Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Red Star Collective

The International Situation: World United Front & Proletarian Revolution

Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Bolshevik Union’s Position

We are not able to deal with the position of the BU at length. At present we have only two brief documents on which to assess their position: 1 .“Soviet Social-Imperialism in Angola”, an article in LD # 1; and 2. “Open Letter to the Canadian Marxist-Leninist Movement”, published as part of their “Special Bulletin – July 1977”. The second document represents a totally different line than does the first, and puts forward not only the position adopted by the Albania Zeri i Populitt, but a call to Canadian Marxist-Leninists to accept the leadership of the Party of Labour of Albania.

As we have dealt quite extensively with the Albanian position we will not repeat ourselves in order to take up the new line of the Bolshevik Union. However, we would like to deal with some points specifically.

In their suggestion for workshops for the Third National Conference on International Situation,they characterize positions in the following way:

a) Development of the imperialist front. Has it remained one front composed of imperialism,social-imperialism, and international reaction? Is it now divided into the superpowers representing the “first world“,the capitalists representing the ’second world’, the comprador bourgeoisie representing the ’third world’?

Thus for the Bolshevik Union the third world has now become the comprador bourgeoisie. In this manner they ignore the progressive forces operating within the third world which oppose imperialism and see only those which support imperialism. Unfortunately we cannot say that the Bolshevik Union unaware of the actual analysis of the three worlds, as the following quotes from their article on Angola show: “and as,on a world scale,the national question has become a class question, since the real forces of national liberation are part of the world proletarian revolution by their opposition to imperialism. . .” (Lines of Demarcation #1 p. 16)

The only forces that are truly progressive in Africa are those that line up with the Third World against both superpowers not those neo-colonialist forces that accomodate imperialism by letting either the wolf or the tiger in at the front door or the back door. (ibid p 17)

Here they have clearly seen the opposing forces at work within the third world, identify the progressive and reactionary forces,and correctly state that “the real forces of national liberation are part of the world proletarian revolution.” (emphasis ours)

Within their present distortion of the third world as the comprador bourgeoisie is the not-so-hidden accusation that the advocates of the three worlds analysis support the reactionary comprador neo-colonialist forces within the developing countries. But history itself shows the lack of validity in such a charge implicit or explicit.

They suggest for the second workshop:

b)Revolutionary front. Does the revolutionary front still consist of the socialist countries, the international proletariat and the oppressed nations and peoples of the world? Or are the socialist countries part of the ’third world’, the proletariat of the more developed countries part of the ’second world’,and the proletariat of the superpowers part of the ’first world’, effectively liquidating the revolutionary front as do the proponents of the three worlds.

Again a distortion. Far from liquidating the “revolutionary front” the three worlds analysis correctly identifies all those forces which can oppose imperialism. The Bolshevik Union’s wording obscures the three worlds analysis and makes itseem as if it is only an analysis of state to state relations and not of class relations. The three worlds theory does not speak of the proletariat of the second world or of the superpower countries as having the identical interests as their countries. While the proletariat’s genuine interests are unequivocably on the side of world revolution, the interests of countries of the second world are based on the desire to maintain and expand their capitalist states and they contribute to an anti-superpower struggle only insofar as this desire brings them into conflict with the superpowers. And the interests of the superpowers internationally are never those of the real interests of the proletariat of their countries. The superpowers want world hegemony and the interests of the Soviet and the US proletariats, whether or not consciously perceived at this time,are on the side of world revolution.

c) What is the strategy for world revolution? A united front against world imperialism? Or a united front of the countries of the ’second world’ and the countries of the ’third world’ against the superpowers (particularly the SU)? Does the New International Economic Order fundamentally undermine world imperialism.

Two points are within this section. 1. Here the BU has gone a step further. While in b) they accused the three world “proponents” of ignoring the role of the proletariat in leading class struggle, here they suggest that the proletariat is excluded altogether. According to them the world united front includes only states.

2. Exactly what “fundamental” means is unclear. We are aware of no Marxist-Leninist who claims that the “New International Economic Order” will bring the end of world imperialism. The struggle by countries for equal trade agreements, etc., can contribute to a weakening of the superpowers and a postponement of war. But fundamental undermining of imperialism is provided by the revolutionary anti-imperialist struggles in the oppressed nations and the struggle for socialism.

d) Is the third world the motive force of history’? Or is it as Enver Hoxha puts forward,’.. .that the class struggle, as the motor of history is a mighty driving force . ..’

This represents the idea, once again, that the three worlds analysis is incompatible with class struggle. It also represents revolutionary posturing in place of concrete analysis. As we have taken up this point in reference to the Albanian position, we will not dwell longer on it here.

We are aware that the Bolshevik Union will soon be publishing their full position on the international situation. We hope to take up this position with them at the upcoming Third National Conference (Sept.9 /77). We also hope that their document will represent an attempt at concrete analysis and will not simply rest with the bold assertions, misrepresentations and accusations we have read in Zeri i Popullit.