence that CPC veterans, functionaries, military service people and scientists classify the current party course as openly revisionist in a letter to CPC CC General Secretary Hu Jintao (October 2004).

In part three, ‘The development and the world,’ Wiktor presented his view of the principal stages in the history of China from the foundation of the Republic of China in 1911 up to the present time. The analysis of the economic and political development of the People’s Republic of China throughout nearly sixty years is summarised in the following statement: ‘The essence of the theoretical discovery by Deng Xiaoping is that socialist economy has to be a market-based economy, regulated accordingly by a popular state in the interests of society. It is therefore necessary to regard this in the broad historical context as the utmost of all realistic chances today for the victory of socialism world-wide’ (p. 282).

To sum up the study of distinct questions investigated by Wiktor’s book, we see his undivided support for the socio-political and economic reforms carried out since 1978 by the CPC and PRC leadership headed by Deng Xiaoping and his followers.

Economic reform in the PRC carried out in the transition period between socialism and capitalism, the reform that has lead to a significant strengthening of capitalist lifestyle, is presented as the implementation of market-based socialism. The political reform whose essence is the departure from the principles of proletarian dictatorship is regarded as the overcoming of dogmatism and the enlargement of the camp of socialism’s supporters. These views are incompatible with the development of scientific socialism; they are a revision thereof.

‘Market-based socialism,’ unless it is specifically seen as a social system in transition, and unless an emphasis is made on its transitional character, is a false concept designed to cover for capitalist restoration. Socialist economy is not a modification of market economy, not a version of it, but its historic alternative, central to which is not profit but human needs and the work to base them on a scientific plan. Politically the substitution of a class-based, proletarian approach with the notorious concept of a state of all the people led to the collapse of socialism in the USSR. The PRC is open to the same kind of threat. In essence this is all about the great difficulties of the transition period, and the rubbish and confusion related to it, and about the recognition and application of the transition and hence the contradictory forms appropriate for the epoch.

Throughout his book, Professor Wiktor stands for defending the cause of socialism in China. We also see the cause of socialism in the PRC as our own. We are therefore critical in following the questionable course of the CPC’s and PRC’s current leadership that could threaten the socialist achievements of the Chinese proletariat and the entire Chinese people.

A confirmation of how far this leadership has departed from following the principles of scientific socialism has been the support for Resolution 1874 in the UN Security Council. This resolution, adopted unanimously by the Security Council, condemns the nuclear tests carried out on the 25th of May 2009 by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and thus provides for sanctions against this socialist country.

We would like to express the hope that Wiktor’s book, which contains rich factual material on the PRC’s economics and politics valuable for continuing discussion on the methods of socialist construction, will come out in Russian.


The Night Zhou was Drunk Under the Table

By Ian Williams

As we approached the 60th anniversary on Thursday of Mao Zedong’s declaration that the “Chinese people have stood up,” I trawled through the memories of my time in China straddling 1970 and 1971, and found, with all the accuracy of retrospective prophesy, that there were more auguries of the current China than one might suspect.

Although my putative memoirs would be called “I was a Teenage Maoist”, by the time I landed in Beijing I was a callow 21-year-old, a month older than the People’s Republic. In fact, Zhou Enlai, the first premier, from 1949 until his death in 1976, repeated to us his dictum that it was too early to tell whether or not the French Revolution had been a success, let alone China’s. Forty years later, I wonder what Zhou, one of the more sophisticated and cosmopolitan of the Chinese leaders, but nonetheless a devoted communist, would have made of present-day China.

I was part of a delegation from an obscure British party that enjoyed unprecedented access to the Chinese leadership, including a drinking competition with Zhou – and a very risky argument about literature with Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing, who had, after all, instituted the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) by demonizing all but a tiny group of writers and artists. It was so long ago that even the Chinese used the old Wade-Giles Romanization system for the Mandarin language. We were in Peking (Beijing), and read the Peking Review every week. In fact, our visit featured in it.

Our sessions with the Chinese cadres were often like negotiations, conducted over innumerable cigarettes and a constant flow of tea. The idea was that whoever called for a bathroom break was conceding the field of battle. Sadly for Chinese pride, our side had been brought up on a diet of gallons of tea and bitter beer and had formidable resistance to such diuretics.

Even at the time, I had a sense of bewilderment at the relative isolation from the world outside, of the top leadership. They provided us with a daily English press summary of world affairs and the difficulties of a binary view of the world became apparent. For example, Pakistan was an ally of China, therefore it was socialist and progressive – which the Pakistanis themselves would hardly claim, while social-democratic governments, like the British Labour Party, were reactionary and capitalist to the core.

As for our visit: I suspect that Zhou had hoped that it would provide information and encouragement for his planned opening to the West. We were there before British premier Edward Heath, or former secretary of state Henry Kissinger and president Richard Nixon from the United States. Indeed, as almost the only gweilos (foreigners) in town, we could attract crowds just by peering in a shop window. In those far-off days, my hair was red, which was almost like having eyes on green stalks for some people. However, enlisting us as a resource for global realpolitik confirms the naivety of their approach.

We were a sectarian groupuscule with fewer members nationally than the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee. Our contact with the working political system in Britain was minimal and our knowledge of other countries tended to be based on contacts with equally out-of-touch groups. It would be nice to think that we changed the course of history, but there is absolutely no basis for thinking so. Our input probably pointed in the opposite direction to what they did. When we asked why they did not walk in and take Hong Kong, which was then ruled by Britain, Zhou suggested it was better to lessen the economic disparities between the two sides first.

Despite their own sectarian squabbles, despite the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese were at least dealing with some aspects of the real world. For example, they had built a state-of-the-art metro system in Beijing. Even though it was as yet unopened, Zhou took us for a ride on it, which tangentially introduced yet another paradox.

They told us, with almost schoolboyish glee at their boldness, that they were calling the metro station for Tiananmen Square “Zhuxi [Chairman] Station.” It was a paradox even then, that in the midst of history’s biggest-ever personality cult, no physical location was named after Mao, let alone any of the other revolutionary personalities. I can only presume that it was intended as a gesture of superiority to the Soviet proclivity for churning out city names in honor of top people.

This saved a lot of sign-painting during the various rectification campaigns, the Cultural Revolution and its aftermath. Not many of the leadership stayed in power throughout.

Apart from Zhou, we met the full Gang of Four – Jiang Qing and her close associates, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan and Wang Hongwen – but we noticed the omissions. Lin Biao, the powerful military commander who rose to political prominence in the Cultural Revolution and whose picture and introduction was at the front of hundreds of millions of Little Red Books, was absent in name and person. In a seamen’s club in Shanghai, I noticed a book on sale by Chen Boda, Mao’s personal secretary. Our minders immediately took it out the case and said it was too old and faded to sell.

Our party chairman, Reg Birch, an old communist trade unionist, asked to meet his old chum, Kang Sheng. They brought along his wife instead, explaining that the head of the security and intelligence apparatus was indisposed. In fact, along with Chen Boda, it now seems as if he, and indeed Lin Biao, were at that time in the process of being purged.

Lin shortly afterwards died in a plane crash. Kang resurfaced long enough to ensure that the People’s Republic put its weight behind Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. In retrospect, I am glad I never had to shake his hand. Kang was posthumously accused of sharing responsibility (with the Gang of Four) for the Cultural Revolution. The Gang of Four had effectively controlled the power organs of the Communist Party through the latter stages of the Cultural Revolution.

In contrast with all the mass campaigns and circus antics of the Cultural Revolution, which resulted in widespread social and political upheaval and and economic disarray, these purges were being conducted in secrecy with no word of them leaking out from the leadership.

A case in point was a bizarre Christmas feast with an elderly American couple, old-style communists who had moved to China and taken up citizenship and party membership. They were brought out because they knew several of the delegation, who had asked about them.

The turkey dinner was odd in several ways. The couple were Jewish for a start, and although our Chinese hosts were trying to be hospitable with the seasonal bird, they obviously found something alien about the idea of cooking an intact animal: it came as a sort of turkey construction kit, disassembled, cooked and then reassembled. As for the couple, it was only many years later that I heard that their goose had been well and truly cooked. They were languishing in prison, brought out and dusted off for us, and then returned afterwards. But nothing they said gave any of us any grounds for suspicion.

The full Gang of Four came along to join Zhou for talks and a banquet on New Year’s Eve. Jiang Qing stood out in a sea of nondescript cotton Mao suits. The still striking woman, who had reduced the repertoire of a huge nation to a handful of revolutionary Beijing operas, one ballet, the Red Detachment of Women, and pretty much one classical sonata, flounced in, every inch the imperial consort. The former actress’ cotton greatcoat was draped around her shoulders like a cape, and she carried herself like an imperial consort.

When she discovered that I had been studying English literature, she immediately pronounced that Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre and Charles Dickens’ Hard Times were the only two English proletarian novels. Even as I blurted out a negative, I was thinking hard. I saw the rest of the senior leadership of the party withdraw a little in expectation of the thunderbolt to come. Jane Eyre was clearly a bit too close to home. A governess who marries the boss had too much resonance with the career of a Shanghai starlet who married the chairman. I concentrated on Hard Times, pointing out that its hero was in fact a strikebreaker – a traitor to his class in Marxist terms.

Through narrowed eyes, Jiang delivered her ultimate riposte, “You have long hair. It makes you look like a girl.” There was a barely concealed sigh of relief around the table. At least it was not “Off with his head!” or “Counter-revolutionary scum”.

The evening, after a banquet fit for an emperor, ended with drinks for us and Zhou and his entourage. The Gang of Four did not, as I remember, hang around. It became a drinking match, with shots of mao tai, the ferocious-smelling sorghum-based overproof liquor that had become the official drink of the party.

As the youngest there, but already with a reputation as a determined drinker, I was moved forward as the champion on going glass-for-glass with Zhou, a man with an iron constitution. But I saw how he stayed ahead. He only drank half his, while I was drinking the lot. Even so, he gave up first, as I remember – allowing for the fact that after large amounts of the stuff, memories can be unreliable.

Despite the Moscow-style purges going on behind the wainscoting, economically, China’s development was more balanced than that of the Soviets. We could go on a pub crawl through the streets of Beijing, pijui – beer, being one of the early accessions to our Mandarin vocabulary and although, for example, cotton was rationed, consumer goods seemed in adequate supply. In the covered market, locals looked superior as Aeroflot pilots came rushing through stocking up on things from soap to razor blades to tomatoes that the Soviets’ heavy industrial base couldn’t provide.

The variety of cigarettes, from coffin nails to the crush-proof packs of the most expensive brands, has always made me wonder about the role of tobacco in industrialization – selling the peasants highly profitable cigarettes was a financially painless way of raising state funds compared with expropriation. The other aspect was the amount of collective entrepreneurial activity that was taking place, even after years of disruption from the Cultural Revolution, which had not officially finished by then.

For example, in the countryside, communes were making cement boats for sale, while in Shanghai we visited a back-street factory that was etching silicon chips – almost state-of-the-art at the time. Even then, I remember wondering about the flue that vented the hydrofluoric acid fumes from the process onto the street. In a microchip, it encapsulated the future environmental problems of reckless development, even as it demonstrated the entrepreneurial urges that Deng Xiaoping was later to unleash.

I returned to Britain puzzled. The Cultural Revolution had not visibly destroyed the economy, as was sometimes claimed. But it was difficult to know what it was all about. It was bad enough when party leaders were denounced for esoteric sins of culture and ideology during the Cultural Revolution, but these silent purges and behind-the-scenes disappearances reduced the struggles to personalities and power-plays. Mao himself seems to have been playing off the leaders against each other.

So perhaps that was the twin legacy of the first 20 years. It developed the ground for the upsurge of economic activity in which China seems not only to have stood up but appears to be racing ahead. But it also has left the Communist Party totally committed to clinging onto power, without much in the way of ideology, while its leadership changes behind closed doors, with only the faintest pretence of consulting the masses. And by all accounts, party leaders at every level are still fond of banquets and mao tai.

Ian Williams is the author of Deserter: Bush’s War on Military Families, Veterans and His Past, Nation Books, New York.

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Maoist’s mansion upsets the people

'Security concerns': Nepalese security personnel keep watch outside the Kathmandu residence of Maoist leader Prachanda. Picture: AFP Source: AFP

NEPAL’S top Maoist politician, who led a 10-year insurgency which left 16,000 people dead, has been accused of selling out and moving into a lavish mansion.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who goes by the nom-de-guerre Prachanda (The Fierce One), is a former Communist guerrilla who rose from humble village beginnings to lead a “people’s war” against Nepal’s royal family and its political elites.

The rented 15-room property – 1500 square metres of prime real estate near the bustling centre of Kathmandu – includes parking space for more than a dozen vehicles and a table tennis room, his office said.

“The Maoists have deviated from their stated goal. It used to be socialism but now they have surrendered to bourgeois state power,” said Mumaram Khanal, a political analyst and former Maoist leader.

“It is natural in such a situation to transform into someone with the characteristics of a member of parliamentary politics. They are revolutionary only in words, not in deeds.”

Prachanda, 58, grew up in a family of farmers in southern Nepal, teaching in government schools before being indoctrinated in socialist philosophy by Nepal’s communist leaders.

In 1996, after witnessing the plight of the poor in the village where he grew up, he led a Maoist insurgency which culminated in the overthrow of the Shah dynasty in 2008.

He was later elected prime minister for a brief spell and is now the chairman of the ruling Maoists and a lawmaker representing a constituency in Kathmandu.

Prachanda’s personal assistant, Samir Dahal, said the politician had been advised of “security concerns” over his old residence.

“Moreover, the public bus station was nearby and several houses were under construction in the area,” the aide added.

The new mansion costs the Maoist party just over 100,000 rupees ($1200) a month, the aide said, a modest sum in many countries but almost three times the average annual income in Nepal.

Local media have reported that the landlord lives in Canada, while the aide confirmed that over 70 security guards provided by the government are housed in the complex.

“Prachanda has a penchant for lavish lifestyle, good food and other fine things in life. It may be that he was deprived of this in his youth,” Mr Khanal, the political analyst, added.

“Now in power, he wants to accumulate wealth and live in luxury. The house he has chosen is testament to this.”

The Republica newspaper said in a scathing editorial that many families “making do in dank and dark two-room lodgings” would be questioning “the communist credentials of the ‘leader of the proletariats'”.

The xNepali community blog carried a post supporting Prachanda’s right to move into a bigger house but criticising him for not being more open about the rent arrangements.

Across the border, the Indian Express quoted a senior Maoist source saying: “This only confirms the fear expressed by Maoist vice-chairman Mohan Baidhya Kiran that Prachanda has failed to honour the issue of probity in public life.”


Prachanda moves into lavish house; media slams ‘red feudalism’

Prachanda, Nepal’s most powerful politician who had waged a decade-long war against monarchy, is under fire for moving into a multi-crore mansion in the heart of Kathmandu, with the local media calling it an example of “red feudalism”.

The 1,500-sq metre property costing Rs 19.60 million (USD 2.31 million) is located half a kilometre from the Prime Minister’s official residence at Baluwatar, Rastrapati Bhawan and former King Gyanendra’s mansion Nirmal Niwas at Maharajgunj. It has a huge parking area and table tennis hall.


C P Gajurel, Secretary of UCPN-Maoist and its top hardline leader, admitted during an interview to the Kantipur Television that there is no transparency within the party, which has given rise to suspicion in the minds of the cadres.

The gap between the rich and the poor is growing within the Maoist party itself, Gajurel said, pointing to the growing rift between the hardliners and the establishment faction led by Prachanda and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai.

Although the mansion was purchased in another person’s name, the real owner is Prachanda himself, claimed political analyst and editor of Janamanch weekly Pralhad Rijal.

Prachanda, who assumed power for a brief period of nine month in 2008 to work for the poor and proletariat class of the country, is now leading a luxurious and feudal life style in sharp contrast to his party’s ideology, he said.

He compared Prachanda’s life style with that of late leader of the Nepali Congress Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, who became Prime Minister after the 1990 People’s Revolution.

Bhattarai moved out of the Prime Minister’s residence with just a water jar, an umbrella and a small zinc suitcase, Rijal recalled.

When Prachanda moved from his old house at Nayabazaar on the outskirts of Kathmandu to the new building, around 10-12 vehicles were used to transfer his belongings, Rijal claimed. […]


PCMLE: Vietnam: A Popular and Anti-Imperialist Revolution

En Marcha, October 14, 2009

Commercial and monetary relations, linkages with international institutions and transnational corporations that are practiced in Vietnam attest to the validity of a capitalist economy. As a result, have increased levels of corruption and waste and links to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have made commitments to be met like any other small country who harass the capitalist international chulqueros.

The Vietnamese revolution is one of the events in which the worker-peasant alliance, along with other social and patriotic armed insurrection constituted under warranty and fundamental to their success. The direction of this process is carried on the Communist Party led by the legendary firm and consistent revolutionary Ho Chi Minh and under the direction and guidance of Marxism-Leninism, the month of August 1945.

This revolution ended the dominance of the French colonialists and Japanese fascists, inaugurating the national independence and giving birth to the Democratic Republic, named after Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

The courageous resistance of the Vietnamese people was also against the U.S. imperialists, between 1954 and 1975, whose years have seen the Democratic People’s National Revolution in the South, the socialist revolution in the North and the war ended with the expulsion of the invaders after the historic U.S. military offensive that liberated Ho Chi Minh Saigon entirely on April 30, 1975 and achieved national reunification.

Then the various congresses of the Communist Party of Vietnam have incorporated a number of ideas that claim revisionist positions and Vietnam show that the heroic days of struggle for social change and against foreign intervention, have been only as memories.

The so-called “market socialism” is one of those smuggling which aims to establish a coexistence between tenets of socialism and the capitalist market activity. This revisionist monstrosity was raised for the first time officially in the Intermediate National Conference called Communist Party of Vietnam, in February 1994 as part of the theory of renewal process that began to be handled at the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1986 , which arises, among other directives, strengthen socialist production relations and the private sector, which as noted above is totally incompatible. This is compounded by the elimination of centralized management, the basis of the so-called renewal. The set of revisionist ideas and practices were endorsed by the seventh and eighth congress of 1991 and 1997.

Commercial and monetary relations linkages with international institutions and transnational corporations that are practiced in Vietnam attest to the validity of a capitalist economy. As a result, have increased levels of corruption and waste and links to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have made commitments to be met like any other small country who harass the capitalist international chulqueros. Another element so as to reveal capitalist practices in Vietnam is the penetration of international capital through large investments for the development of light industry assembly of computers and international trade in the sale of raw materials and agricultural products.

In light of this process is convenient lived in Vietnam to rescue the role played by its people in resistance to foreign intervention that undermined its sovereignty and dignity defiled.


Retrospect: A Nervous China Invades Vietnam

Monday, Sept. 27, 1999

Early in the morning of Feb. 17, 1979, Chinese artillery batteries and multiple rocket launchers opened fire all along the Vietnamese border with protracted barrages that shook the earth for miles around. Then 85,000 troops surged across the frontier in human-wave attacks like those China had used in Korea nearly three decades before. They were decimated: the well-dug-in Vietnamese cut down the Chinese troops with machine guns, while mines and booby traps did the rest.

Horrified by their losses, the Chinese quickly replaced the general in charge of the invasion that was meant, in Beijing’s words, to teach Vietnam a lesson, and concentrated their attack on neighboring provincial capitals. Using tanks and artillery, they quickly overran most of the desired towns: by March 5, after fierce house-to-house fighting, they captured the last one, Lang Son, across the border from Pingxiang. Then they began their withdrawal, proclaiming victory over the Cubans of the Orient, as Chinese propaganda had dubbed them.

By China’s own estimate, some 20,000 soldiers and civilians from both sides died in the 17-day war. Who learned the bigger lesson?

The invasion demonstrated a contradiction that has forever bedeviled China’s military and political leaders: good strategy, bad tactics. The decision to send what amounted to nearly 250,000 troops into Vietnam had been taken seven months before and was well-telegraphed to those who cared to listen.

When Deng Xiaoping went to Washington in January 1979 to cement the normalization of China’s relations with the United States, he told President Jimmy Carter in a private meeting what China was about to do–and why. Not only did Beijing feel Vietnam was acting ungratefully after all the assistance it had received during its war against the U.S., but in 1978 Hanoi had begun expelling Vietnamese of Chinese descent. Worst of all–it was cozying up to Moscow. In November 1978 Vietnam signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union. A month later the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, a Chinese ally. Although Hanoi said it was forced to do so to stop Pol Pot’s genocide and to put an end to his cross-border attacks against Vietnam, Deng saw it as a calculated move by Moscow to use its allies to encircle China from the south.

Soviet adventurism in Southeast Asia had to be stopped, Deng said, and he was calculating (correctly, it turned out) that Moscow would not intervene in a limited border war between China and Vietnam. Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said Deng’s explanation to Carter of his invasion plans, with its calculated defiance of the Soviets, was the single most impressive demonstration of raw power politics that he had ever seen.

At the time Deng was consolidating his position as unchallenged leader of China. Having successfully negotiated normalization of relations with Washington, he wanted to send a strong signal to Moscow against further advances in Asia. He also thought the Carter Administration was being too soft on the Soviets, although he did not say as much to his American hosts. Hanoi, for its part, was unfazed by Deng’s demonstration of raw power. The Vietnamese fought the Chinese with local militia, not bothering to send in any of the regular army divisions that were then taken up with the occupation of Cambodia. Indeed, Hanoi showed no sign of withdrawing those troops, despite Chinese demands that they do so: the subsequent guerrilla war in Cambodia would bog down Vietnam’s soldiers and bedevil its foreign relations for more than a decade.

The towns captured by the Chinese were all just across the border; it is not clear whether China could have pushed much farther south. Having lost so many soldiers in taking the towns, the Chinese methodically blew up every building they could before withdrawing. Journalist Nayan Chanda, who visited the area shortly after the war, saw schools, hospitals, government buildings and houses all reduced to rubble. The war also showed China just how outdated its battlefield tactics and weaponry were, prompting a major internal review of the capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army. The thrust for military modernization continues to this day, even as the focus of China’s generals has shifted from Vietnam back to Taiwan–a pesky little irritant that could cause Beijing even bigger problems if it decides to administer another lesson.


Enver Hoxha: The Theory and Practice of Revolution


In his brilliant works about imperialism V. I. Lenin arrived at the conclusion that imperialism is a perishing and dying capitalism, the last stadium of capitalism and the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat. In the analysis of the specific characteristics of imperialism he wrote:

“… all this makes the state of development of capitalism which has been reached up to now into the era of the proletarian socialist revolution, … This era has begun” and “Part of this agenda of the present epoch is the multilateral immediate preparation of the proletariat for the conquest of political power in order to effect those economic and political measures which form the core of the socialist revolution.” (Lenin, Collected Works, volume 24, p. 420, German edition)

In defining the present epoch Lenin based himself on class criteria. He emphasised that it is important to consider

which class stands in the centre of this or that epoch and defines its essential content, the main direction of its development, the most important characteristics of the historic situation in the specific epoch, etc.” (Lenin, Collected Works, volume 21, p. 134, German edition)

Defining the fundamental content of the new historic epoch as the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, Lenin remained consistently loyal to the teachings of Marx about the historic mission of the proletariat as the new social force which will carry out the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist society of oppression and exploitation and build the new society, the classless communist society.

“The Communist Manifesto” by Marx and Engels and their appeal: “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” was published in order to announce that the basic contradiction of human society was now the basic contradiction between labour and capital and that the proletariat was chosen to solve this contradiction through revolution. By his analysis of imperialism Lenin showed that the contradictions of the capitalist society had sharpened to the utmost and that the world had entered the epoch of the proletarian revolution and the triumph of socialism.

The Great Socialist October Revolution confirmed this brilliant conclusion by Marx and Lenin in practice. Even after Lenin’s death the communist world movement resolutely adhered to his teachings about the present epoch, it adhered to his revolutionary strategy. The triumph of the socialist revolution in several further countries proved that the Leninist thesis of the present epoch as epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism mirrors the basic laws of the development of today’s human society. The downfall of the colonial system, the achievement of political independence by the overwhelming majority of the countries of Asia, Africa and more are a further affirmation of the Leninist theory of the our epoch and the revolution. The fact that the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the revolution were betrayed in the Soviet Union and a number of former socialist countries does not alter the Leninist thesis on the character of the present epoch in the least, because this is nothing but a turn and twist on the way to the inevitable victory of socialism over capitalism on the global scale.

The Albanian Party of Labour has always consistently upheld these Marxist-Leninist conclusions. Comrade Enver Hoxha said:

“On a daily base the main features of our epoch are sharpened and appear more and more clearly as the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, the struggle of two opposed social systems, as the epoch of the proletarian and national liberation revolutions, the downfall of imperialism and the liquidation of the colonial system, as the epoch of the triumph of socialism and communism on a global scale.” (Enver Hoxha, Report to the 5th Party Congress of the PLA)

The Marxist-Leninists always based the definition of the present epoch and the revolutionary strategy on the analysis of the great social contradictions which characterise this epoch. Which contradictions are these?

After the triumph of the socialist revolution in Russia, Lenin and Stalin were speaking about four contradictions:

– the contradiction between the two opposed systems — the socialist and the capitalist system

– the contradiction between capital and labour in the capitalist countries

– the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and nations on the one hand and imperialism on the other hand

– the contradiction between the imperialist powers

Exactly these contradictions build the objective foundation of the development of today’s revolutionary movement, which in their collectivity form the great process of the world revolution in our epoch. The complete current situation world wide proves that since Lenin’s times the contradictions have neither been moderated nor disappeared but on the contrary, haven been further sharpened and have come to the surface like never before. Therefore the knowledge and acknowledgement of these contradictions is the basis for defining a correct revolutionary strategy. The denial of these contradictions, concealing them, ignoring one or another of these contradictions, distorting their true meaning — like the revisionists and the various opportunists do — leads to confusion and disorder within the revolutionary movement and serves as foundation to construct and preach a distorted, pseudo-revolutionary strategy and tactic.


Today there is much talk about the division of the world into the so-called “First”, “Second” and “Third World”, about a “non-aligned” world, about a world of “developing countires”, “of the South and the North” etc. Each advocate of these divisions portrays his “theory” as the most correct strategy which allegedly match the real circumstances and the current international situation. But it is like Comrade Enver Hoxha emphasised at the 7th Party Congress:

“… all of these terms which refer to the different political powers working in the world today conceal — and don’t reveal — the class character of these political powers, the basic contradictions of our epoch, the predominant key problem on the national and international scale today, the grim struggle which is waged between the bourgeois-revisionist world on the one hand and socialism, the world proletariat and its natural allies on the other hand.” (E. Hoxha, Report to the 7th Party Congress of the PLA)

If Marxist-Leninists speak about the world and the different countries and name them, they judge based on the principle of dialectical and historical materialism. They judge above all according to the existing socio-economic order in the different countries, according to the proletarian class criterion.

Exactly from this point of view V. I. Lenin wrote in the year 1921, so when only one socialist country, Soviet Russia, was existing in the world:

“Today (there are) two worlds in the world: the old — capitalism which has come to a dead end and will never back down and the new growing world which is yet very weak but which will become strong and big because it is invincible.”(Lenin, Collected Works, volume 33, p. 132, German edition)

J. V. Stalin also stressed in his famous scripture “Two Camps” already in 1919:

“The world has definitely and irrevocably split into two camps: the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism… The struggle between these two camps constitutes the hub of present-day affairs, determines the whole substance of the present home and foreign policies of the leaders of the old and the new worlds.” (Stalin, Collected Works, volume 4, p. 205, German edition)

Our Party holds the opinion that we must talk about the socialist world today, too, like Lenin and Stalin did, that the Leninist criterion is always true, like Leninism itself is alive and true. The argument of the theoreticians of the “Three Worlds”, the “non-aligned world” etc., who eliminated the existence of socialism in their schemata by referring to the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and in some other former socialist countries, to the dissolution of the socialist camp, is completely unfounded. This stands in absolute contrast to the Leninist teachings and the class criterion.

The revisionist betrayal, the return of the Soviet Union and a number of former socialist countries to capitalism, the spreading of modern revisionism widely in the international communist and workers’ movement and the splitting of this movement were a heavy blow to the cause of revolution and socialism. But this by no means implies that socialism was liquidated as a system and that the criterion of the division of the world into two opposing systems must be changed, that the contradiction between capitalism and socialism no longer exists today. Socialism exists and proceeds in the genuine socialist countries which are loyal to Marxism-Leninism, like the Socialist People’s Republic of Albania is. The socialist system which opposes itself to the capitalist system, exists objectively just like the contradiction and the struggle for life and death between it and capitalism exists.

By ignoring socialism as a social system, the so-called “Theory of Three Worlds” ignores the greatest historic victory of the international proletariat, ignores the fundamental contradiction of the time, the contradiction between socialism and capitalism. It is clear that such a theory, which ignores socialism, is anti-Leninist, it leads to the weakening of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the countries where socialism is being built, while calling on the world proletariat not to fight, not to rise in socialist revolution. And this is not surprising: the renunciation of the proletarian class criteria in the evaluation of the situation leads to conclusions which are contrary to the interests of the revolution and the proletariat.

As the great and consistent Marxist he was, Lenin frequently analysed the capitalist world and the balance of power within it in his works. He did this, however, in the service of the revolution, in order to determine the tasks which lay ahead of the proletariat, the tasks of the communist parties, the tasks of the first socialist state the proletarian towards the world revolution and in order to show who were the really allies of the revolution and who were its enemies.

Lenin gives us an excellent example in this regard in his theses and reports at the II Congress of the Communist International in the year 1920:

“Now we have to ‘prove’ by the practice of the revolutionary parties”, emphasises Lenin, “that they have enough consciousness, organisation, contact with the exploited masses, determination and the ability to exploit this crisis for a successful, for a victorious revolution. We came together at this congress of the Communist International mainly in order to prepare such evidence.”(Lenin, Collected Works, volume 31, p. 215, German edition)

The so-called “Theory of the Three World”, however, does not pose a single task for the revolution; on the contrary, it “forgets” to do so. In the schemata of the “Three Worlds” the basic contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie does not exist. What is also striking about this division of the world is the non-class view of what it calls “Third World”, the disregarding of classes and class struggle, the global treatment of countries which this theory counts to this world, the regimes which rule there and the different political powers which exist there. This way the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and the reactionary and pro-imperialist powers in their countries.

It is common knowledge that a fierce struggle of the freedom-loving peoples for freedom, independence and national sovereignty is led against the old and new colonialism in the countries exploited by imperialism, the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This is a just revolutionary and liberation struggle which enjoys the unreserved support of the Marxist-Leninists, the genuine socialist countries, the world proletariat and all progressive forces.

This struggle is and inevitably has to be directed against multiple enemies:

 – against the imperialist exploiters, first and foremost against the two superpowers as the greatest exploiters and world police, the most dangerous enemies of all peoples of the world

– against the national reactionary bourgeoisie which is connected by thousands of strings with the foreign imperialism, with this or that superpower, with the international monopolies and which is the enemy of freedom and national independence

– against the strong remains of feudalism upon which the foreign imperialists base themselves on and which allies itself with the reactionary bourgeoisie against the people’s revolution

– against the reactionary and fascist regimes, the agents and defenders of the rule of these three enemies

Therefore it is absurd to claim one only had to struggle against external enemies without at the same time fighting and challenging the inner enemies, the allies and accomplices of imperialism, all those factors which hinder this struggle. Until now there was never a liberation struggle, there was never a national-democratic and anti-imperialist revolution which did not have inner enemies, reactionaries and traitors, bought and anti-national elements. One cannot — like the so-called theory of the “Three Worlds” does — equal all strata of the bourgeoisie without any exception, including the comprador bourgeoisie, with anti-imperialist forces, with the foundation and the factors which further the struggle against imperialism.

To follow this theory means to distract the revolutionary movement from the right way, to desert the revolution halfway, to separate it from the proletarian revolutions in the other countries, to the drive the struggle of the peoples and the proletariat of these countries into an anti-Marxist and revisionist way.

Marxism-Leninism teaches that the national question always has to be examined subject to the question of the revolution. From this point of view the Marxist-Leninists support each movement which is actually aimed against imperialism and serves the common cause of the proletarian world revolution.

“We as communists”, emphasises Lenin, “(have to and will) only support the bourgeois liberation movements in the colonial countries when these movements are really revolutionary, when their representatives do not prevent us from educating and organising the peasantry and the broad masses of the exploited in the revolutionary spirit. But if these conditions are not given then the communists in these countries have to fight the reformist bourgeoisie to which the heroes of the Second International belong. (Lenin, Collected Works, volume 31, p. 230, German edition)

The preachers of the thesis of the “Third World” label even more as liberation movement, as the “main force in the struggle against imperialism”, even the horse-trade of the King of Saudi-Arabia or of the Shah of Iran with the petroleum monopolies of the USA, their weapon transactions in the amount of billions and billions of dollars with the Pentagon. According to this logic the oil sheiks, who let the money from their oil flow into Wall Street and the banks of the USA, are fighters against imperialism and advocates of the people’s struggle against the imperialist rule. So this means that the US-imperialists, who sell their weapons to the reactionary and oppressive regimes of these sheiks, give these weapons the “patriotic” forces who struggle to drive the imperialists away from the “golden sands” of Arabia and Persia.

The facts prove that today, too, the anti-imperialist and democratic liberating revolution can only be consistent and brought to an end if it is lead by the proletariat with its party at the spearhead in alliance with the broad masses and the peasantry and the other anti-imperialist and patriotic forces.

Already in 1905 Lenin demonstrated in his book “Two Tactics” in detail that under the conditions of imperialism the characteristic of the bourgeois-democratic revolution consist in the fact that the force which is most interested in furthering the revolution is not the bourgeoisie, which is inconsistent and tends to ally itself with the feudal reactionary forces against the revolutionary impetus of the masses, but the proletariat which views the bourgeois-democratic revolution as an interim stage of the transition to the socialist revolution. The same applies for the current national liberation movements. J. V. Stalin emphasised that after the October Revolution

“The era of liberating revolutions in the colonies, the era of the awakening of the proletariat in those countries, the era of its hegemony, has begun.” (Stalin, Collected Works, volume 10, p. 212, German edition)

These Leninist teachings achieve a special value and a special meaning under the current given conditions. Today the two tendencies which Lenin pointed out have deepened and operate with great force in the world:

– one the one hand the tendency of the capitalist monopolies which break the national borders and internationalise the economic and political life

– on the other hand the tendency of the different countries to the intensify the struggle for national independence

This way, in regard to the first tendency, the connections of the national bourgeoisie with the foreign imperialist capital are not only maintained in many countries liberated from the yoke of colonialism but further increased and extended by a multitude of neo-colonialist forms like the multinational companies, the different economic and financial integrations, etc., etc. This bourgeoisie, which holds the key position in the economic and political life of the country and grows steadily, is a pro-imperialist power and an enemy of the revolutionary and liberation movement. With regard to the other tendency, namely the increase of the national independence towards imperialism in the former colonial countries, it is above all connected to the growth of the proletariat in these countries. This means that more favourable conditions arise for the extensive and consistent realisation of the anti-imperialist and democratic revolution, for its leadership by the the proletariat and thus its transition to a higher phase, to the struggle for socialism.

The Marxist-Leninists do not confuse the burning efforts and wishes of the peoples and the proletariat of the countries of the so-called “Third World” for liberation, revolution and socialism with the aims and the policies of the comprador and oppressive bourgeoisie of these countries. They know that there are sound progressive currents in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, within the peoples, who will further their revolutionary struggle determined until victory. But speaking about the so-called “Third World” as main force against imperialism and as main force of the revolution – like the followers of the theory of the “Three Worlds” do without making any difference between the genuine anti-imperialist and revolutionary forces and the ruling pro-imperialist, reactionary and fascist forces in a number of developing countries — means to openly abandon the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and to preach typical opportunistic views which cause confusion and disorder among the revolutionary forces. Basically the peoples of these countries, according to the “Theory of the Three Worlds”, are not allowed to fight, let’s say, the bloodthirsty fascist dictatorships of Geisel in Brazil and Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, the Shah of Iran and the King of Jordania, etc., because they all belong to the “revolutionary driving force, which turns the wheel of world history”. On the contrary, according to this theory the peoples and revolutionaries had to ally with the reactionary forces and regimes in the “Third World” and support them, in other words, abandon the revolution.

US-imperialism, the other capitalist states and Soviet social-imperialism have bound the ruling classes of the countries of the so-called “Third World” to themselves with thousands of strings. Of course these classes, which are dependant on the foreign monopolies and want to prolong their reign over the broad mass of their people, try to create the impression that they have formed a democratic block of independent states with the aim to put pressure upon US-imperialism and the Soviet social-imperialists and thus allegedly prevent interference in the interior affairs of their states.

Lenin pointed out towards the communist parties the necessity “to constantly expose and denounce every fraud the imperialist powers systematically commit by allegedly creating politically independent states, which are in fact dependent on them economical, financially and in questions of military to the broadest mass of working people of all countries, but especially of the backward countries.” (Lenin, Collected Works, volume 31, p. 138, German edition) . The Party of Labour of Albania loyally adheres to these immortal teachings of Lenin. “In the evaluation of the policies of the different governments and states” Comrade Enver Hoxha emphasised at the 7th Party Congress of the PLA, “the Marxists also base themselves on the standpoint of class, on the attitude which these governments and these countries display towards imperialism and socialism, towards their own people and the reaction.

Based on these teachings the revolutionary movement and the proletariat build their strategy and tactic, find their true allies in the struggle against imperialism, the bourgeoisie and the reaction and unite with them. The term “Third World”, “non-aligned world” or “developing countries” create the illusion among the broad masses who fight for national and social liberation that a hideout was discovered which protects us from the threat of the superpowers. They conceal the reactionary state of most of these countries which are in this or that way politically, ideologically or economical identical, bound to the superpowers as well as to their former colonial metropolises and are dependant on both.” (E. Hoxha, Report to the 7th Party Congress of the PLA)

The modern theories about the so-called “Third World”, the so-called “non-aligned world”, etc. aim at damming the revolution and defending capitalism which is not to be hindered while exercising its hegemony but is to practice a few more acceptable forms of ruling the peoples. The so-called “Third World” and the “non-aligned world” are as like as two peas in a pot, irrespective of their different names; they let themselves be guided by the same policy and ideology, one group entwines itself with the other so that it is difficult to spot which countries belong to the “Third World” and what differs them from the “non-aligned” and which states belong to the “non-aligned” and what differs them from the states of the “Third World”. There are efforts to create yet another group, namely of the so-called “developing countries”, where the countries of the “Third World” as well as the “non-aligned” are lumped together. The authors of this theory conceal the class contradictions as well, preach the given status quo in order not to hurt imperialism, social-imperialism and the other imperialist powers by any means, provided they hand out alms for the construction of the economy of the “developing countries”. According to them the superpowers have to make some “sacrifices”, to cough up something for the hungry so that they can somehow manage to live and don’t get rebellious. That way, they claim, a compromise will be found, a “new international order” will be created in which everyone, rich or poor, exploiter or exploited will live “without war”, “without armament”, “in harmony”, “in class peace”, in coexistence á la Khrushchev. Exactly because these three “inventions” have the same content and the same aims we can notice that there is full harmony among the “leaderships” [English in the original text] of the “non-aligned countries”, the “Third World” and the “World of the developing countries”. Together they deceive the masses, the proletariat and the peoples by their theories and sermons in order to lead them away from revolutionary struggle.

The theory of the “Three Worlds” does not only disregard the contradiction between the two opposite social systems — socialism and capitalism — as well as the great contradiction between wage labour and capital but also does not analyse the other great contradiction, namely the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and world imperialism which they reduce solely to the contradiction to the two superpowers, indeed even mainly to one of them. This “theory” totally ignores the contradiction between the oppressed peoples and nations on the one hand and the other imperialist powers. And not only this, the followers of the theory of the “Three Worlds” call for an alliance of the “Third World” with these imperialist countries and with US-imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism.

One of the arguments which is given in order to justify the division of the world into three worlds consists of the claim that today the imperialist camp, which existed after World War II and in which American imperialism ruled, has allegedly collapsed and as a result of the uneven development of the different imperialisms ceased to exist. The supporters of this theory claim that today one could no more speak of a single imperialist world, because first of all the Western imperialist powers allegedly rose against the American ruler and secondly an always increasing fierce rivalry between the two imperialist superpowers, USA and Soviet Union, exists.

Since the stage of imperialism the inter-imperialist contradictions exist as a result of the uneven development of the different capitalist countries, they exist, deepen continuously and depending on the circumstances and conditions inter-imperialist alliances, blocks and groups form and dissolve again — this is the ABC of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin proved in detail that this typical characteristic of imperialism, which gives testimony of imperialism as the last stage of capitalism, approaching decay more and more every day, is an objective law. But does this mean that the imperialist world as social system has ceased to exist as result of these contradictions and is divided into several worlds, that the socio-economic nature of this or that imperialism has changed? By no means. The current factors do not give evidence about a collapse of the imperialist world but about one single imperialist world system which is characterised by the existence of the two great imperialist blocks today: one the one hand the Western imperialist block with US-imperialism at its head with its inter-imperialist instruments like organisms as NATO, EEC, etc., and on the other hand the block of the East under the leadership of Soviet social-imperialism with the Warsaw Pact and Comecon as its instruments of expansionist, hegemonic and war policies.

In the schema of the “Three World” imperialist, capitalist and revisionist countries belong to the so-called “Second World”, countries which do not feature significant differences in regard to the social order of the two superpowers and are also not different to various countries classified as belonging to the “Third World”. Indeed, the countries of this “world” show certain contradictions to both superpowers but these are contradictions of inter-imperialist character like the contradictions between the two superpowers are, too. In the first instance they are contradictions between such imperialisms like the West German, Japanese, British, French, Canadian, etc. and one or the other superpower as well as between themselves in regard to markets, spheres of influence, regions for capital export and the exploitation of the wealth of others.

Of course these contradictions weaken the imperialist world system and are in the interest of the struggle of the proletariat and the peoples. But it is anti-Marxist to equal the contradictions between the different imperialist powers and both superpowers with the struggle of the working masses and the peoples against imperialism and for its destruction.

It can happen by no means that the countries of the so-called “Second World”, in other words, the ruling monopolist bourgeoisie there, become allies of the oppressed peoples and nations in the struggle against the two superpowers and world imperialism. History after World War II shows clearly that these countries supported and still support the aggressive policies and actions of US-imperialism like in Korea and in Vietnam, in the Middle East and in Africa, etc. They are ardent defenders of neo-colonialism and the old order of inequality in international economic relations. The allies of Soviet social-imperialism in the “Second World” participated together with it in the occupation of Czechoslovakia and are eager advocates of its expansionist policy in the different regions of the earth. The countries of the so-called “Second World” are the economic and military main support of the aggressive and expansionist alliances of the two superpowers.

The supporters of the theory of the three worlds claim that it gives great possibilities for exploitation of inter-imperialist contradictions. The contradictions in the rows of the enemy have to be exploited, but in which way and to what aim? Generally they always have to be exploited for the sake of the revolution, the sake of the peoples and their freedom, for the sake of socialism. Generally the exploitation of the contradictions between the enemies have to lead to the growth and the intensification of the revolutionary and liberation movement and not to its weakening and its downturn, they have to lead to an always more and more active mobilisation of the revolutionary powers in the struggle against the enemies, especially against their main enemies without letting even a single illusion about their character emerge among the peoples.

To make the inter-imperialist contradictions absolute, to underestimate the basic contradiction, namely the contradiction between the revolution and the counter-revolution, to make only the exploitation of contradictions within the camp of the enemy the centre of the strategy while forgetting the most important point — the strengthening of the revolutionary spirit and the development of the revolutionary movement of the working class and the peoples -, to leave the preparation for the revolution aside, all this is in absolute contrasts to the teachings of Marxism-Leninism. It is anti-Marxist to preach unity with the allegedly weaker imperialism for the struggle against the stronger one under the pretext of exploiting contradictions, to side with the national bourgeoisie in order to resist the bourgeoisie of another country. Lenin stressed that the tactic of the exploiting of contradictions between the enemies should be used to raise and not to reduce the general level of proletarian class consciousness, the revolutionary spirit, the confidence of the masses in struggle and victory.

The Party of Labour of Albania has consistently adhered to these immortal teachings and always consistently adheres to them.

“In these moments of the great crisis of imperialism and modern revisionism”, Comrade Enver Hoxha said, “we have to exploit the great contradiction between the enemies correctly for our sake, for the sake of the socialist states and the peoples rising for the revolution, have to unmask the enemies constantly and must not be content with the so-called concessions and cooperations the imperialists and revisionists make perforce until they have left the danger behind them to take revenge afterwards. Therefore we have to keep the iron steadily in the fire and forge it constantly.” (E. Hoxha, Report to the 7th Party Congress of the PLA)

By portraying the so-called “Second World”, to which most capitalist and neo-colonialist countries belong and which presents the main pillar of the two superpowers, as ally of the “Third World” in the alleged struggle against US-imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism the anti-revolutionary and pseudo-imperialist character of the theory of the “Three Worlds” becomes evident.

It is an anti-revolutionary “theory” because class truce is preached to the European, Japanese, Canadian and other proletariat which has to struggle against the ruling monopoly of the bourgeoisie and exploitative order in the countries of the “Second World”, and also the collaboration with the bourgeoisie, meaning an abandonment of the revolution because allegedly this is in the interests of the defence of national independence and of the struggle especially against Soviet social-imperialism.

Furthermore it is a pseudo-anti-imperialist theory because it justifies and supports the neo-colonialist and exploitative policies of the imperialist powers of the “Second World” and calls upon the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America not to resist this policy, allegedly for the sake of the struggle against the superpowers. This way, the anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples of the so-called “Third World” as well as of the so-called “Second World” is actually weakened and sabotaged.


A revolutionary strategy is one which puts central emphasis on the revolution.

“The strategy and tactics of Leninism”, Stalin wrote, “constitute the science of leading the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.” (Stalin, Foundations of Leninism)

The Leninist strategy sees the proletarian world revolution as one single process, consisting of several great revolutionary currents of our epoch where the international proletariat is centred.

This revolutionary process takes place continuously in countries which are treading the way of genuine socialism as irreconcilable and fierce struggle between the two ways — the socialist and the capitalist way — for the achievement of the complete and final victory of the first over the second, in order to avert the danger of retrogression by counter-revolutionary violence and imperialist aggression or by the bourgeois-revisionist peaceful degeneration once and for all. The revolutionaries and peoples of the whole world follow the this struggle with lively interest and view it as a vital issue for the sake of the revolution and of socialism on a global scale. They give the socialist countries their whole support and backing against every assault of imperialism at these countries because in the socialist countries they see a strong basis and a mighty centre of the revolution, they see the practical realisation of the ideals for which they fight themselves. Lenin’s ideas about the necessity and primary importance of help and support from the part of the international proletariat for the country in which the socialist revolution was victorious are immortal. However, this requires at all times that it is a truly socialist country which applies the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism with utmost strictness and which consistently holds on to proletarian internationalism. In the case that it transforms into a capitalist country and only keep a fake “socialist” mask it must not be supported.

The revolutionaries and peoples know that the success and the struggle of the socialist countries hit and weaken imperialism, the bourgeoisie and the international reaction, that they are an immediate help and aid for the revolutionary liberation struggle of the working class and the peoples.

Lenin and Stalin always saw it as a revolutionary duty of the proletariat of a socialist country not only to make every possible effort to develop socialism in their own country but to wholeheartedly support the revolutionary liberation movement in other countries.

“Lenin”, J. V. Stalin wrote, “never regarded the Republic of Soviets as an end in itself. He always looked on it as an essential link for strengthening the revolutionary movement in the countries of the West and the East, an essential link for facilitating the victory of the working people of the whole world over capitalism. Lenin knew that this was the only right conception, both from the international standpoint and from the standpoint of preserving the Republic of Soviets itself.” (Stalin, On the Death of Lenin)

Exactly because of this a genuine socialist country cannot integrate itself into such groupings as the so-called “Third World” or the so-called “non-aligned countries” where all class boundaries are blurred and which solely serve the goal of diverting the peoples from the path of struggle against imperialism and from the revolution.

True and reliable allies of the socialist countries can only be the revolutionary, freedom-loving and progressive forces, the revolutionary movement of the working class and the anti-imperialist movement of oppressed peoples and nations. To preach the division into “Three Worlds”, to ignore the fundamental contradictions of our epoch, to call for an alliance of the proletariat with the monopoly bourgeoisie and of the oppressed peoples with the imperialist powers of the so-called “Second World” is neither for the betterment of the international proletariat nor of the peoples or the socialist countries, it is anti-Leninist. J. V. Stalin stressed:

“I cannot imagine that there will ever be a case when the interests of our Soviet Republic demand deviations to the right from our brother parties… I cannot imagine that the interests of our republic, which is the basis of the revolutionary proletarian movement of the whole world, would ever demand not a maximum of revolutionary verve and political activity of the Western workers but a decrease of this activity, hindering the revolutionary impetus.” (Stalin, Collected Works, volume 8, p. 97, German edition)

In the metropolises of capitalism the process of the proletarian world revolution gets more and more concrete today in the always increasing class struggles of the proletariat and the other working and progressive strata against bourgeois exploitation and oppression, against the attempts of the bourgeoisie to shift the burden of the current crisis of the capitalist world system on to the shoulders of the working class, against the revival of fascism in this or that form, etc. Among the working class, with the proletariat at its head, the conviction becomes accepted and will become more accepted each day that the only way out off the crises and other evils of capitalism, the bourgeois exploitation, the fascist violence and the imperialist wars is the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Live and the facts prove that neither the bourgeoisie nor their declared or disguised lackeys, from the social democrats to the modern revisionists, are able to hold up the surging wave of the revolutionary struggle of the masses.

“The present struggle of the world proletariat”, Comrade Enver Hoxha stressed at the 7th Party Congress of the PLA, “proves again the basic thesis of Marxism-Leninism that working class and its revolutionary struggle in the bourgeois and revisionist world can suppressed neither by violence nor by demagogy.”

The objective conditions for the revolution in the developed capitalist nations become more positive with every day. Today in these countries the proletarian revolution is a problem whose solution has to be faced. The Marxist-Leninist parties, which have taken up the banner of the revolution that the revisionists have betrayed and dropped, have rightfully readied themselves for the task and started seriously on the work of preparing the proletariat and its allies for the future revolutionary battles aimed at the downfall of bourgeois order. This revolutionary struggle which attacks the capitalist and imperialist world order in its strongholds has the full support of the true socialist countries as well as the revolutionary and peace-loving peoples on the whole world and must necessarily have them. Today, however, the modern revisionists, the advocates of the theory of the “Three Worlds” and the theoreticians of “non-alignment”, are making an effort by keeping silent about the revolution and its preparations and by upholding the status quo of the capitalist social order.

By trying to divert the attention of the proletariat from the revolution, the authors of the theory of the “Three Worlds” preach that nowadays the question of the defence of national independence opposing the danger of aggression from the part of the superpowers, especially from Soviet social-imperialism which they consider to be as arch-enemy, has taken precedence. The question of defining who — at a given time — is considered to be the arch-enemy on an international scale is of great importance for the revolutionary movement. Our party which takes into consideration the course of events and class analysis of the current situation, underlines that US-imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, both them superpowers, are today “the biggest and the main enemies of the peoples” and as such “present the same kind of danger” (E. Hoxha, Report to the 7th Party Congress of the PLA).

Soviet social-imperialism is a brutal, aggressive and expansionist imperialism which practices an exceedingly colonialist and neo-colonialist policy which is based on the power of capital and weapons. This new imperialism is struggling as a rival of US-imperialism in order to conquer strategic positions and to extend its clutches to all regions and continents. It excels as a fire extinguisher of the revolution and oppressor of the liberation struggle of the peoples. This does not mean in the least that the other enemy of the peoples of the whole world, namely US-imperialism, is less dangerous, although the supporters of the theory of the “Three Worlds” say so. By disfiguring the truth and betraying the peoples they claim that American imperialism is no longer a warmonger, that it is allegedly weakened, that it is in decline and that it has turned into a frightened mouse — or in other words that US-imperialism is gradually becoming more peaceful. This goes so far that they justify even the American military presence in different countries like Germany, Belgium, Italy or Japan and label it as a factor of military defence. Such views are extremely dangerous to the freedom of the peoples and for the fates of the revolution. Such theses fuel illusions about the aggressive, hegemonistic and expansionist nature of US-imperialism as well as Soviet imperialism.

The proletariat and the proletarian revolution face the task of overthrowing each single imperialism and especially both imperialist superpowers. Because of its nature each imperialism is always a furious enemy of the proletarian revolution and therefore the classification of imperialisms in more or less dangerous kinds is false from the strategic viewpoint of world revolution. Practice has confirmed that both superpowers are to the same degree and at the same level the arch-enemy of socialism, the liberty and independence of the nations, it is the main force for the defence of the oppressive and exploitative systems, the immediate danger which threatens to pitch humanity into a third world war. The denial of the great truth, the underestimation of the danger of one or another superpower, or worse, the appeal to ally with one superpower against the other bears disastrous consequences and great dangers for the future of the revolution and the freedom of the peoples.

Of course it happens and can happen that one or another country is oppressed and threatened by one of the superpowers directly but this never ever means that the other superpower poses no danger for just this country and even less that the other superpower has become an enemy of this country. The principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” cannot be applied if it is a matter of the two imperialist superpowers: the USA and the Soviet Union. These two superpowers are fighting with all means against the revolution and against socialism, they undertake all possible efforts to sabotage the revolution and socialism and suffocate both in blood. The two superpowers are fighting in order to expand their rule and exploitation to different peoples and countries. Experience shows that they attack brutally first in the one region and next in another in order to reach for the peoples with their bloodstained claws and that they furiously form up for attack so that they can oust each other. As soon as the people of one country succeeds at shaking off the rule of the one superpower, the other immediately approaches. The Middle East and Africa fully confirm this.

The other great current of the world revolution in our epoch is the national liberation struggle of the peoples which is directed against imperialism, neo-colonialism and the colonial remains. The Marxist-Leninists and the world proletariat are solidly united with the national liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples and lend it all their support because they consider these struggles to be a very important and irreplaceable factor in the development of the revolutionary world process. The Party of Labour of Albania was and always is on the side of the peoples who struggle for freedom and national independence:

“We are in favour of the unity of the world proletariat and all upright anti-imperialist and progressive forces which thwart the aggressive plans of the imperialist and social-imperialist warmongers.”

The Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian people who consistently adhere to this line… will… also in the future not spare any effort and will fight together with the other anti-imperialist and anti-social-imperialist peoples, together with all Marxist-Leninist parties, all revolutionaries and the world proletariat, with all progressive humans for the failure of the plans and manoeuvres of the enemies and for the triumph of the case of freedom and safety of the peoples.

Our country will always be on the side of all the peoples whose freedom and independence are threatened and whose rights are injured.” (E. Hoxha, Report to the 7th Party Congress of the PLA)

 Comrade Enver Hoxha expressed this unshakable conviction in the name of the party and the Albanian state in the speech at the people’s assembly for the enactment of our new constitution:

“Most peoples of the earth”, he explained, “are making great efforts and they insistently resist the colonial laws and the neo-colonial reign, the old and new rules, practices, conventions and one-sided treaties which have been put up by the bourgeoisie in order to keep up the exploitation of the peoples, the detested differences and discriminations in the international relations… the progressive peoples and the democratic states which cannot accept this state and struggle to achieve national sovereignty over their resources, which struggle to strengthen the political and economic independence and to achieve equality in the international relations have the full solidarity and support of the Albanian people and the Albanian state.”

Since the time of Lenin, the Marxist-Leninists have always considered the national liberation struggle of the peoples and nations oppressed by imperialism as a strong ally and great reserve of the world revolution of the proletariat.

In the countries which have achieved political independence completely or partially, the revolution is in different stages of development and it does not face the same tasks. Among them are countries which are directly facing the proletarian revolution while in many others the tasks of the anti-imperialist, national-democratic Revolution are in order. But the revolution is in any case an ally and a reserve of the proletarian world revolution as long as it is also directed against the international bourgeoisie and imperialism.

But does this means that such country has to stop at the national-democratic phase and that the revolutionaries must not speak about the socialist revolution, must not prepare it out of fear of skipping stages and leaving them out and because somebody might call them “Blanquists”?! Lenin already spoke about the necessity of the transformation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution at a time when the bourgeois-democratic revolution was still only budding in these countries. Marx and Engels, while criticising Blanquism, have called neither the revolution in 1848 nor the Paris Commune premature. Marxism-Leninism in no way mistakes the petty bourgeois impatience which leads to skipping stages with the necessity to perpetuate the revolution consistently.

Lenin stresses that the revolution in the dependent and colonial countries has to be promoted. Since the time of Lenin great changes have taken place in these countries which haven been foreseen by him in a brilliant way and in which the Leninist thesis of the revolutionary world process finds its answer. The realisation of the proletarian revolution is an universal law and the main trend of our epoch. Both must and will necessarily permeate all countries without exception, among them Indonesia and Chile, Brazil and Zaire, etc., regardless of the question by which stages the proletarian revolution will be accomplished. Disregarding this aim, preaching the preservation of the status quo and theorising about the “necessity not to skip any stages”, forgetting the fight against Suharto and Pinochet, Geisel and Mobutu means being neither for the national liberation struggle nor for the national-democratic revolution.

The proletarian revolution must and will permeate Europe, too. Whoever forgets this perspective, whoever doesn’t prepare for this aim but preaches instead that the revolution has shifted to Africa or Asia and that the European proletariat has to ally itself with its “reasonable and well-meaning” bourgeoisie under the pretext of defending national independence, is someone who takes an anti-Leninist stance and who is not in favour of the defence of the mother country and for the nation’s freedom. Whoever “forgets” that both the Warsaw Treaty and the NATO have to be fought, and that both the Comecon and the EEC have to be rejected, is someone who allies himself with them and becomes their slave.

In the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” Marx and Engels wrote: “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre.”

This statement by Marx and Engels is topical today, too. Both the temporary defeat which the revolution suffered because of the revisionist betrayal and the economic potential and the military oppressive power which imperialism and social-imperialism use to oppose the revolutionary movement and the ideas of communism have not been able and will never be able either to change the course of history and thus to bring the great power of Marxism-Leninism to its knees.

Marxism-Leninism is the revolutionary ideology which has penetrated deeply into the consciousness of the proletariat and which has an ever increasing influence on the broad masses of the peoples seeking liberation. The influence of this theory is so strong that even the bourgeois ideologists have always been forced to reckon with it, and they have never ceased trying to find ways and means to disfigure Marxism-Leninism and to undermine the revolution.

The current anti-Leninist theories of the “Three Worlds”, the “non-alignment”, etc., also aim at undermining the revolution, to fight back the struggle against imperialism, especially the American one, to divide the Marxist-Leninist movement and the unity of the proletariat propagated by Marx and Lenin, to create a number of groups of anti-Marxist elements so that fight against the true Marxist-Leninist parties which are loyally stick to Marxism-Leninism and to the revolution.

All efforts to analyse the situation in an allegedly new manner which is different from that of Lenin and Stalin and to change the revolutionary strategy which has always been upheld by the Marxist-Leninist movement lead astray, making one take the anti-Marxist path and turning one’s back on the struggle against imperialism and revisionism. The loyalty towards Marxism-Leninism, towards the revolutionary strategy of the Marxist-Leninist communist movement, and the fight against all opportunist deviations which the modern revisionists of different colour propagate as well as the revolutionary mobilisation of the working class and the peoples against the bourgeoisie and imperialism as well as the serious preparation for the revolution are the only true way, indeed the only way towards victory.