First Published: The People’s Tribune, Vol. 6, No. 5, May 1974.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The following article is the text of a speech delivered on May 5, 1974 in Chicago by a leading member of the Communist League – People’s Tribune.
Comrades and friends:
This May Day is of special significance to us, in as much as it is the last May Day that we will celebrate as a Communist League. It is a day when we not only join with the workers of the world in the demonstrations for peace and socialism, but it is an opportunity for us to again assert our fundamental outlook – the world liberating, scientific outlook of the proletariat.
Karl Marx, the founder of scientific socialism was bon May 5, 1818 in Germany. Hence, we are celebrating the l65th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx, “the greatest thinker in the history of humankind.” April 22nd of this year marks the l04th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich – our world beloved Lenin. May Day – international strike day – is inseparably bound up with these dates and with these men.
It was Marx, in collaboration with his close friend and comrade, Frederick Engels, who worked out the scientific analysis of the motive forces of society, spelled out in general terms the historic world emancipating role of the proletariat. Marx liberated mankind’s mind from such subjective and shallow, historical, populist conceptions as the struggle between the rich and the poor, between the big and the small, between the advanced and the backward, etc. Marx spelled out in the first sentence of the world historic Communist Manifesto. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” At one stroke Marx set history on its feet and laid out the guidelines for the emerging proletarians. It is an acknowledged fact that it was the scientific teachings of Marx that kept the workers from becoming entangled in the free silver populist struggles of the 1890’s. It is acknowledged fact that the teachings of Marx and Engels saved the world’s proletariat from the role of “cat’s paw” for the petty bourgeoisie in their struggle against feudalism and imperialism. It was the genius of Marx that classified people according to their relationship to the means of production and showed that the class struggle would inevitably lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It was Marx who showed that the expropriation of surplus labor time was the basis for surplus profit in the capitalist world and crushed forever those hare-brained so-called economists who declare that profit is the result of buying labor and material cheaply and selling the finished products dearly. In the bible of the working class – Capital – Marx shows the impossibility of the existence of a class that buys, but never sells. In his consistent, militant, materialist dialectic Karl Marx gave to the working class a compass, a guiding star that is indispensable to the development of the revolution.
Vladimer Ilyich Lenin carried out the great work of Marx during the period of world history when capitalism had become moribund, was transforming itself into socialism. Our period is indelibly stamped with the teachings and activities of Lenin. Stalin, the great continuator of Lenin’s work wrote, “Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and of the proletarian revolution.” This is still the only correct slogan. Since Lenin’s time, there have been no new classes. Hence, Leninism, as the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a perfectly harmonious teaching, and is universally applicable.
Due to the unavoidable twists and turns of the international class struggle, certain disorientations within the Marxist-Leninist movement have occurred and shall continue to occur. Because imperialism is moribund capitalism – capitalism that is dying and transforming, the majority of the areas of unclarity revolve around this question. First of all, there has always been imperialism of one type or another since the exploitation of man by man occurred. There was the Roman type of imperialism. This was characterized by the imposition of taxes and the capture of slaves for the Roman rulers. As the feudal system arose, the imperialism of that time was exemplified by expansion of state boundaries and the gathering in of huge amounts of surplus labor time from the toilers on the land.
The next stage was the imperialism of the rising capitalist class. This was known as mercantile imperialism and was characterized by the conquest of weaker and backward peoples and by using these backward areas as & source of raw materials and as a dumping ground for finished commodities. This was known as the colonial system. Lenin spelled out the distinction between the majority of the European peoples and the peoples of the colonies. The colonial peoples were drawn into commodity exchange, but not into commodity production. However, Lenin explains, modern imperialism changed all of this, “Imperialism is, among other things, the export of capital. Capitalist production is being transplanted to the colonies at an ever increasing rate.”[1] Thus we see that the colonialism which belonged to the era of mercantile capitalism is no longer possible. Today, even in the most backward areas of Oceana, capitalist production and exchange are now deeply rooted and consequently, the colonial question is transformed into the national-colonial question with the proletarian revolution the next step on the historical agenda.
As the struggle for the hegemony of the world proletariat becomes more and more intense, the maneuvers of the revisionists become more and more difficult to unearth and refute. There is a concept a-rising today that we are in a new era, an era of the sundering of the world into three separate worlds – or as some are now proposing four worlds. However, Lenin shows us that the examination of an era is a difficult thing and requires concrete analysis, Lenin says,
We are speaking, here of big historical epochs; in every epoch there are and there will be, separate, partial movements, sometimes forward at other times backwards, there are, and there will be, various deviations from the average type and average tempo of the movements.
We cannot know how fast and how successfully certain historical movements of the given epoch will develop. But we can and do know which class occupies a central position in this or that epoch and determines its main content, the main direction of its development, the main characteristics of the historical situation in the given epoch, etc.
Only on this basis, i.e., by taking into consideration first and foremost the fundamental distinctive features of different ’epochs ’ and not of individual episodes in the history of different countries can we correctly work out our tactics ...[2]
It is in this light that we are compelled to examine world history that is unfolding before us. Any elementary look shows us that the very heart of the struggle against Imperialism is the working class and the living soul of a working class is its Communist Party. Hence, no matter how we view the struggle, the working class has emerged everywhere as the leader, the necessary hegemone of the struggle for the future of mankind. We take our stand with Lenin that whoever in the slightest way detracts from the struggle for the hegemony of the working class aids the bourgeoisie in its efforts to politically decapitate the working class.
In the struggle against the national liberation movements and their inevitable linkup with the socialist revolution, the imperialists have been compelled to invent many forms to deceive the masses and to maintain their dictatorship over them. One of these forms is the form of the neo-colony. In this form there appears to be an independent state, hut in reality it is a state absolutely subservient to the imperialists, The USNA has had long experience in Latin America setting up this type of state. Nkrumah, prior to his overthrow, correctly noted the tendency for USNA imperialism to “Latinize” Africa. Under such conditions the worst butchers in the world – such as Joseph Mobutu of Zaire, the murderer of Lumumba, and Ksmitatu – emerge in the garb of national heroes and leaders in the struggle for national independence.
We must not be misled by such representations. The thesis of Lenin that the national liberation movements are an integral part of the world proletarian revolution and that the colonies cannot emancipate themselves without the overthrow of all capital Is strikingly born out by the fact that in spite of the great turmoil of the past 25 years, only China, Albania, North Korea, North Vietnam and Cuba have been able to break the stranglehold of imperialism. As the Chinese comrades correctly point out, “This neo-colonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism...how can it be said that the abolition of colonial rule has already entered its final phase?”[3] Along with the falsehood of pretending that the establishment of neo-colonialist regimes represents a concrete leap to freedom, there necessarily follows the dangerous line that the economic struggle is the most important one for the oppressed peoples.
The truth of the matter is that the political tasks always lead the economic tasks – the direction of the economic struggle. The matter of which class or classes to rely on is a political matter. The struggle against the lackeys of Imperialism, the heightening of the ideological unity of the people, the question of vigilance, the broadening of the democratic base, the drawing in of new forces Into the revolution – all these are political tasks that lay the foundation for economic gains. This is the legacy of Lenin, the historical experience of the revolutionary movement. Revolutionary history has proven that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only form that guarantees the material well-being of the masses. In the struggle for emancipation, as in everything, politics must be put in command.
Another aspect of this struggle is what should be the Communists attitude toward the national interest of the oppressed peoples. Should the leading factor be to support the national interests, which can only be bourgeois interests, or should the leading factor be proletarian international interests? It is clear that it is impossible to unite the various national interests against imperialism. The nature of national interests compels the various bourgeois leaders to rely on Imperialism in one degree or another. But, in fact, the national interests can only be defended from the standpoint of making the international interests of the proletariat the leading factor.
This, of course, raises the question of hegemony both from the national and international standpoint. Hegemony, like everything else, divides into two. There is the hegemony of the imperialists who impose their leadership on the peoples with the bayonet and the iron discipline of starvation. But there is another hegemony that is earned in the ruthless battle for the defence of the well-being of the peoples. The struggle for the hegemony of the proletariat is an absolutely indispensable factor in the development of the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. After WWII when the imperialists openly planned to attack the Soviet Union, if it had not been for the socialist hegemony of the Soviet Union over the peoples of the earth, the USSR would have been in an indefensible position. It is absolutely proper and revolutionary for the working class and for the camp of peace and socialism to struggle for world hegemony.
It is an acknowledged fact that prior to the first World War, the international situation was characterized by the ruthless domination of a handful of huge banks. Lenin said to the 2nd Congress of the Communist International, “An insignificant number of capitalists have been able to concentrate in their hands, sometimes, whole branches of industry; these have passed into the hands of combines, cartels, syndicates and trusts, which, not infrequently, are of an international character. Thus, whole branches of industry, not only in single countries, but all over the world, were found to have been captured by monopolists in regard to finance, in regard to right of ownership; and partly, in regard to production. On this soil there has developed the unprecedented domination of an insignificant number of very big banks, of kings of finance, of financial magnates who have, in fact, transformed even the freest republics into financial monarchies.”[4]
This situation has developed and Increased a thousand times since Lenin spoke these words. At the end of World War I the USNA was without debts and the entire world was in debt to it. At the end of WWII the financial situation of the USNA could not be challenged. But it would be an error to refer to this financial oligarchy simply as the state of the USNA. The present state is the result of the consolidation of this murderous gang and it disarms the masses not to identify the handful of Rockefellers and Morgans who today are carrying out this rapacious slaughter of the peoples of the world. It is clear that such terms as superpowers are perfectly acceptable to the USNA rulers because it tends to shield the class character of the most ruthless imperialism the world has ever known.
Marx long ago taught the working class that the process of polarization of wealth is a law of capitalist development. It is only natural, given the law of uneven development that one or two big imperialists should gobble up the smaller dogs. It is also just as inevitable that they will fight it out for supremacy in as much as here are no new worlds to conquer. Thus, we are not dealing so much with superpowers as we are with gigantic imperialist states – states that have a greater capacity to revolutionize the means of production, greater human resources and hence the insatiable need to expand a constantly restricted market. It is not so much that we are dealing with superpowers as the fact that we are dealing with a highly concentrated imperialism.
Prior to the Soviet revolution all the social contradictions – the contradiction between labor and capital, the contradiction between the colonies and imperialism, and the contradiction between imperialists were all contradictions internal to the imperialist system. The historic importance of the Soviet revolution is that on Nov. 7, 1917, under the leadership of the great Lenin, a contradiction with imperialism, external to imperialism, emerged.
Thanks to the gigantic size of the Soviet Union, thanks to the heroic self-sacrifice of the peoples, thanks to the unity of the Soviet Republics, the USSR was able to survive the famine, survive the blockade and was forced to develop an economic exchange between the Republics of the USSR. The creation of the Socialist market was the basis, but not the only factor in the development of a Socialist camp. It was the fact that it was outside of the sphere of imperialism that made it impossible to deny the existence of such a camp. But the Socialist nations and the lands of the People’s Democracies could not speak only in terms of the defence of their markets. Their goals were identical with the deepest longings of the peoples of the world. Thus, the Socialist countries emerged as the leaders of the camp of Peace, Democracy and Socialism, while the major imperialist power, the USNA, emerged as the leader of the camp of reactionary, warmongering, anti-national imperialism.” These two camps, because they are external to one another are bound to exist until the death of imperialism.
By the same token, no matter what the contradictions are between the imperialists, they cannot help but constitute a bloc. Their vital interests even in time of war compel them to unite against socialism. This accounts for the anti-Soviet attitude of the imperialists toward the USSR even while they jointly fought Hitler, and it accounts for the rapid rearming of Adenauer’s Germany at the close of the war.
Two destructive bloody slaughters called world wars have been fought on the continent of Europe. Yet these wars have not been for the re-division of Europe, but for the re-division of the colonial world. It is clear to all that again Europe threatens to become the battlefield to determine the re-division of the world between the imperialist blocs that are in the process of formation, History shows us that it is incorrect to assume that the struggle that is going on is foe the control of Europe. It is for the control of the colonies that is represented by the control of Europe.
The historical experience of the proletarian revolution has become very broad and deep since the advent of the Paris Commune. No revolutionary can disregard the lessons drawn from over 100 years of revolution. One of the lessons taught by Marx in the Manifesto is, “The proletariat of each country, must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.”[5] History has fully confirmed this thesis. While on the one hand, proletarian internationalism is the very cornerstone of the Communist movement, on the other hand, revolution cannot be exported. It is through the struggle to organize themselves, to administer their associations; it is in the political and military struggle against reaction that the proletariat learns to govern a country. This is a painful process that can only be done by the national proletariat. However, counter-revolution can be and daily is exported. Part of proletarian international duty is to render assistance to the embattled revolutionaries, – but we should never forget the teachings of Lenin – that the essence of proletarian internationalism is the struggle to overthrow one’s own government. The struggle to build the Party in the USNA is the supreme example of proletarian internationalism. Those agents of revisionism who oppose the effort to build such a party expose themselves as objective enemies of, the Leninist concept of proletarian Internationalism.
A year ago the entire “Left” was projecting that the USNA imperialists were heading for their immediate doom. This line spread from Gus Hall’s “Lame Duck in Troubled waters” to the rantings of the “New Left”. A concrete analysis by the leadership of the Communist League disclosed that far from entering into its immediate doom, USNA imperialism was expanding its hegemony and tightening its grip on the dependent areas of the world. This is most easily proven by the growth of the USNA’s share in the world market. As has been stated many times in the People’s Tribune, the careful monitoring of inflation has meant the lowering of the value of the dollar internationally, and consequently, the cheapening of USNA goods abroad – even if the result was a sharp increase in the price of necessaries here at home.
A few examples to prove this point are as follows: Imports from the USNA to Germany in 1972 were $3 billion 339 million, in 1973 – $4 billion 538 million, and already in 1974 imports are up 37%; to the United Kingdom in 1972 – $2 bullion 945 million, in 1973 – $3 billion 966 million, and in 1974 up 35%; to France in 1972 – $2 billion 154 million, in 1973 – $2 billion 990 million, and in 1974 up 39%; to Japan in 1972 – $5 billion 862 million, in 1973 – $9 billion 259 million, and in 1974 up 58%; and to Canada in 1972 – $l4 billion 164 million, in 1973 – $17 billion 964. million and in 1974 up 27%. Almost every country in the world shows an Increase in USNA imports. A few further samples for the first four months of 1974:
Italy up 42%, Netherlands up 45%t Sweden up 21% and so forth. The story is also true in the dependent countries: Indonesia up 67%, Philippines up 42$, Malaysia up 40%, Peru up 29%, Morocco up 54%, etc.[6] The developing consolidation of the market by USNA imperialism is uncontestable.
We outlined that the conditions for this development were the China-Soviet conflict and the serious problem that China faces in defending herself against a nuclear pre-emptive assault by the Soviets. Of course, this is much more of a political problem than a military one. All political problems involve a certain amount of compromise. Comrade Chou En-lai made this clear in his report to the Tenth Party Congress and also made it clear that such compromise did not and could not signify a change in the principled stand of the Chinese party. Quoting Lenin, Comrade Chou said, “One must learn to distinguish between a man who gave the bandits money and firearms in order to lessen the damage they can do and facilitate their capture and execution and a man who gives bandits money and firearms in order to share in the loot.”[7]
However, today everyone must adroit that the situation between the USSR and China, which is growing daily more dangerous, made it possible for the USNA imperialists to consolidate. And consolidate they have. It is not that the imperialists have been able to create situations that are favorable to them. But the situations that occur in the course of the struggle are more easily turned to serve the Imperialists because of their hegemony. The situation in the Near East certainly proves this point. However, it should be kept in mind that a good part of the ability of the Imperialists to secure their hegemony has been the pursuance of an incorrect line on the part of some revolutionaries.
Opposing the earth shaking, revolutionary upsurge of the national colonial movements – ignited by the imperialist defeat in Korea – has been an increasingly reactionary, revisionist current that separates the national liberation movements from the proletarian revolution and hence supports the reactionary bloc of compromising bourgeoisie in the colonies and semi-colonies. Comrade Enver Hoxha makes this clear: “Traitors to Marxism-Leninism, agents of imperialism and intriguers like Josif Broz Tito, try in a thousand ways, by hatching up diabolic schemes like the creation of a third force, to mislead these people and the newly-set up states, to detach them from their natural allies, to hitch them up to U.S. imperialism. We should exert all our efforts to defeat the schemes of these lackeys of imperialism.”[8] This reactionary current was first stilted by Tito. But as the center of counter-revolution shifted to Moscow, this support of the compromising national bourgeoisie became the main calling card of Khruschev and Co.
This current which persists in spite of the overthrowal of state after state, separates the workers in the dependent countries and helps to bloc them from achieving hegemony in the struggle. Today the “Left” is bemoaning the “defection” of Sadat to the USNA imperialists. Well, several truths should be noted. First, Sadat and his mentor, Nasser, were both blood stained butchers or the workers. Nasser outlawed the trade unions slaughtered the progressives and took special joy in the torture of Communists. The goals of the leadership of the Egyptian state are and have been purely national, purely bourgeois. Second, this is a re-affirmation of the truth that the only way for the bourgeoisie of the dependent countries to escape from the dependence upon Soviet Imperialism and to preserve themselves is to rely on USNA imperialism and vice versa. But this is only true in so far as the revolution has paused at the level of the national bourgeoisie. There is another path, the only real path, the path of carrying the revolution on to its conclusion, on to emancipation. This can only be accomplished by the overthrowal of all imperialism and all capital, including the national capital. This is the experience of China, Albania, North Korea and North Vietnam. In this regard, Stalin spelled out the only acceptable scientific tactic some years back when he wrote:
The fundamental and new feature In the conditions of existence of such colonies as India is not only that the national bourgeoisie has split into a revolutionary party and a compromising party, but primarily that the compromising section of this bourgeoisie has already managed in the main to come to an agreement with imperialism. Dreading revolution more than imperialism, concerned more about its money-bags than about the interests of its own country, this section of the bourgeoisie, the wealthiest and most influential section, is completely going over to the camp” of the irreconcilable enemies of the revolution, having entered into a bloc with imperialism against the workers and peasants of its own country. The victory of the revolution cannot be achieved unless the bloc is broken. But in order to break this bloc, fire must be concentrated on the compromising national bourgeoisie; its treachery must be exposed, the tolling masses must be emancipated from its influent and the conditions necessary for the hegemony of the proletariat must be systematically prepared. In other words, it is a question of preparing the proletariat of such colonies as India for the role of leader in the liberation movement, and of dislodging, step by step, the bourgeoisie and its spokesmen from this honourable position.[9]
There can be no doubt that the crisis that is developing in Egypt is going to preserve the way for the workers and toilers to again assert their position in the Middle East. We must not make the mistake of thinking that Sadat is the Egyptian people or that each step toward USNA imperialism hasn’t enmeshed him in a deeper and deeper web of contradictions. Just as we have seen revolution breed counter-revolution, it is just as true that counter-revolution breeds revolution. We must be careful to see that while USNA imperialism is consolidating its position, it is also moving into a crisis. This crisis is the result of the real solid victory of USNA imperialism. In this crisis we are bound to see the formation of blocs against the victor, the development of a trade war (Italy has already imposed a tariff) to protect the national industry, and finally, the inevitable war of re-division of the world market.
As regards the recent coup d’etat and the resultant mass movement in Portugal, it is too early to determine which way this struggle is going. But it is easy to see the hand of the CIA in the entire African adventure. The imperialists try to play both sides of the street. On the one hand, they try to influence the liberation leaders in Africa, and on the other hand, they try to control the counter-revolution. So as far as Washington is concerned, it’s heads I win; tails you lose.
None the less we must see that this coup is the result of the fact that Portugal has lost the war – lost it militarily and, financially – and is attempting to salvage some of the political goals. Portugal, with less power and more to lose, is taking the Gaullist path to neo-colonialism In Africa. It is clear that any other step would have to be followed by invasions from South Africa and from Spain. However, the genie that is being released from the bottle is not going to be shoved back in so easily. As we said before, both revolution and reaction are on the scene and we will have to wait and see which of the combatants can rally the masses.
Comrades, before closing I would like to say a few words about the situation within the Communist League. We have come a long way in the past five and a half years. We have laid every brick ourselves and we are beholden to no one. For an organization primarily composed of workers, accomplishing the task of creating an ideologically united, theoretically strong and politically active organization is truly remarkable. At the same time, only such an organization as ours could accomplish such a feat.
When Engels was asked what is the Communist movement, he did not hesitate to answer that the Communist movement is the movement of the theories of the emancipation of the proletariat. We have from the beginning accepted this as our guideline and cornerstone. As a result, we have compelled every single one of the “Left” gangs that attack us to accept the Negro question as a national question. In our battle against their syndicalism we have forced them to call for the formation of a multi-national Communist Party, Of course, they cannot do it – they can only form an organization of Anglo-American petty bourgeois, idle rich do-gooders. And they know it. Look what happened, Comrades. In a planned effort to prevent the formation of a Communist Party, they seized upon the opportunities of the moment – that was primarily the uprisings of the oppressed peoples within the state of the USNA. In this class struggle the oppressed people did not receive the proper assistance from the Anglo-American working class – a class that could not move, a class that was without leaders.
The political situation was one where they could fan the flames of nationalism and separate the proletariat into national categories. What a phalanx they had worked out! Organization A was to be the sole representative of the Puerto Rican workers. Organization B was to be the sole representative of the Negro workers, and then of course, such gangs as the October League and the Revolutionary Union were to represent the Anglo-America section of the working class. Over the years we conducted a principled struggle for the unity of the class because no other situation can develop a revolution. We built an organization that is about 1/3 Anglo-American, 1/3 Negro national minority and 1/3 Latin American national minorities; 60% women and 100% working class.
Our principled defense of Marxism eventually had its effect and now we see these syndicalist gangs disintegrating. What happened? The Puerto Rican representative and the Negro representative learned Marxism; they rejected the baton of big rich good doin’ daddy and came to their own conclusion. And what was that conclusion? – that it would be criminal not to at once build a Party to defend their peoples and class. These organizations have joined with us in the Continuations Committee. Welcome home, Comrades. The white chauvinists have picked up a stone and dropped it on their own feet.
Now what has happened? Well the RU now has hastily put out the call to build a Communist Party at once – certainly before September. What will they use for cadre? Who cares? And what about a program? So what – just get a party before September. But they can’t do it, Comrades, because a party is an objective thing. It is an organization; it is cadre sufficiently developed to find their own bearings. It is an independent body of political knowledge. It is a treasury of confirmed theoretical development.
Do these gangs possess any of this? Their party of petty bourgeois do-gooders would be the laughing stock of the revolutionary movement. None the less, the RU is placing the OL in such a position that it must either join in the syndicalist white chauvinist so-called Party, or it will be compelled to rejoin the CPUSA. These ladies and gentlemen forget that motion is the law of development. Motion is backward or forward. Forward motion means a united fighting Party of Bolshevik leaders. Backward means into the lap of the CPUSA and the CIA. We think these ladies and gentlemen better take another look at which star they have attached their “little red wagon” to.
You can be sure that the slander and attacks against us are going to increase, but we’re through with the phase of arguing with these, “lefties”. It is clear that one of the laws of our development is that when we struggle with the “New Left”, we are drawn into their movement; but when we struggle with the CPUSA, we are drawn into the working class struggles. Why is this so? Because the CPUSA is in the working class; they are there to disorient and to disorganize, but they have the connections, they have the history and they have the CIA money. And there certainly cannot be a real Communist movement until the CPUSA is isolated and exposed within the working class movement. So let them say what they like. We have grown past the stage of arguing with barking dogs.
Comrades, we have finished a phase of our struggle. That phase was to get started. If we were to compare our League to building a house – we have cleared the land, we have dug the trench and poured the footings, the foundation is level and square; now the real task of house building is to start.
Comrades, as you know, throughout the world this May Day was the most passive May Day in history. There were hardly any speeches – plenty of May poles and dancing, but very little concerning the leading role of the proletariat. This is an indication of the bitter political struggle that is going on within the working class and inside the Communist parties. I am sure that this placid May Day is only the calm before the storm.
The May pole dances and the family style parades, the exchanging of red carnations, were all reported in the press. Good. But there was another May Day that was not reported. May Day was also celebrated in Mozambique to the thunder of cannon; it was celebrated in Vietnam to the tramp of the mighty forces of liberation; May Day was also in Ethiopia, where a new proletariat is being born in the storms of their 1905. Although we did not hear the freedom slogans or see the clenched fist of the Brazilian revolution, it was there. We might not have heard the solemn vow of the peoples of Bolivia and Chile. We did not see the guerrillas in Mexico or the militants of Puerto Rico; we might not have seen the smoldering fire in the eyes of the Azanians (South Africans – ed.) but it was there.
The great Communist Party of China has covered itself with glory in the military and ideological battles of the past five decades. It has emerged as the leader, the most experienced and most consistent standard bearer of the revolution. On this May Day we greet this great party, vanguard of the world Communist movement. Especially we send our greetings to Mao Tse-tung and other party leaders. China has been and shall remain the reliable bastion and base area for the international proletariat.
No force on earth can stop our revolution. No set of liars and double dealers can for long distort reality, Those who want, are free to slither to the side of the class enemy, As for us – class conscious leaders of the world revolution – today, as always, we grasp the outstretched hand of the embattled millions and join with them shouting:
LONG LIVE THE GREAT TEACHINGS OF MARX AND LENIN!
LONG LIVE PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!
ON TO THE BUILDING OF THE PARTY!
[1] Lenin, “Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”, Coll. Works. Vol. XIX, Intl. Publ. N.Y., p. 284.
[2] ref. will appear in following issue.
[3] Polemic on the General Line of the International Communist Movement, FLPP, 1965 P. 191.
[4] Lenin, “The International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist International,” Selected Works, Vol. 10 Intl. Publ. NY 1838, p. 180.
[5] Marx and Engels, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, FLPP, 1972, p. 45.
[6] “Commerce Today” 4/29/74, p. 22.
[7] The 10th Congress OF the CPC (Documents) p. 28.
[8] Enver Hoxha, “PLA in Battle With Modern Revisionism”, Tirana, 1972.
[9] J. V. Stalin, National and Colonial Question, Intl. Publ. N. Y.