Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committee

Revolution Will Surely Triumph!

On the International Situation


First Printed: 1977.
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.

Editor’s Note: A Statement from the Central Commmitee of the Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committee on the current world situation and the tasks of the working class, including discussion of the basic contradictions of imperialism, the correct strategy and tactics of the proletariat and its allies, and the the struggle against modern revisionism and the anti-Leninist theory of the “three worlds.”

* * *


In the world today, the struggle between the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism is growing very sharp. Great battles are breaking out between labor and capital on every front of the class struggle. The question of state power has come to the forefront.

In all corners of the world, the proletariat and oppressed nations and people are advancing through protracted and tortuous struggle, fighting imperialism and reaction, and preparing for the final and complete defeat of imperialism. These events fully confirm Lenin’s great teaching that imperialism is the era of proletarian revolution, the transition from capitalism to socialism.

The Marxist-Leninist parties in numerous countries are growing stronger, consolidating their ties with the masses, and are today moving to assume their rightful role in the vanguard of the class struggle. The bright red star of Albania today grows brighter than ever, a beacon of socialism to the entire world, illuminating the path for all mankind.

Yet with the rise and sharpening of the four basic contradictions of our era, and the development of the all-around general crisis of capitalism, the international bourgeoisie will try every possible means to place the burden of this crisis onto the backs of the workers and oppressed masses.

The bourgeoisie eagerly seeks every means to mislead and confuse the forces of revolution. Their aim is to weaken, divide, and defeat the revolution.

Desperately trying to hold their decaying system together and find a resolution to the crisis that is plaguing them, the imperialists are gearing up for another imperialist world war. Through this war the imperialists hope to be able to smash the national liberation movements, destroy the socialist countries, and crush the revolutionary workers’ movements, re-dividing the world in their favor.

Countless times before, international reaction has sought this path: with the Second International in the time of Lenin; with Tito and Browder (of the CPUSA); and with Khrushchevite revisionism after the death of Stalin. Today a new anti-Leninist chorus has emerged.

Cloaking itself under the banner of opposing war, of the defense of Marxism-Leninism, of opposing modern revisionism, in reality it is the twin to the revisionist chorus of “detente” centered in the Soviet Union.

This chorus seeks to distort the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao on the role of the proletariat and its allies. It finds unity with the reactionary bourgeoisie in countless countries. It preaches that U.S. imperialism has lost its teeth, and is not as dangerous as Soviet social-imperialism. It predicts that a new world war is inevitable, and that the proletariat is helpless to prevent it. Most recently, we have seen the revival of Tito as a ’communist’ and “great friend of the national liberation movements.”

What has emerged is a definite international trend. While it takes somewhat different forms in different countries, the common melody which binds this chorus together is the “theory of three worlds”. This, they state, is the basis for fighting the two superpowers. No longer beginning with the four basic class contradictions outlined by Lenin and Stalin, abandoning the international line of the communist movement since 1917, they suggest that “new evidence” and new conditions exist which require this new theory.

Already in many countries numerous Marxist-Leninist parties have raised their voice in complete opposition to this revisionist chorus. The Party of Labor of Albania, led by Comrade Enver Hoxha, has fought boldly against this new opportunist chant. In this pamphlet, the Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committee sets forward a correct evaluation of the current state of the class struggle and the correct strategy and tactics of the proletariat. It dispels the fog and confusion created by the theorists of the “three worlds”, and clearly sets forward the revolutionary path ahead.

The General Crisis of Capitalism

The current crisis is a major factor in the present revolutionary situation. As a part of the general crisis of capitalism, the current phase is the most severe since World War II.

Economically, the crisis has hit hard. Industrial production has stagnated far below capacity for over four years. Factory closings are a regular occurrence in Chicago, Johnstown, Buffalo, and across the country. Tens of millions of workers are unemployed. Just among Black youth the figures have reached over 40%. Prices for the basic necessities have made a shambles of the budgets of working people.

This crisis has hit especially hard at certain sectors of the working class, like the aged. Trying to live on an ever shrinking social security check or pension, the aged are unable to pay for all of their necessities. As a result, often these people are left to die. They face inadequate medical attention, starvation, or freezing to death because they are unable to pay skyrocketing heating bills.

Millions of workers, like the miners in the U.S. and in Romania, have hit back with strikes. Food riots have broken out in revisionist Poland, and in semi-colonial Egypt.

This crisis has enveloped the entire imperialist world, not only economically, but socially as well.

In its panic, the bourgeoisie has plunged headlong into a new round of social degradation. Clutching to a long lost innocence, the bourgeoisie dresses itself out in the peasant style one season, then puts on the fascist trappings of chains and black leather the next. Its art and literature are indistinguishable from its pornography. The mass media is turned over to the promotion of fascism and romantic fantasies which seek to divert the revolutionary drive of the masses. In Germany there is a wave of recent movies portraying Hitler as a brilliant military strategist. Here in the U.S., television has been given over to programs glorifying police brutality.

Politically, this crisis has given rise to great instability in the governments of the capitalist countries. In the parliamentary governments of Europe, there is a continual change of heads of state. In the U.S. the crisis destroyed the presidency of Richard Nixon, and has tied the hands of the Carter Administration. In the U.S.S.R. it has meant the ousting of Podgorny, as Brezhnev and his cohorts attempt to tighten their hold.

A chief component of this political crisis, especially for the U.S., but for all imperialism, was the loss of Vietnam, Kampuchea, and Laos to the side of socialism. The loss of these countries was a great defeat for world imperialism. Long before the victory in these countries, Mao Tsetung said “A weak nation can defeat a strong, a small nation can defeat a big. The people of a small country can certainly defeat aggression by a big country, if only they dare to rise in struggle, dare to take up arms and grasp in their own hands the destiny of their country. This is a law of history.” (PEOPLE OF THE WORLD UNITE AND DEFEAT THE U.S. AGGRESSORS AND ALL THEIR RUNNING DOGS, F.L.P. May, 1970.)

These victories have pointed the way forward for other national liberation struggles and increased the peoples’ determination to carry out revolutionary armed struggle. The road these national liberation struggles took stands in complete contrast to the road advocated by the proponents of the theory of the “three worlds”. This theory relies on the reactionary bourgeoisie in the dependent countries together with the lesser imperialist countries to deliver national liberation to the peoples of the dependent countries.

At Their Own Throats

The capitalists are not only beset by class struggles. They are at each other’s throats as well. Struggles between the U.S., Europe and Japan over steel quotas, and between the U .S. and Japan over television exports, are part of the increased contention among the imperialists brought on by this crisis.

The chief strife between the imperialist powers is that of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. These superpowers are building up their armaments everywhere, and developing a new generation of weapons of attack and counter-attack. But they also make agreements with each other at the expense of the other imperialists, their own puppets in the semi-colonial countries, and the world’s peoples.

Like all of imperialism, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. imperialist robbers strive for maximum profits. For each the ultimate aim is world hegemony. This is the source of their fundamental conflict. But each has its own steps, its own path to that goal. This is the source, not only of contention, but the basis for collusion.

For the U.S.S.R. the prime morsel of meat is in Europe with its factories and highly skilled labor force. Since the restoration of capitalism, the productivity of Soviet labor has stagnated badly. Bribes and threats by the revisionist leaders have failed to increase the productivity of the exploited Russian workers, and the workers of the oppressed nations in the U.S.S.R.

To capture the European countries, the U.S.S.R. has ringed them with tremendous concentrations of tanks and infantry, and built a naval cordon at sea. The Soviet social-imperialists plans are to intimidate, and if necessary, starve and physically punish the countries of Europe into concessions and finally into submission. But, they must leave the proletariat of Europe sufficiently intact to be exploited in the future. In Europe, the chief task of the U.S. imperialists is to deny the U.S.S.R. its prize and to protect already huge U.S. investments. With the European imperialist powers, the U.S. has moved to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). By all accounts, this is not enough to stop a full scale U.S.S.R. attack. But the U.S. is also arming itself with neutron bombs, especially suited to destroy European workers if that becomes necessary in order to keep them out of the grip of the U.S.S.R.

The essential prize for the U.S. in the present period does not lie in Europe. The most sought after morsels are the raw materials of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Without the plunder, the increasingly resource-poor U.S. cannot manage to fuel factories at home, much less invest in new ones, or expand further in Europe. Presently, the U.S.S.R. is no where near so desperate for resources, nor in a position to extract them. Because it turned away from socialism to heavy-handed state bureaucratic capitalism, it does not have the technology to extract its own abundant natural resources. Still, the U.S.S.R. can no more give the U.S. a free hand in Asia, Africa and Latin America, than the U.S. is willing to write off Western Europe or even capitalist Eastern Europe that is now under the domination of the U.S.S.R. The result is contention and collusion.

The superpowers have colluded with each other for years by recognizing spheres of influence – the U.S. in Latin America, the U.S.S.R. in Eastern Europe. This, of course, does not mean a strict policy of non-interference. Each will try to carry out its subversion. But the U.S. would not interfere at the time of the brutal suppression and invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. And, the U.S.S.R. would not come to the aid of its own allies in Chile when U.S. financed forces counter-attacked and overthrew the Allende government in 1973.

In other areas they also collude. Each is willing to give way in one area to some extent, in order to gain in another. The U.S.S.R. has made some gains in the resource rich area of Southern Africa. But it has not moved to strongly consolidate and expand its regimes in this area, which is increasingly vital to the U.S. In Europe, the U.S. is failing to match the U.S.S.R. military build-up. This permits the U.S.S.R. to increase its pressure on the European imperialists. Above all, of course, they will collude against the interests of the national liberation movements, especially when there is no need in the specific case to come head on at each other. This is the basis of Andrew Young’s astonishing acceptance of Cuban mercenaries as a “stabilizing force” in Africa.

Their collusion and contention is especially pronounced in the Middle East. Each depends on Middle East oil. The great oil deposits of the U.S.S.R. are in Siberia, while its population centers are located in the western regions. It also uses Middle East oil to control the revisionist European countries. Both superpowers use their presence in the Middle East to pressure Europe. The U.S. continually reminds Europe that it depends on the U.S. to maintain its oil supply. The U.S.S.R. intimidates Europe by its increasing presence in the sea lanes of the oil tankers.

While both claim to support the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, they have also colluded to suppress this liberation movement. Through the proxy forces of Israel, and Syria, each has attacked the Palestinian movement. Failing to destroy this movement, each tries to use it. At the same time they collectively try, along with the reactionary Arab cliques, to quarantine it.

Japan have made it clear that if the choice is to fall to Soviet social-imperialism, they prefer to be hostages of the U.S. Until the current crisis broke in the second half of 1973, these imperialist powers prospered from the exploitation of their working class and the shared plunder from the semi-colonial and dependent’ countries. The main demand of the U.S. during the earlier period was that it be permitted to invest heavily in European industry. With the onset of the crisis, and, the scramble for raw materials, European and Japanese imperialists have resisted the demands of the U.S. for them to come to its aid. They have refused to provide badly needed markets for U.S. goods, and to risk even greater inflation by stimulating their stagnant economies. They have refused to accept U.S. proposals to mend the shambles resulting from the fall of the U.S. dollar in August, 1971. They have made their own deals with the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC). All of these acts of resistance have weakened U.S. imperialism and imperialism as a system.

But these countries in no way represent an independent bloc within imperialism. They have never been able to agree on a unified monetary system. Even their so-called Common Market chiefly serves the interests of U.S. profits, not unity among the Europeans. Militarily, they cannot agree upon the most basic requirements for uniformity of weapons systems, etc. Their only real unity is a common dependence upon the U.S. as the armed procurer of their raw materials, and a mutual uneasiness about how much they can actually rely on U.S. imperialism.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence, some have called for a united front of these dis-united European powers and the semi-colonial countries to resist the two superpowers. The stark choices faced by these imperialists, and their class nature, have been pushed completely aside. These profit and loss calculating robbers have no intention of facing the two superpowers in war. These imperialists have held back and refused to build up their armed forces even when encouraged by the U.S. Their choice is to line up with one superpower or the other. The working class and the oppressed people must be clear that the imperialists of Europe can not provide any significant basis to resist the superpowers, or any real deterrent to imperialist world war.

Revolutionary Upsurge

The working class in the major capitalist countries has refused to accept any blame for the current phase of the general crisis. They have refused to underwrite stepped up attacks on the oppressed peoples. They have resisted the schemes for an imperialist world war. At this time, there is a great upsurge in the spontaneous struggle. But this spontaneous resistance can ebb as it has in the past with changes in the fortunes of the bourgeoisie, and with the immediacy of the threat of imperialist world war. The really durable strength of the working class movement is the growth of Marxism-Leninism that places resistance on a conscious basis.

An event of the greatest significance during the present period is the founding and the growth of Marxist-Leninist parties and groups within the working class movement. In all countries there has been the further fusion of the science of Marxism-Leninism and the working class movement. The unity among these parties and groups is also growing. It is increasingly common for Marxist-Leninist parties to issue joint statements. Great international rallies have brought the parties together to strengthen proletarian internationalism and defend Marxism-Leninism. An example of this internationalism was the Great Internationalist Rally organized by the Communist Party of Italy (ML) on January 23, 1977 in Rome. Another important recent event for the international workers movement was the 7th Party Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania in 1976. At this Congress, comrade Enver Hoxha delivered a brilliant report which contains many very important lessons for the international proletariat. The report correctly sums up the international situation, contains important lessons about the life and role of the Party, and further teaches us about socialist construction. With all of these developments, the basis has been laid for a great upsurge in the conscious struggle against the bourgeoisie.

The Rise of Fascism

To counter this revolutionary movement, the bourgeoisie will stop at nothing. Open terrorism has always been a key part of the suppression of the oppressed nations. The capitalists are again using it in their attacks on their own proletariat.

In the U.S. the Nazi’s and the Ku Klux Klan have stepped up their attacks on Blacks, especially in the Black Belt Nation, and on the unions. They put themselves forward as hunting dogs of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) along the U.S.-Mexican border. These fascist elements have held rallies from coast to coast, in the North and in the South.

In Europe, fascism is heavily subsidized by finance capital. Hundreds of thousands of copies of fascist trash are being distributed to the petty-bourgeoisie and the working class. In Germany, there is once again the move to outlaw Marxism-Leninism under the guise of combating the petty-bourgeoisie terrorism that blossoms in every crisis.

Seeking a way out of their crisis, the bourgeoisie uses war as their tactic internationally, but nationally, they use fascism. More and more it can be seen that fascism is becoming the dominant form of rule for the capitalists. In most semi-colonial and dependent countries there already exist fascist states, Brazil, Chile, Azania, the Philippines and South Korea to name a few. In the imperialist countries, too, there are fascist dictatorships. Spain is one example, and there are more on the rise. Now is the time when all progressive forces must resolutely oppose all attempts by the bourgeoisie to prop up their rule with fascism.

Directly aiding the fascists are the social democrats. Long ago Lenin said that fascism and social democracy are twins. The bourgeoisie still entertains hopes of maintaining the cover of bourgeois democracy. Its first line of attack remains the bourgeois agents within the working class and national liberations movements.

In times of crisis, opportunism attempts to gain new holds on the working class. The Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA), which still sinks its tentacles deep into the working class, has rediscovered the dictatorship of the proletariat. But it is attempting to set it to the music of an imperialist Internationale. At the same time, the CPUSA continues the old songs of “peaceful coexistence”, “peaceful competition” and “peaceful transition”.

Along with the refurbished revisionism of the CPUSA, and Eurocommunism, opportunism has begun to spring up in groups and parties that once opposed revisionism consistently and stood for revolution. Today a struggle is raging between these opportunists and the steadfast supporters of Marxism-Leninism over the strategy and tactics of revolution, and over the stance towards imperialist war.

One side holds that our strategy is for the entire epoch of imperialism. This strategy places the proletariat in the leading role. It calls for the unity of the proletarian revolution and the national liberation struggles. It attempts to prevent imperialist world war by building a revolution. This strategy rests squarely on the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the main class contradictions of the imperialist era.

Against this principled stand, a new opportunist chorus has come together for the moment around the theory of the “three worlds”. In spite of the claims of its proponents, this theory does not proceed from an analysis of the main contradictions. It does not include a concrete assessment of class forces. Instead, it divides the countries of the world into three groups. Instead of the proletariat, and the national liberation movements, this theory makes the “third world” of the dependent and semi-colonial countries the main revolutionary force. The “second world” of the second rank imperialist powers are said to be middle forces that can be won over and united with to oppose the two superpowers.

This theory completely disregards the class rule in both the countries of the “third world” and the in the “second world”. All mixed together are the countries where the bourgeoisie rules and the countries where the proletariat holds state power. This denies completely the basic question of Marxism- Leninism, the class question.

A vivid example of this is that the theory of the “three worlds” has no place for socialist Albania. It is not a part of the “third world” and not a part of the “second world”. Apparently the “three worlds” theorists would just as soon ignore Albania.

Using the language and discarding the essence of Marxism-Leninism, the proponents of the “three worlds” theory go so far as to uphold it as the strategic and tactical formulation for the world proletariat in the present era and its class line in its international struggle. The theory of the “three worlds” is a strategy to divert the growing revolution.

To uphold Marxism-Leninism in this complex struggle and lay the basis for revolution, the working class must ground its strategy firmly on a correct understanding of the imperialist epoch. Only in this way can the working class and its allies tell who are its friends, who are its enemies, unite with friends, and use the contradictions among the enemies in its own interests.

Imperialism and Proletarian Revolution

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. The chief thing imperialism has in common with the earlier stage of competitive capitalism is the basic exploitation of the workers by the capitalists. The contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie remains the fundamental contradiction for the entire period of imperialism. This contradiction will not be resolved until capitalism has completely run its course. It will remain in the period of socialism and only disappear at the time of the world-wide triumph of communism and the final victory over the bourgeois class in every sphere.

Imperialism differs from the earlier stage of competitive capitalism in three chief ways.

*It is the period in which finance capital dominates the life of the capitalist countries. Under imperialism, the peasantry in these countries is transformed. There are a few prosperous capitalist farmers, and the remainder can barely eke out a living on their small plots, and are increasingly forced to turn to wage labor in order to survive. In the cities as well as in the countryside, imperialism shatters the petty-bourgeoisie’s illusion of independence. The rural and urban petty-bourgeoisie has historically been the main reserve of the capitalist rulers against the proletarian revolution. Imperialism not only sharpens the fundamental class contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries; it squeezes the bourgeoisie’s former reserves, diminishes their number and their desire to uphold its rule.

For the majority of the people in the capitalist countries there is no other escape, no real salvation except through the supreme effort of proletarian revolution.

*The power of finance capital extends far beyond the boundaries of a single country. It converts the separate national economies and the territories into a single chain of world economy. This includes the major capitalist countries and the colonies, semi-colonies and dependent countries. The colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries are oppressed by finance capital. To help carry out the oppression, imperialism allies with the reactionary feudal classes. It encourages and forces them to transform themselves into its comprador, bought-off bourgeoisie. Combined, they attack the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat as well as that section of the bourgeoisie that refuses to submit to imperialism. These classes of the oppressed nation wage a struggle for national liberation against the imperialist powers and their agents.

*The anarchy and uneven development of capital leads to frenzied struggles between the imperialists for the re-division of the world, for new spheres of influence, for a different sharing of the booty based upon the changes in strength. The contradiction between the imperialists gives rise to strife in the forms of “peaceful” bullying and imperialist war. The squabbling and conflicts weaken and divide the imperialist front and strengthen the hand of the proletariat and the national liberation movements.

Both imperialist world wars have ended with a victory for world revolution.

The Two Camps

Starting with the great October Revolution in the U.S.S.R., these victories have established the qualitatively, different socialist countries. These countries, along with the proletariat of the capitalist countries and the national liberation movements, are in direct antagonistic contradiction to imperialism. The October Revolution forever divided the world into two opposing camps, the two opposing lines – the camp of socialism and the camp of capitalism.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat or under the conditions of new democracy after a national liberation struggle, the socialist countries materially and morally transform the conditions of life for their people. In Albania, for example, the lives of the people have been radically transformed since the days when the country was under imperialist rule. Today there is full employment, medical care is free, child care is provided by the state, and taxation has been eliminated. As a result of the concern for the well-being of the people, the average life span has reached 68 years, as opposed to only 38 years in 1938. These countries do not belong only to the people who live within their borders. They belong to the entire revolutionary movement, which in turn has a fundamental obligation to protect them. The socialist countries in turn serve as the base for further revolutions against imperialism and all reaction.

Beset by proletarian revolution and national liberation struggles, by the loss of territory and markets, and by any claim to legitimacy, imperialism is a dying system. This is why the epoch of imperialism is the eve of proletarian revolution.

The Main Contradictions of the Epoch

A brief description of the imperialist epoch discloses four main groups of contradictions. The Marxist-Leninist understanding of these contradictions has been and remains the only correct basis for the strategy of the working class and the national liberation movements. Therefore, it is vital to grasp their essentials. Only in this way can the working class and its allies crush the opportunist attacks made upon it, since such attacks come in the guise of upholding Marxism-Leninism.

The four main groups of contradictions among the class forces are:
I. The contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries.
II. The contradiction between the oppressed nations and peoples and imperialism.
III. The contradiction between the imperialist powers and between the monopoly capital groups.
IV. The contradiction between the two opposing social systems – socialism and imperialism.

I. The Contradiction Between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie in the Capitalist Countries

Capitalist countries include the formerly socialist countries such as the U.S.S.R., where revisionism led to the restoration of capitalism. The strategic goal of the proletariat in the capitalist countries is the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. The correct method to achieve this goal is a single stage proletarian revolution carried out under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist party.

In the past several years there has been an unmistakable upsurge in class struggle in the capitalist countries. Marxist-Leninist parties and groups have been formed in the major centers of capitalism, including some countries where the revisionists now rule with methods of open terror, like in Poland where there is the Communist Party of Poland.

Unlike the dependent countries, where there exist legitimate goals of national liberation, Lenin emphatically proved that in the advanced capitalist countries there are no such national goals that unite the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In spite of the clear path set out by Lenin, opportunists have invariably called for a coalition with the bourgeoisie, particularly in response to the threat of an imperialist world war. During World War I, the parties of the Second International justified the nationalist slaughter of workers of other countries under the banner of “defense of the fatherland”. The theorists of the “three worlds” go further. Not only do they hoist up the ragged banner of national defense, they make the fantastic claim that the imperialists of the second rank powers are “middle forces” who can be rallied around the red flag of revolution! As Stalin put it...“the liberal bourgeoisie of an imperialist country is bound to be counterrevolutionary.” (ON THE OPPOSITION, F.L.P., Peking, p. 775, Joint Plenum, August 29, 1927.)

In the capitalist countries the real allies of the proletariat are those who resist imperialism and counterrevolution. In the U.S. these forces include those subject to national oppression. In all the capitalist countries, the proletariat forms tactical alliances with the vacillating, but sometimes progressive elements of the petty-bourgeoisie. Only when the desperation of a bourgeois class forces one section of it to act objectively in defense of socialism, will the proletariat enter into blocs or fronts with one part of the bourgeoisie against another.

II. The Contradiction Between the Oppressed Nations and Peoples and Imperialism

Lenin stressed on numerous occasions that a characteristic feature of the epoch of imperialism is the colonial enslavement of the vast majority of the world’s populations by the bourgeoisie of the richest capitalist countries. (See LCW, Vol. 31, Report, National and Colonial Question.) Today there are few outright colonial or settler regimes, but there are a great number of semi-colonial, neo-colonial and dependent countries. These countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute a vast intermediate zone between socialist countries and the capitalist countries.

The contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism is an extremely complex one. It involves several classes including feudal remnants. In these countries only the workers and poor peasants are consistently for revolution. Others such as the urban petty-bourgeoisie and the middle peasants vacillate but can be won over to the side of the revolution. The national bourgeoisie flip-flops depending on the stage of the revolution and their relationship with imperialism.

When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all of its various classes, except some traitors can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism.... But in another situation, the contradictions change position. When imperialism carries on its oppression not by war but by milder means – political, economic and cultural – the ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism, and the two form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people.” (Mao, ON CONTRADICTION, Selected Readings, P. 110-111.)

The various sections of the bourgeoisie in semi-colonial and dependent countries especially play a dual and complex role. A host of opportunist errors and betrayals of the revolution have centered on incorrect positions on the role of this class in regard to national liberation movements. Trotskyite groups attempt to isolate the entire bourgeois class and even the petty-bourgeoisie. They rupture the alliance between the working class and the poor peasants that is the backbone of the national liberation movements. The revisionists of the U.S.S.R. call progressive any ruling bourgeoisie that is not an out-and-out puppet for U.S. imperialism. According to these revisionists, the heads of state of the semi-colonial and dependent countries are leading the revolution in their countries. They are said to be following the “non-capitalist” road. The proponents of the “three worlds” claim that the main trend of these ruling groups in the dependent countries is “anti-imperialism”. In this trend they include even those fascists who suppress the liberation forces, which the proponents of the “three worlds” also say they support. The “third world” countries, including these fascist, yet allegedly “anti-imperialist” heads of state and ruling cliques, are said to be the main forces of the revolution.

The only correct position regarding the bourgeois forces in the semi-colonial and dependent countries is that of Lenin. Lenin said that “...(W)e, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organizing in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie to whom the heroes of the Second International also belong.” (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 242, Report of the Commission, National and Colonial Questions.)

Things have not changed materially on this question because today there are very few out-right colonies and many semi-colonial and dependent countries. Lenin had already noted that the imperialists “under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily.” (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 150.) In the name of independence, “non-alignment” and “anti-imperialism”, these ruling cliques have the assigned task of misleading the middle forces and crushing the revolutionary forces in the national liberation movement. A sure sign that they are not independent, but are in fact aligned with imperialism at a given point in, time, is that they continue to make such attacks on the forces of revolution. Marxist-Leninists in these countries must build up the revolutionary forces, firm up the vacillating forces. They cannot do this unless they isolate the die-hard forces, like the reactionary bourgeoisie, who compromise with imperialism.

The die-hard forces, of course, do not remain one static group. As Mao explained, in periods of imperialist war on a dependent country, almost all of the forces in that country, except for a few traitors, can come together and carry on armed struggle against imperialism. In these circumstances it is not Marxist-Leninist, but Trotskyite to encourage the workers and the peasants to carry on armed struggle with that section of the bourgeoisie which is also resisting imperialism.

The theorists of the “three worlds” have totally distorted the analysis of the dual nature of the bourgeoisie in the dependent countries, and the conditions for uniting and struggling with it. At the same time, when the ruling cliques are compromising greatly with imperialism, the theorists of the “three worlds” call for unity with them, and have gone so far as to include them in the main forces of revolution. On the other hand, these opportunists maintain that they support the revolutionary struggles of the people against the present semi-colonial governments. This is to set the alleged forces of revolution at each other’s throats! Practically, one or the other strategy must give way. Either the true national liberation movement is subordinated to the designs of creating a bloc between the countries of the “third world” and the “second world” or the national liberation forces are given support against imperialism and the die-hard compromising forces. Those forces who uphold the “three worlds” have inevitably moved from openly supporting all revolutionary struggles to support on a selective basis. Except for struggles against the settler regimes of South Africa, Rhodesia and Israel, it is the revolutionary struggles directed particularly at the Soviet Union which get the most attention. Such selective “support” has long been the hallmark of the revisionists of the U.S.S.R. As the oppressed peoples have learned, it is ultimately no support at all, but a method of building blocs for imperialist contention. The theorists of the “three worlds” have embarked on a path that leads to the betrayal of revolution.

In another step toward betrayal, the proponents of the “three worlds” theory have done their best to sanitize the exploitation of the dependent countries by the second rank imperialists. They claim that the second rank imperialists of Europe can become “fair trading partners” of the “third world”. Apparently, debt to private European banks, derived from funds that are frequently of U.S. origin, are no longer crushing exports of capital, but signs of international co-operation!

Renounce colonies, spheres of influence, and the export of capital. To think that it is possible means coming down to the level of some snivelling parson who every Sunday preaches to the rich on the lofty principles of Christianity and advises them to give the poor, well, if not millions, at least several hundred rubles yearly. (LCW, Vol. 21, p. 341, “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe.”.)

III. The Contradiction Between the Imperialist Powers, and Between the Monopoly Groups

From the beginnings of capitalism, the drive for profits and accumulation have set the capitalists not only against the working class but at each other. In the epoch of imperialism, the main contradiction among the capitalists is transformed into the contradiction among monopoly groups. On an international scale, this contradiction is the contradiction between the imperialist countries.

Among the monopoly groups the drive is for maximum profits. These profits depend on monopoly power, in dividing up the world and carving out spheres of influence. Uneven development leads to great changes in the fortunes of the different groups and the different imperialist countries. The basis for sharing the booty changes. Through bullying, some changes in spheres of influence take place. But ultimately, the great changes and the great greed of the capitalists require them to resort to war. The capitalists cannot, and do not really think of escaping from war. That would be to give up on capitalism. The task is not to avoid wars of imperialism, but to win them.

Because imperialist war is rooted in the very basis of imperialism, it is the worst illusion to view the second rank imperialist powers or even the smallest capitalist countries as peace-loving countries. It is of course true that the second rank imperialists are bullied by the two superpowers. But by their nature, they can only see freeing themselves from such bullying in order to bully all the more on their own account. The opportunist proponents of the theory of the “three worlds” call for these imperialists to unite, yet such unity flies directly in the face of a correct understanding of the contradictions among the imperialists, and the interests of the proletariat.

There can be no permanent unity among the second rank imperialists. They differ greatly in economic power and world position. Each jealously guards its prerogatives and its special relationship with the various dependent countries and the two superpowers. For example, France maintains its ties with its former colonies. Others who do not benefit from those ties refuse to see these dependent countries associated with the Common Market except in very restricted forms. Of course, temporary agreements among these imperialists, as between all imperialists, are possible. But for what purpose? If it is aimed at the proletariat or national liberation movements as so frequently occurs, it is totally reactionary. An integrated imperialist Europe would be better able to keep the political crisis in these countries from reaching the breaking point, through economic aid or suppression if necessary. If that unity is directed against the two superpowers, it can only evoke temporary collusion on the part of the two superpowers to force the second rank imperialist powers back into line.

In time of approaching imperialist world war, none of the imperialist powers sets itself off to the side away from the conflict. Imperialist war is not a three cornered affair. Under present conditions, if it comes, world war will not be the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. on the one side, and the second rank imperialists on the other. The second rank imperialists will, under present conditions, fall into line on the side of one superpower or the other. In these countries and in the smallest capitalist countries, only a proletarian revolution can free the workers from the entanglements of imperialism. As Lenin noted “If the war is a reactionary imperialist war, that is, if it is being waged by two world groups of the imperialist, rapacious, predatory, reactionary bourgeoisie, then every bourgeoisie (even of the smallest country) becomes a participant in the plunder, and my duty as a representative of the revolutionary proletariat is to prepare for the world proletarian revolution as the only escape from the horrors of a world war.” (Lenin, THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND THE RENEGADE KAUTSKY, F.L.P. Peking, p. 80.)

IV. The Contradiction Between the Two Social Systems – Imperialism and Socialism

By the socialist system, we refer to all those countries ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat and the countries of new democracy where the working class plays the leading role. On the other side, we include all the imperialist countries, the other capitalist countries, the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries that all together comprise the system of imperialism.

From the proletarian class criteria, the question of which class holds power is fundamental so long as classes exist. The contradiction between the two social systems, between the socialist countries and the entire system of imperialism is very sharp. From the beginnings of Soviet Russia, and the October Revolution, all the imperialist powers blockaded and helped attack the new socialist state. Failing in this they attempted to isolate it diplomatically. This also failed.

Today, both China and Korea are divided by imperialism. Until 1975, one part of Vietnam was under U.S. annexation.

In an attempt to resolve the contradiction in its favor, imperialism has chosen blockades and imperialist war. The socialist countries have followed the policy of peaceful co-existence. Nevertheless, imperialism rightfully fears these homelands of socialism. Socialist countries are a material base for revolution. They have trained thousands of guerrilla fighters. Their ideological influence is immense. Millions of workers have followed the socialist construction of these countries with great enthusiasm and concern. Socialism and communism are what the proletariat and the world’s peoples are fighting for.

The Strategy of the Proletariat in the Epoch of Imperialism

The Marxist-Leninist analysis of the main contradictions of the imperialist epoch must be the basis of the strategy of the proletariat and its allies in the national liberation movements. In each country, or in the case of an oppressed nation such as the nation in the Black Belt South, the revolutionary strategy is centered upon a specific stage of the revolution. But in no way can these strategies in each country fail to take into account the whole epoch in which the working class and the national liberation movements strategically fight imperialism.

Lately there has been great confusion as to the correct strategy of the proletariat. In a basic formulation of this strategy Stalin states:

Strategy is the determination of the direction of the main blow of the proletariat at a given stage of the revolution, the elaboration of a corresponding plan for the disposition of the revolutionary forces (main and secondary reserves), the fight to carry out this plan throughout the given stage of the revolution. (Stalin, FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM, F.L.P. Peking, p. 84.)

Describing the strategy for the Third Stage after the seizure of power by the proletariat in the U.S.S.R., Stalin sets out an early version of the strategy of the proletariat for the epoch itself.

Objective: to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, using it as a base for the defeat of imperialism in all countries. The revolution spreads beyond the confines of one country; the epoch of world revolution has begun. The main forces of the revolution: the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, the revolutionary movement of the proletariat in all countries. Main reserves: the semi-proletarian and small peasant masses in the developed countries, the liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries. Direction of the main blow: isolation of the petty bourgeois democrats, isolation of the parties of the Second International, which constitute the main support of the policy of compromise with imperialism. Plan for disposition of forces: alliance of the proletarian revolution with the liberation movement in the colonies and the dependent countries. (Stalin, FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM, F.L.P., Peking p. 85-86.)

Strategic Alliances and Tactical Fronts

The struggles of the proletariat in the capitalist countries against the yoke of capital, and the struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples against the yoke of the foreign imperialists and their local agents, form a strategic alliance against imperialism. As a result of the development of all the contradictions in the world system of imperialism, the chain of imperialism can be broken at its weakest link. The great October Revolution of 1917 was the first such break in the chain. The essence of the Leninist theory of revolution is the alliance of the revolutionary proletariat with the oppressed nations and peoples against the world front of imperialism. This is the basic strategy for proletarian revolution on a world scale for the entire epoch. The burden of forging the two fronts of revolutionary struggle into an international united front rests upon the international proletariat.

In the imperialist and capitalist countries, the proletariat must free itself from chauvinist ideology. This ideology is used to justify the subjugation and exploitation of the oppressed peoples. It must resolutely oppose the attempts of its “own” bourgeoisie to politically and economically enslave other nations. It must actively support the national liberation struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples.

In the socialist countries, where the proletariat is in power, the possibilities and responsibilities for aiding the national liberation movements politically and materially are all the greater. Lenin pointed out in the Draft Thesis on the National Question, that “a nation which is achieving victory over the bourgeoisie should be able and willing to make the greatest national sacrifices for the overthrow of international capital.” (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 148.) This applies not only to the workers’ movements in the fully capitalist countries, but especially to the socialist countries.

In the countries oppressed by imperialism, it is the duty of the proletariat to participate actively and strive to lead the national liberation movement. Within this united front of patriotic classes, the proletariat must put forward its own program of thorough-going struggle against imperialism and domestic reaction so as to carry the national democratic revolution through to the end. It must also prepare the ground for socialism. Uniting with the progressive nationalism of other classes, its own outlook is proletarian internationalism. The proletariat must always hold up the socialist countries as the only true model, and as the only road to self-reliance.

The Main Enemy

The international united front against imperialism is not directed at only one or two imperialist powers, but against all imperialism and all reaction. The historic mission of the proletariat is to put an end to the exploitation of man by man. Does this mean that the proletariat should struggle equally hard against every imperialism? That it should strike out in all directions simultaneously? Is the singling out of one or several imperialist powers as the focus of the international united front against imperialism an abandonment of the fundamental strategy, and implicit collaboration with the other imperialists? No, provided that the main enemy of the international proletariat and the national liberation movements is correctly identified. At the same time, the secondary enemies must not be prettified and presented as “middle forces” as the “three worlds” position attempts to do.

Within the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the concrete conditions of revolutionary struggle undergo many changes. At the onset of the epoch, the imperialist chain was still unbroken. To make distinctions between the imperialists as to which was the main enemy was to lapse into social-chauvinism. Each of the opportunist parties of the Second International took the enemies of its “own” bourgeoisie as its main enemy. Against this chauvinist stand, the Marxist-Leninists of that period held that “The chief enemy is at home”.

With the emergence of states of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the duties of the working class expanded to include the defense of the lands of socialism. At various points in the development of the epoch, one or more imperialist powers emerge as “the main enemy of socialism, and the freedom and independence of nations, the greatest force defending oppressive and exploiting systems and the direct threat that mankind will be hurled into a ... world war.” (Enver Hoxha, REPORT OF THE 7th PARTY CONGRESS OF THE PARTY OF LABOR OF ALBANIA, p. 166.) To take on all enemies at once and expect to triumph is as metaphysical and suicidal as expecting the proletarian revolution to break out and triumph in all countries simultaneously.

The main enemy is not necessarily the strongest imperialist power in economic or military terms. Nazi Germany was weaker than the U.S. and the combined bourgeois democracies. What made German fascism the main enemy was that it spearheaded international capital’s efforts to crush the working class, to openly terrorize it, to destroy the dictatorship of the proletariat in the U.S.S.R.

Before World War II the Communist International singled out Germany as the main enemy. During the war it was Germany, Japan and Italy. After the war, the Information Bureau, which then represented the communist parties, pointed to U.S. imperialism as the main enemy. With the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R., and after its brutal attack on Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. combined became the main enemies of the world’s people.

Because the two superpowers together constitute the main enemies of the peoples of the world, it is wrong to propose an alliance, under present conditions, with either of them. The great weight of the proletariat and national liberation movements must not be thrown on the scales to strengthen either of the aggressive robbers. To justify just such an alliance with the U.S., some of the leading voices in the “three worlds” chorus have begun to focus almost exclusively on the dangers presented by the U.S.S.R. Already they have said that the U.S.S.R. is the most ferocious enemy and the most dangerous source of war. To justify this stand, they say the U.S.S.R. is like Germany under Hitler. They also say that it is the most dangerous of the two superpowers because it is able to hide its aggression behind the signboard of socialism and portray itself as the natural ally of the national liberation movements.

The U.S.S.R., like Germany under Hitler, is a fascist state. As an imperialist power, it props up its fascist puppets in Eastern Europe. But today the U.S. also props up open terroristic dictatorships around the world and works actively to create new ones. The U.S. supports such dictators as Pinochet of Chile, Geisel of Brazil, Pak of South Korea, the Chiang clique of Taiwan, Vorster of South Africa. In the U.S. and in Western Europe, fascism is promoted by the bourgeoisie. Unlike the situation during World War II when Hitler unleashed a vicious attack on the socialist U.S.S.R., today no major capitalist countries find it in their interests to ally with the working class to resist fascism and protect the socialist homelands. Nor is their evidence that one of the superpowers objectively represents an imminent threat to the socialist countries greater than the threat posed by the other.

U.S. Imperialism is Aggressive and Expanding

Instead of analysing the threats the two superpowers pose to socialism and the revolution, the theorists of the “three worlds” have fallen back to the position that the U.S.S.R. is the most dangerous because it is the rising power, and the U.S. is on the decline. However, the facts about U.S. imperialism do not show that it is a toothless tiger. To the contrary, the facts show that U.S. imperialism is an aggressive and expanding power. The penetration of U.S. capital into the various countries and regions of the world is not declining, as some would suggest. Both in the industrially developed countries of Europe and in the dependent countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, U.S. capital is stepping up intervention. This can be seen in three ways. U.S. imperialism increased the export of capital by $5.6 billion during the period of April to June of this year. Foreign aid, which is used as a means of domination in countries considered “vulnerable”, is also being increased. $785 million has been budgeted for 1978. And, the direct export of capital into plants and equipment abroad will total $29 billion this year as compared to $26 billion for 1976.

The vision of the U.S. as the mangy old wolf tired of the chase is ridiculous. Using any measures of firepower that take into account qualitative differences in weaponry, the U.S. remains the superior force. Economically, the U.S. is roughly twice as strong as the U.S.S.R. on a one-to-one basis. Combined with its European and Japanese allies, it is well over four times as strong as the U.S.S.R. and the revisionist countries of Eastern Europe. It would, of course, make no more sense to ally with the U.S.S.R. because it is presently the weakest power economically, than it makes sense to ally against it because it is the rising power.

The supposed clincher of the opportunist arguments is that the U.S.S.R. is the most dangerous of the two imperialists because it claims to be a socialist country and the natural ally of the national liberation movements. Here at least, these theorists have pointed to a real problem, but again they draw the wrong conclusion. At the same time, they partially undercut their own comparison of the U.S.S.R. and Hitlerite Germany.

Because of its contradictions with the U.S., the U.S.S.R. has provided arms to the national liberation forces of several dependent countries. But invariably, it promptly turns the screws. Some liberation forces are still misled by this tactic. But in fact, in many countries the illusion is no longer that the U.S.S.R. means well. As evidenced at the 1977 meetings of the Organization of Africa Unity, there is very little support for the view that the U.S.S.R. is a true friend of the oppressed peoples. The fact that the Soviet Union has a socialist cover it still is able to use at times, is a tactical consideration. This means that in combating the Soviet Union different kinds of exposure must be used. It does not change at all the strategy for revolution and national liberation.

The growth of the non-aligned movement, itself, is chiefly the reflection of the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R. The petty-bourgeois prejudices of the smaller capitalist and dependent countries find it to their interests to portray the U.S.S.R. as a socialist power. “See,” they say, “not only is U.S. imperialism lording it over us, so is the socialist U.S.S.R.”

The most treacherous schemer who pioneered this position of non-alignment is Tito of Yugoslavia. Though drummed out of the Marxist-Leninist ranks long ago for betraying the peoples of Yugoslavia to U.S. imperialism, Tito still claims that Yugoslavia is a socialist country. To cloak his own crimes, Tito also holds that the U.S.S.R. is still a socialist country. According to this traitor to Marxism-Leninism, it is a socialist country that bullies and threatens smaller countries as much or more than U.S. imperialism.

The problem is not that socialism is giving the U.S.S.R., or traitors like Tito, a good name. The problem is that the revisionists, and all those who in any way back up their claims to be socialist are attempting to give socialism a very bad name.

The Two Superpowers

Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. are capitalist robbers. Both are aggressive, and in that way deserve to be likened to Hitlerite Germany, even though at present the U.S. continues to cloak its aggression under the cover of “human rights” and the U.S.S.R. attempts to cloak its aggression under the cover of “socialism”. At the present time, there is no basis to ally with one of the aggressors against the other. Our unity is directed at both of them. Nor is there a basis, as put forward by the “three worlds” position, to ally with the second rank imperialists against them. If these smaller imperialist robbers would truly resist the two superpowers, that would be different. But in times of peace, the smaller imperialists concentrate on the exploitation of the proletariat. In times of imperialist war, they will fall into line behind one superpower or another.

We, of course, welcome the contradictions between these second rank imperialists and the two superpowers, just as we do the contradictions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. When it is in the interests of the revolution, we shall fan the contradictions between these thieves. But, we shall never forget that inter-imperialist contradictions are secondary reserves. The revolutionary proletariat and national liberation movements will use this secondary reserve, but their main power lies in the alliance of the working class with the oppressed nations. Together, this force will defeat the entire imperialist system through armed struggle. This is the only true road to revolution.

The Compromising Forces and the Main Blow

In its essentials, the strategy of the world proletarian revolution is straightforward. It is to unite the proletariat and the national liberation movements to bring down imperialism and all reaction. But a key element in this strategy, often overlooked and repudiated by opportunists, is the need to strike the main blow at the enemy in the direction of the compromising forces.

What is involved in this determination? Fundamentally it is a question of where to hit the enemy so as to best open it for the kill. To destroy the hold of the enemy, it is necessary to isolate all those forces that stand for compromise. These compromising forces, or social props, are not the actual ruling forces, but they back up the imperialists’ right to rule, and demand that revolution be put aside.

Here in the U.S. the trade union bureaucrats of the AFL-CIO, the UAW, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the false parties, are the main social props. The trade union bureaucrats claim to serve the workers’ interests, but preach open collaboration with the bourgeoisie.

In the U.S., since the betrayal of Marxism-Leninism by the CPUSA over thirty years ago, there has not been a Marxist-Leninist party to give leadership to the proletariat. All such groups that pose as parties of the working class such as the CPUSA, the Communist Labor Party (CLP), the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), the Communist Party-ML, (CPML), and the numerous Trotskyite sects, are objectively agents of the bourgeoisie. A chief component of our strategy here in the U.S. is to aim our main blow at the U.S. bourgeoisie in the direction of the compromising forces.

Who are the compromising forces internationally? In the second rank imperialist countries it is those parties who say that the proletarian revolution must be postponed in favor of national resistance. Some see this best done by outright dependence upon U.S.-dominated NATO. These parties are reviving the themes of the Second International that Lenin and Stalin attacked.

In the semi-colonial and dependent countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America the compromising forces are those who claim they can strike just bargains with the imperialists, pretending they are non-aligned. Like Mobuto of Zaire, and Boumedienne of Algeria, these forces head up dependent cliques for imperialism.

The People Can Prevent War

Imperialist war is an integral part of the imperialist system. As long as imperialism exists, imperialist war is inevitable. But this does not mean that the working class and oppressed nations just wait with arms folded until the first shot is fired. The progressive people of the entire world are opposed to imperialist war. But the working class and its allies recognize that there are two kinds of war – reflecting two opposing classes. Marxist-Leninists always ask of war, a war in whose class interest? Imperialist war is the war waged by finance capital, the war waged by the banks and monopoly capitalists against the majority of the people. The working class and all progressive people oppose such unjust wars.

At the same time, the revolutionary class wars waged by the proletariat and forces of national liberation are just wars. The war waged to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, in 1917, in China in 1949, and in Albania in 1944 are examples of revolutionary warfare. The war of national liberation waged by the people of Vietnam, Kampuchea, and Laos are historic examples of people’s war. The national liberation movements in Palestine, Eritrea, Azania, Zimbabwe and countless other countries are revolutionary wars, which enjoy the support of the vast majority of the people of the world.

Today, the imperialists are preparing for a new world war. This war is not inevitable. Because of the opposition to this war by the working class and oppressed peoples the imperialists are not entirely free to begin this war. In order to be able to wage another world war, the imperialists must have sufficient support at home. They can’t fight a war if the working class won’t fight it. Hence, to some degree today the hands of the imperialists are tied. However, helping to untie their hands are these opportunist forces that preach “defend the fatherland”. These forces, like all opportunists, want to turn aside the resistance of the working class and the oppressed nations and turn it into support for the bourgeoisie. The opportunists do this under the excuse that the imperialist world war is inevitable. They have no faith in the ability of the working class and oppressed peoples to prevent imperialist world war. They have completely betrayed the historic mission of the working class.

From a correct understanding of the objective conditions and the principles of Marxism-Leninism, it is possible to prevent an imperialist war. The most sure way and ultimately the only real way to prevent imperialist war is to overthrow the system of imperialism. This is why the struggle for revolution must not be turned aside. The working class in each capitalist country must continue to relentlessly prepare for the seizure of state power. To align with your own bourgeoisie and put aside revolution only delays the end of imperialist war and the entire imperialist system.

To simply howl about the “inevitability of world war” is to aid and assist the bourgeoisie in their plans for conquest. No war waged by the bourgeoisie can change the content and direction of our era.

Comrade Mao Tsetung correctly characterized the situation when he stated that “either war will give rise to revolution or revolution will prevent world war”.

This teaching of Mao Tsetung’s, which completely conforms to Lenin’s thesis on imperialism as the era of proletarian revolution, points to the fact that given the alignment of forces in this era, imperialist war is relative, while revolution is absolute. Revolution is the main trend of this era.

Those who scream of “two contending trends”, who are unable to understand the main content of this era, who speak to war and revolution in equilibrium, seek to deny the historic mission of the proletariat, and the objective basis for socialist revolution.

The revisionist ramblings of Brezhnev and friends about “detente” are the opposite side of the same coin of “world war is inevitable”. Both, in their own way, seek to eliminate the struggle of the proletariat and its allies and put out the flames of revolution.

Our task is to fight on every front – the ideological, the economic, and the political – for socialist revolution. This is the road to prevent imperialist war. By carrying on this fight, we are preparing the conditions required, if necessary, to turn an imperialist war into a civil war.

Given the present conditions, it is entirely incorrect to consider a temporary alliance with the U.S. bourgeoisie. To prevent the imperialist world war, an alliance between the international working class and the oppressed nations must be forged. This alliance is the backbone of the united front against imperialism. Into this front must come all those forces who can be united against imperialist world war. This united front will be led by the working class and their vanguard communist parties.

An example of this kind of front that must be built is the annual August 1st campaign, undertaken by the MLOC. August 1st is the historic day that was set aside in the early 1930’s by the Communist International to fight against imperialist war and all war preparations by the imperialists. Today, we must continue in this fine tradition. We must never lose sight of the capacity of the working class and its allies to prevent imperialist war and make revolution. It is only based on this understanding that we are able to determine our strategy and tactics.

From what has been presented in this pamphlet, it is clear that the questions of revolution and war, the correct strategy and tactics for the proletariat and its allies, are important questions that cannot be put aside.

The battle that is today being waged against this new anti-Leninist chorus will only be carried out successfully based upon a clear and correct understanding of the objective class contradictions in this era, and the strategy and tactics that flow from them. No one should for a moment underestimate the significance of this new anti-Leninist chorus, and the important task of completely and thoroughly exposing its anti-Leninist nature.

This is a time when no Marxist-Leninist can afford to sit back and wait and see. It is the duty and obligation of all to take up the battle against modern revisionism, to uphold and defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism.

In this protracted and difficult struggle, “Communists must use their Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method to make a class analysis of the contemporary social phenomena and correctly explain them. They must draw the correct conclusions and show the correct direction and path for the revolutionary struggle to the international proletariat and people of the world so that the destruction of imperialism will be accelerated.” (“Sino-Albanian Joint Statement”, Peking Review, No. 3, 1964).

Today this new anti-Leninist chorus has even dared to suggest that this “theory of three worlds” was long ago advanced by Mao Tsetung and even Lenin. Today, this new anti-Leninist chorus suggests that this “theory of three worlds” has somehow been missed in the general line of the international communist movement, or that “new evidence” has a-risen to require “new theories”. Those who lay such opportunist claims on the great teachings of Lenin and Mao Tsetung are the real defilers of the great heritage of Marxism-Leninism.

In this struggle the MLOC for a time put forward the “theory of the three worlds” to try and explain certain developments. Mistakes were definitely made, leading to serious exaggeration and uncritical support for this viewpoint. At the same time, the MLOC has always insisted that the basis of any Marxist-Leninist analysis must be the four contradictions of our era, and that the main trend of this era is clearly revolution. On these points we have waged fierce struggle in the past, and will continue to do so.

In using the “theory of the three worlds” in practice, the MLOC began to recognize that it was in contradiction to the Leninist analysis of the epoch of imperialism. From this struggle we have learned many valuable lessons about the absolute necessity to “use our own Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method to make class analysis.” Under the guidance of their great leaders, comrades Mao Tsetung and Enver Hoxha, both the CPC and the PLA have made great and invaluable contributions to the defense of Marxism-Leninism, and the victory of the revolution worldwide. These can never be ignored and will stand forever. But the vanguard of each country must make its own analysis, in conformity with the historic experience of the proletariat summed up in the theory of Marxism-Leninism.

In the United States, as worldwide, it is revolution which is inevitable, not an imperialist war. We are living in a time of great victories for the working class and oppressed people. Never before in the history of class struggle have the forces of revolution been so strong. The roots of the entire imperialist system of reaction are being torn from the ground and in their place grow the seeds of socialism and new democracy.

As a result of the new anti-Leninist chorus, and the spontaneous upsurge of the working class movement, genuine Marxist-Leninist vanguards are stepping forward to oppose the bourgeoisie and its opportunistic agents. In the U.S., the last half of 1977 has proved to be a watershed period, in which countless opportunist organizations and circles have fallen by the wayside, and a genuine vanguard detachment of the proletariat is coming into being.

To carry this battle through to the end, against imperialism and opportunism, is our sacred duty. As long as U.S. imperialism has a tooth left in its mouth, it is our responsibility to overthrow it.

In carrying forward this great internationalist duty, we at the same time must do all we can to unite with and support the working class struggles in all countries, the socialist countries and the national liberation movements. These are the forces that are striking mighty blows against all reaction, and particularly against both Superpowers. This is the path to oppose imperialist war and fascism.

We are living through a glorious time in the history of humanity. The international situation is very complex, but we are armed with a firm and reliable compass, Marxism-Leninism. Never before has the potential of the working class been closer to realization. Socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are the order of the day.

Glory to Marxism-Leninism!
Revolution Will Surely Triumph!