During the 1960’s the national liberation movements of the world, especially the Cuban and Vietnamese, caught the imagination of the New Left. The idea that the Vietnamese and others were fighting to free their nations from U.S. imperialism was extended to the idea that immigrants into the U.S. working class within the domestic boundaries of the US. were analogous to the Vietnamese. They were considered oppressed “nations” and their struggles were considered “national liberation struggles.” The main basis for this extension of the concepts “nation” and “national liberation” seems to be in the fact that recent immigrant groups into the U.S. working class have been predominantly from Latin America, East Asia and the rural South, and thus share a skin color and often the language and heritage of the kinds of people who make up the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The concepts of nation and national liberation were extended beyond domestic “people of color” to describe virtually all oppressed groups and virtually all struggles, such was the popularity of rational Liberation Struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Thus women, gays, yippies and even sociologists formed “liberation movements” using the analog of nations to describe their oppression and the tradition of the right of oppressed nations to self-determination to argue for their right to autonomy.
To substantiate the unscientific use of the terms nation and national liberation some rediscovered the 1928 and 1930 theses of the Comintern which argued for the existence of a black nation in the U. S. South, and the official position paper of the Bolshevik Party (issued by a party commission headed by Stalin) which defined a nation. Already convinced that the various oppressed “people of color” in the U.S. were nations, the attempt was made to rationalize this position by attempting to show that Blacks, Chicanos, etc., really fit Stalin’s definition, and that further, the Black nation defined by the Comintern still existed and that anyone that disagreed must be a “revisionist”.
This new version of the oppressed nation theory, now dressed up in Marxist-Leninist language with appropriate quotes, does not differ in essence from the earlier new left romantic notion. It elevates the category of oppressed nation, which encompasses all segments of a community of people of color over that of class, as the fundamental explanatory category. It suggests that somehow if Blacks, Chicanos, etc., were not defined as nations that this in some way suggests that they are less oppressed, or that their struggle for freedom is less legitimate. The dogmatists that try to prove that these groups are nations, ignoring and distorting the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, seems to be motivated by their prior conception that Blacks, Chicanos, etc., are oppressed and that oppressed people must all be nations.
In the attempt to prove the existence of oppressed nations within the U.S. the dogmatists make liberal use of citations from the Comintern documents and Stalin to prove their case. However, in doing so they miss the essence of both positions. In the traditional Marxist theory of nations, nationalism is considered to be a purely bourgeois phenomenon which obstructs class consciousness. However, a nation’s right of self-determination must be supported so as not to drive the working class and peasantry of an oppressed nation into the hands of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation. In order to win leadership of the oppressed classes it is necessary that the national issue be solved so that workers and peasants can no longer be confused when their own bourgeoisie tells them that Russians, Americans, whites, etc., are the cause of their problems. Likewise, the Comintern never argued that Blacks were a nation, rather only that the area of the South where Blacks were a majority was a nation within which the whites as part of this nation, were a national minority. Further, it did not advocate or encourage the succession of the Black Belt and the establishment of a separate state, although it insisted that Communists, while arguing against succession, would have to uphold the right of this region to succeed. The Comintern moreover did not argue that Blacks who had migrated to Northern industrial areas were part of the black nation. Such Blacks were considered to be a party of the single American working class.
The Comintern was probably wrong about the existence of a nation in the 1920’s in the Black belt. A nation did however exist in the Southern states in the pre-Civil War period. This nation composed of slave owners as the ruling class and black slaves as the primary producers was a historically constituted, stable community of people which had a common economic life (the cotton economy), a common language (the Southern dialectic of American English), a common territory (more or less the states that attempted to succeed from the union in 1860-1861) and a psychological make-up manifested in a common culture (Southern traditions). Within this Southern nation Blacks were a class, the class of slaves. In the post Civil War period Blacks ceased to be slaves but became predominantly share croppers on the old plantations working for the same plantation lords who used to be their masters. Only a very few blacks were able to become land owners, factory workers, artisans, businessmen or professionals – these latter occupations were reserved for whites. Blacks thus continued to be a class, a class of semi-serfs, or share croppers within the common economic life of the south, a common economic life which continued to focus on cotton and other commodity production within the plantation system. The factors of language, psychological make up, and territory went on as before, although the overall significance of the “common economic life” of the South diminished within the whole U.S. and eventually within the South as well as mechanization and wage labor increasingly after World War I superceded the old share cropping system. Today, share cropping and the plantation system is virtually extinct and with it the “common economic life” of the South. The U.S. today has one “common economic life” manifested in highly integrated commodity, capital and labor markets. Thus the phenomena seen by the Comintern in the 1920’s, rather than reflecting an emergent Black nation in the South, in fact reflected the declining Southern nation which had attempted self-determination in the l860’s and lost.
Both the poor whites, the Blacks and the land owners of the old Southern nation have today been fully integrated into the single capitalist economy of the U.S. with almost all Blacks now integrated into the urban working class and heavily concentrated in its lower levels. The relentless pressure of competition leads to the homogenization of the American working class including Blacks, as racial barriers against them gradually come down within the working class. As the source of cheap laborers Blacks in the South, has dried up (almost no Southern Blacks are left on the land) a new source of menial laborers-was found in Latin America. Mexican, Puerto Rican and other Latin immigrants have now come to be the primary source of immigrants into the working class, and the primary reserve for filling the most menial and oppression jobs, and thus they are coming to suffer all the brutal consequences of racism and discrimination which this Stratum of the working class always experiences.
Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos and other recent immigrants from Latin America and Asia do face a special oppression above and beyond purely class oppression; however, that special oppression – racism – is a logical and necessary outgrowth of their class position and exists in order to justify this class position in the eyes of the owning class, separate the lowest segment of the working class from the rest of the working class thus undermining class solidarity, and demoralizing the lowest segment of the working class itself. The theories that the oppression of Blacks or Browns is due to the fact that whites don’t like the color of their skin, or to the fact that “Third World” people are oppressed nations or internal colonies obscures the fundamental identity of the plight of the most recent migrants from rural backwards areas into the industrial working class with the plight of earlier working class migrants from Europe as well as with the migrants from the Mediterranean basin to Continental Europe, and from the East and West Indies to Britain and the Netherlands. That is, it obscures the fact that capitalism necessarily generates racism and is its root cause, not white people’s inborn prejudices or imperialism. The special oppression of “people of color” effects all members of these ethnic groups who thus all have a stake in fighting against the cause of racism–capitalism, even when they might be among the few who are relatively well off economically. Thus any revolutionary movement must mobilize the petty bourgeois and even perhaps the smaller bourgeois among “people of color” in the struggle against racism.
The principle role of racism in capitalist society is to split the working class, leading the different ethnic groups to think of themselves first as whites, Blacks, Latins, Italians or whatever and as workers second (if at all). It is to turn “race” against “race,” getting the working class to fight among itself while the owners of industry laugh all the way to the bank. Racism undermines unions, strikes, and other forms of working class solidarity as well as inhibits the development of class consciousness. Thus members of the majority “race” suffer from racism, as well as members of the minority “races, ” although of course members of the minority races bear a double burden. It has been shown that where racism in the most intense, working class solidarity is weakest (i.e., there are the fewest unions, the least working class resistance, etc.) and thus the lowest white wages and the worst white working conditions. The ideology of “white skin privilege” i.e., “no matter how bad your conditions are, at least you got the same color skin as the boss,” is used rather effectively to keep white workers from uniting with Black against their bosses.
The working class, white, Black and Latin, can not advance until it overcomes racism. The struggle against racism is thus in the interest of all segments of the working class. A revolutionary party must thus organize all “races” in the struggle against racism. It must approach white workers in terms of how racism negatively effects white workers, not in moralistic terms, if it hopes to be effective. A revolutionary party can never pander to racism, although there will be times during the earliest stages of working with groups of white workers when the anti-racist struggle might have to be de-emphasized until sufficient trust is built up in revolutionary leadership.
A revolutionary movement in the U.S. without a strong base among “Third World” workers would be an absurdity. Obviously the struggles of “Third World” people against both their oppression as menial workers and the burden of racism must, be tied up with the struggle of white workers and other oppressed people against capitalism if the common enemy is to be defeated. Thus, an aspiring revolutionary party must securely root itself among “Third World” workers and in “Third World” communities. Isolation from “Third World” struggles will unquestionably prove fatal to any organization that aspires to become a Communist Party in the U.S. Thus the emphasis on fighting against racism, integration in the real struggles of Third World people, and respect for, and support of, “Third World” progressives (including both petty bourgeois and revolutionary forces) is essential. The principles of united and popular front strategies and tactics must be central in the revolutionary organization’s relations to non-Leninist organizations and trends in Third World communities.
The principle manifestation of ultra-leftism and sectarianism in relation to “Third World” struggles is the attitude adopted by groups like the PLP and RCP that “petty bourgeois,” “nationalist” or “Bundist” leadership (e.g., allegedly the Black Panthers) is selling out the interests of Black workers and thus must be treated like the enemy. This analysis results in either the ultra-leftists standing on the side lines of the mass movements of Black, Latin and Asian people, or of outright attacking them. While petty bourgeois and nationalist leadership must be struggled with, the way to win the “Third World” masses to Leninist leadership is not to isolate ourselves from their struggles. Ultra-leftism here as elsewhere, in fact results in the consolidation of truly petty bourgeois and nationalist leadership under the cover of attacking it. By removing ourselves from the real “Third World” struggles, we loose our real base to content with them for leadership. The “spontaneous” movement among “Third World” people in the U.S. is towards Marxism-Leninism, only our own ultra-leftists dogmatic and sectarian stupidly can slow the process of the merger of this trend with that among white-workers.
Dogmatism is here manifested in two distinct tendencies; one, the trap the C.P has fallen into since the late 1930’s, and the other the characteristic of Trotskyist and most Maoist groups. The C.P. dogma directs leftists to de-emphasize radical politics, seek union office or seek to influence union officers as the primary thrust of working in unions, the ultra-left dogma directs its practitioners to sectarianism in attacks on progressive caucuses and leaders for being insufficiently revolutionary, and often, to forming their separate organizations, which tend to become dual unions which are pure, but isolated from the mainstream of the working class. Since the abolition of Communist factions in the trade unions in the late 1930’s the C.P. has erred in the direction of not offending progressive union leaders to the point of neglecting revolutionary propaganda and agitation among rank and file workers, not leading militant rank and file actions, and hiding the goal of socialism. Over compensating for this opportunist line of the CP., the P.L.P. then the RU/R.C.P. and now the O.L, have tended to reject support of progressive union movements such as that of Miller in the UMWA and Sadlowski in the USWA, overemphasize propaganda for socialism and revolution in the abstract, and in the case of some, such as the R.C.P. move to set up their separate organizations of militant workers, and thus remove these workers from the mainstream of the worker’s struggle, as did the classical dual unionism of the I. W.W. and the C.P. led T.U.U.L. of the 1920-1934 period. Revolutionary workers must be kept in the mainstream of the union movement no matter how tough the battle. To voluntarily quit the unions and reject progressive caucuses is to do the work of the bosses and bureaucrats who would like nothing better. Working within progressive caucuses must consist of more than simply criticizing their leadership. We must put forth a class conscious position in a principled, non-antagonistic and non-adventuristic way in such a manner that the “middle workers” come to respect us rather than become hostile. Far more effective than haranguing workers about how we have the correct line, is hard and persistent political work within the unions and progressive caucuses in pursuit of the goals the majority of workers have democratically decided on even when we ourselves are not enthusiastically behind their ideas. We must patiently, principally and persistently put forth our analyses and alternatives. We can not sit by the side lines until the workers turn to us, for they never will if we isolate ourselves. We must immerse ourselves in the worker’s struggles, while maintaining our identity as Marxist-Leninists.
Such emergence in worker’s struggles has the dual benefit of (1) winning the respect of workers and hence putting ourselves in a leadership (vanguard) position and (2) modifying our line and analysis on the basis of learning from workers and workers’ struggles. While we have much to teach workers which we have learned from our study of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions, and the history of working class organization in America, they have much to teach us about present day conditions,., how to best organize,; what the key issues are, etc. In fact the multiplicity of views on the revolutionary left about how to organize in the working class can only be resolved through different, tendencies actually trying out their ideas. Far more humility about working class organizing is called for, at least until the working class teaches us which of our lines are more correct for contemporary American reality. Such humility and willingness to learn from workers would greatly reduce the manifestations of sectarianism on the question of intermediate workers’ organizations, dual unionism, how to relate to progressive caucuses, which segment of the working class to stress, etc., questions which currently divide the revolutionary left.
Whether or not “intermediate workers organizations” have a useful role in the worker’s struggle, the primary thrust of working class organizing must be to fight where the workers are, i.e., in the existing mass organizations of workers, the trade unions (both these that currently exist and those that will develop in the course of the struggle). It is essential to avoid the classical mistake of dual unionism, a serious mistake regardless of the name given to it: e.g., “revolutionary unions,” the Trade Union Educational League, the Trade Union Unity League, Intermediate Worker’s Organizations, etc. We must fight for control of the existing unions, rather than build alternative organizations, alternative organizations which remove ourselves from the masses. We must interject ourselves in the struggles of working people as they emerge, guiding these struggles toward class conscious actions and socialist consciousness.
There has been considerable discussion of the question of who is an “advanced” or “left” and who an “intermediate” worker. The importance of this question lies in its political implication of how different categories of workers are related to by a Marxist organization.. . “Advanced” or “left” workers are those that can be recruited by the Marxist organizations, while center workers are those that can be worked with on specific issues. If the operating definition of advanced worker is too high, as it typically is among ultra-leftists, it results in the error of not trying to win over those that can be won over in the short run. It seems that the definition used by the PWOC is correct: “left,” or “progressive” workers, are all those who desire to organize their fellow workers because they understand that their strength lies in numbers and unity. They are the self-motivated leadership of the worker’s movement, having learned from their experience that we need to develop a systematic approach to our problems. They are enthusiastic about caucus building and about developing links with workers in other industries, city wide and nationally. They understand the need to find political solutions to our problems, and although they may not be all that sympathetic to communism they are open to the development of a class analysis of our situation (The Organizer, July 1976). PWOC has also defined an advanced worker as one who consciously sees the need to recruit their fellows to struggle against the bosses.
Dogmatism has been manifested on the women question both in the assertion that the oppression of women is the most basic aspect of the oppression of capitalism (or as basic as class) and in the position that the oppression of women is only manifested in the problems of working class women on and about the job. Sectarianism has been manifested in both camps, the first in antagonistic relations to Marxist men, women and organizations which see the class question as the single basic question, and the oppression of women as derivative from it, and the second in hostility to the women’s movement, and their rejection of it as merely “bourgeois feminism” which distracts women from their real fight. Both these manifestations of dogmatism and sectarianism are equally mistaken.
While it is true that women’s oppression is essentially a product of the class nature of capitalism it does not of course follow that women as a group do not suffer a special oppression as women. This simple fact seems to escape both camps of dogmatists on this question. Sexism, since the origin of class society, served to make private property, the accumulation of wealth and an efficient productive class possible. The primary relation to the means of production has historically given men the means by which subordinate women, and the desire for a houseworker/mother to reproduce labor power has historically provided men with the motive. In capitalist society women have performed the two key roles of (1) reproducing labor power in the home (both her husband’s labor which is sold on the labor market) and her children’s who will be sold in the next generation (or will reproduce their husband’s labor power.). Thus when a male worker sells his labor power to a capitalist, he is in fact being paid a wage sufficient to support both himself and his wife, because there are in essence a two person team, one of whom stays in the home as an auxiliary. Of growing relative importance is the second principle function of sexism for capitalist society – the proletarianization of women as white collar, service and menial blue collar laborers. Sexism results in especially compliant, supportive and non-resistant (“feminine”) behavior in those jobs in which capital especially needs such traits. Thus both as house-workers and as wage laborers the social role of women requires a sexist ideology and behavior that effects virtually all women as women whether or not they actually work in a factory or are married to a working class man. Sexism is general, although the class privilege of ruling class women far outweighs the oppression due to their sex. The common sexual oppression of women gives a real social basis to a women’s movement based among both working class and petty bourgeois women, pretty much analogous to movements of Blacks, Chicano’s etc., devoted to advancing women’s interests and fighting for women’s liberation. Women’s oppression is distinct from the oppression of workers and thus requires separate mass organizations. However, since sexism is caused by capitalism and because the working class is the only effective anti-capitalist force, the women’s movement must be directed against capitalism, be allied with the working class anti-capitalist movement and follow the leadership of working class men and women who have the greatest stake in overthrowing capitalism.
The revolutionary movement must build a united front with all organizations of working class women and organizations of women who share a socialist outlook and a popular front with all petty bourgeois women’s organizations and organizations of women who share a petty bourgeois progressive outlook and attempt to persuade them through practice that the overthrow of capitalism is a necessary condition for the liberation of women.
The manifestation of dogmatism on the gay question is manifested in the treatment of gayness as a disease which will be eliminated in socialist society. In good part this analysis is based on the understanding that Maoists have about the Chinese handling of the question. This analysis runs against both a scientific analysis of the question and against the tradition of support of all oppressed groups by Marxist-Leninists. The dogmatic analysis of the Gay Question manifests itself not only in hostile and sectarian relations with gay progressives and Communists but with sectarian relations with other revolutionaries supportive of gay liberation as well. The hostility of groups like the RCP and the CL to gays has been an obstacle to the growth of their organizations and the winning of friends in the women’s movement and among petty bourgeois professionals and students.
Human beings biologically are extremely plastic. Although we have a few diffuse needs we can be molded by society into just about any kind of behavior. Unlike most other animals, we have no genetically determined preferences for sexual relations with members of one or the other sex inborn within us (the plasticity of homo sapiens is a source of great evolutionary advantage over other species because it allows for the rapid adaptation to environments). The general moral code which dictates a preference for members of the opposite sex grew up and historically functioned because of the social and economic consequences of heterosexuality. Tribes which preferred homosexuality had fewer children than heterosexual tribes, and thus soon lost out in the struggle to survive. Strong taboos on homosexuality were thus developed (perhaps through trial and error) because of their survival value (as were taboos on incest). In the twentieth century the demographic problem of human beings no longer focuses on how to have the maximum number of children, but rather if anything, on how to have fewer children. The strong taboo on homosexuality is now without an important function and thus tends to be dying of its own accord. To the extent that it lingers on, it is in good part because of the scapegoating function that homosexuals serve in (1) reinforcing the sexist “macho” ideal when they are held up for derision, and (2) in deflecting the concern of workers and other oppressed peoples towards non-class issues. While it is probably true that open homosexuality and bisexuality are more prevalent in times of decay of a civilization, this is only because all taboos and norms decay in such periods (the good along with the bad). It is also true that rebellion of the underclass, strikes and riots increase during periods of a decay of a civilization. The increasingly open practice of homosexuality in such periods can, no more be considered to themselves to be decadent than can the later phenomena. While it might be true that homosexuality tends to discourage men or women from working out their problems with the opposite sex and establishing close relations with them, it is equally true that heterosexuality tends to discourage people from working out close relationships with people of the same sex. No argument against homosexuality can be sustained on this basis.
It is however true that the celebration of a cult of homosexuality and the elevation of gay oppression to be a primary issue does deflect the concern of the oppressed away from the real issue – the class question – in the same way as the celebration of heterosexual sex, youth, nationalism, etc., deflects concern away from the class question. There is then a contradiction between the cult of gayness and a revolutionary movement, but this must not be mistaken for contradiction between the democratic rights of gay people to practice any form of sexuality they please without discrimination or repression and a revolutionary movement that must fight for these rights.
There is likewise no reason for a Communist Party to dictate to its members whether or not to be homosexual or heterosexual. So long as a cadre’s sex life does not interfere with the cadres’ political effectiveness or with the party’s overall effectiveness his/her sex life is entirely the cadre’s own concern. This implies that a homosexual cadre working among strongly anti-gay industrial workers would have to be discrete about his/her sexual practices until workers develop sufficient understanding of the issue, and that homosexual cadre must take care to avoid public scandals promoted by reactionaries looking for a chance to deflect the concern of the oppressed away from class questions.
Dogmatism on the question of the Soviet Union is manifested in the idolization of the Soviet Union as the exemplar of socialism and as the guide for revolutionary analysis and strategy. Such dogmatism is practiced by the CPUSA and many CP’s around the world that look uncritically to Moscow for leadership. Dogmatism is equally manifested on the part of Maoists, who regard the Soviet Union as being a capitalism of the Nazi type, and its foreign policy as being social imperialist and probably of greater danger to the world’s people’s than U.S. imperialism.
Mechanical defense of the Soviet Union has produced considerable disaffection from the CPUSA and other Communist parties because often the domestic and international policies of the USSR (while perhaps necessitated by the desperate situation the USSR was in from the 1920’s through the 1950’s) has had little to do with what socialism in the ISA would look like or what lines the US revolutionary movement should adopt. Defense of the Soviet Union (and China), which has been and continues to be part of the obligation of true revolutionaries must be on terms of the exegencies which that country has faced and not in terms of its closeness to the ideal socialist model on which the U.S. revolution would be based. The myths created about how good life was in the Soviet Union in the 1930’s and 1940’s, when exploded by Khrushchev, produced considerable demoralization, which need not have occurred had people held a scientific analysis of the Soviet Union and why it had to be defended as a progressive force which need not have been idealized. Soviet foreign policy has often been dictated by the needs of preserving and advancing the interests of the Soviet state, and thus can and has come into conflict with the needs of the world revolutionary movement, which increasingly, over time, have come to diverge from the interests of the Soviet Union (although they remain fundamentally compatible with it). A more balanced and scientific position on the Soviet Union must be established which appreciates the immense positive contribution the Soviet Union has and continues to make to the world revolutionary movement, while refusing to side with it in its position such as its polemical attack on China or in its insistence on being the hegemonic center of the world communist movement. While declining to see the Soviet Union as the model for the future of all socialist countries we must understand that we can learn much positive as well as negative from the social forms the Soviets have developed.
While until a few years ago the greatest dogmatic error on the left was the dogmatic idealization of the Soviet Union, this has been dwarfed in the 1970’s by the vicious and largely baseless dogmatism of Maoists who have the mirror image view of the USSR from that held to by the CPUSA and other pro-Moscow parties. They see the USSR as the exemplar of fascist monopoly capitalism which brutally exploits and oppresses the working people and minorities of the Soviet Union and is aggressively reaching out to oppress the peoples of the world. The parody of the Soviet Union they paint is based virtually entirely in the Maoists dogmatic acceptance of Chinese pronouncements formulated on the basis of the fear of the Chinese that ”revisionists” within China will get control because of backing from the Soviet Union, and that this would mean the collapse of the largest really Socialist society in the world, thus very seriously setting back the world struggle. The various booklets produced by the RCP and Martin Nicolaus amount to little more than scholarly sounding assertions without substantiation designed to prove that the Soviet Union is capitalist. They both distort Soviet reality and foreign relations beyond all recognition and serve only to confuse the left and discredit the Soviet Union, China and their respective followers.
The Soviet Union is a socialist country (albeit somewhat distorted due to the terrible costs of being the first) where the working class is better off in virtually every way than in capitalist countries (especially in comparison to those with equivalent GNP/capitas). There is far more equality in the Soviet Union, there is no owning or managing class which owns or1 controls great wealth generated by the exploitation of workers, workers are widely and fundamentally involved in the full range of institutions which administer Soviet life and make decisions, the Communist Party which continues to play the guiding role in Soviet society is made up of two-thirds of common working people, considerable and rather fundamental debate occurs in the mass media, the oppression of unemployment is virtually unknown–there is no reserve army of labor – and rational planning in the social interest rather than the irrationalities of the market are. in command of the economy. What opposition there is to the Soviet system comes almost entirely from the petty bourgeoisie, not from the working class. In sum the Soviet Union, in spite of its problems, the most serious of which are its failure to press for the abolition of the division of labor (as do the Chinese), a too conservative attitude about mass involvement in struggles and conflicts (like the Chinese cultural revolution) as well as a too slow approach to thoroughly democratizing popular institutions, is essentially a socialist country and a progressive force in the world. American revolutionaries must for the most part treat the Soviet Union as a friend and likewise treat those that look to it more than we do for leadership, also as friends.
Soviet foreign policy typically supports the more progressive and revolutionary forces in any given struggle. This was true in the cases of the post World War I European uprisings, the Spanish Civil War and the partisan struggles in the World War II period. However, it was not true so much of nationalist struggles against British and French imperialism during the popular front period in Asia and Africa, nor was it so true of the struggle of the Chinese Communist Party after 1935 when the weight of the Soviets leaned towards the KMT. Soviet policy since 1953 has been at least as progressive as it was before this date. While during the first years the Soviets sided with Israel, since the mid-1950 s they have been one of the major backers of the Arab liberation movements (as a supplier of arms their support has been critical). The support of the Soviets for African liberation since the 1950’s has been an important force for decolonization and more recently for the rapid development of progressive forces, e. g., in Angola, Somaliland, Tanzania, Namibia, etc. In Indochina their massive and generous military support to the Vietnamese was an essential component of the Communist victories and in Latin America their support of Cuba made the difference between the success and failure of the revolution. The success of Cuba, in good part a result of the Soviets, has had a considerable positive effect on the growth and morale of the Communist movement in Latin America. Not all Soviet foreign involvements since the mid-1950’s have involved active support of the most revolutionary and progressive forces however. The Soviet’s support of Indira Gandhi’s capitalist controlled Congress Party and their coolness to the liberation struggle in Cambodia are probably the two principle examples of the Soviets not supporting revolutionary struggles when they are on the historical agenda. Both of these exceptions are probably due to the Soviet’s policy of building alliances among forces in South East Asia hostile to the Chinese, and illustrate how Soviet foreign policy responds to Soviet interests, even at the expenses of the world revolutionary struggle. It should be noted that while in the 1960’s there were often clear differences between the Chinese and the Soviets on the question of support for revolutionary struggles With the Chinese criticizing the Soviets for insufficiently supporting revolution, since the Cultural Revolution the Soviet’s record of support for progressive and revolutionary forces has been far better than the Chinese, who in the last ten years have been more concerned with building allies against the Soviet Union (which include the most rabid anti-communist forces and conservative Third World regimes) than they have been in promoting revolution against local ruling class and their U.S. imperialist benefactors. Chinese coldness towards the Chilean revolutionary struggle, towards the uprising in Ceylon, the struggle in Iran and Oman and the Portuguese revolution, are leading cases in point. Their opposition to the MPLA struggle against the CIA/ South African led attempt at instituting a neo-colonial regime in Angola, their support of pro-NATO reactionary forces in Europe and their hostility to the Cuban revolution are clear cases of objective class collaboration promoted by the Chinese. There is little question to anyone that cares to look that Chinese foreign policy has reduced itself to an absurdity, and that the Soviet Union has come out of its conflict with China on foreign policy questions, the clear victor.
The Chinese are wrong, war between the U.S. and the USSR is not inevitable because of the logic laid out in Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage, of Capitalism. First the Soviet Union is not a market capitalist country, it is guided by an economic plan. Far from having an inherent drive to invest capital overseas which can not be profitably invested at home, there is a permanent shortage of both capital and goods in the Soviet Union, because the economy is organized to fulfill needs rather than to make profits. Second, under contemporary conditions the advanced capitalist countries like the US. rely primarily on intensive domestic investment and, expanding government spending to provide outlets for profitable capitalist investment and market for goods the workers have insufficient purchasing power to produce. Thus contemporary advanced capitalist countries would not sink into depression in the absence of expanding foreign markets and investment opportunities. While imperialism is certainly profitable for the U.S., it is not necessary for the survival of the capitalist economy as Lenin argued. Thus neither the USSR nor the U.S. is inexorably driven to war to redivide the world in order to secure protected markets and investment opportunities. Because they are not necessarily driven to such a war by the logic of their economies detente and peaceful co-existence are real responsibilities. To the extent that the U.S. ruling class recognizes that nuclear warfare would be suicidal, they can be restrained from using nuclear weapons and a disarmament campaign achieve real success. It would be better for the left if nuclear weapons did not exist, but they do. And because they do, part of our energy must be directed against neutralizing them and decreasing the probability of their use, both because revolutionary movements are more likely to succeed in liberating billions without their use, and because nuclear warfare in itself is a. horrendous evil that all progressive people must be mobilized to fight against.
Another dogma which has been mistakenly accepted by the pro-Chinese is the position that the struggle for detente and peaceful co-existence between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. is undesirable or impossible of realization, and in any event necessarily undermines revolutionary struggles. On the opposite extreme there is the dogma suggested by some Western European Communists that peaceful coexistence and detente rules out revolutionary transformation. Both of these dogmas are mistaken and must be replaced by a scientific understanding of the possibilities of nuclear devastation and the revolutionary process in a world of thermonuclear weapons.
The danger of the annihilation of life in North America and Europe is very real, A thermonuclear war between the USSR and the U.S. is a distinct possibility if only because of the logic of Cuban Missile Crisis type confrontations. The results of such a war, even if intended to be limited (directed only at the other’s missile bases) is most likely to escalate into a total exchange of all nuclear fire power and the resultant death, immediately or by radiation poisoning and starvation of all life in and around the areas attacked, and perhaps through most of the entire Northern hemisphere as well. It is most likely that the few human beings who survive a nuclear war will organize themselves according to socialist principles, i.e., socialism will expand after the Third World war as it did after the first and second, but the costs paid in the death of billions of people is clearly a result to be avoided at almost any cost, regressive and revolutionary forces thus have the obligation to do all they can to decrease the probability of nuclear war, promote disarmament and generate the conditions in which the U.S. and the other capitalist countries would be unable to use nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union since 1945 has consistently been a major, if not the principle force actively pursuing world disarmament, the banning of nuclear warfare, and mobilizing the world’s people behind these goals. The fight against nuclear weapons and for disarmament and the Soviet Union’s role in these struggles must be supported. Soviet-U.S. detente is a necessary ingredient in any disarmament program since any world scale nuclear exchange will focus on these two countries, and thus Soviet-U.S. detente must be actively encouraged and supported. In pre-nuclear days, the dangers of war were nowhere near as great, in fact revolutionary movements stood to gain considerably from wars between imperialist countries. Such is no longer the case.
The struggle for nuclear disarmament and detente does not mean that the struggle for socialist revolution needs to be mitigated however. Those that argue that it does (which does not include the Soviets) are mistaken, What it does mean however is that the basis for. a revolutionary transformation in the advanced capitalist countries must be firm, the socialist process must be self-reliant and no help can be expected by way of troops from the existing socialist countries. Thus the support given to the indigenous revolutionary process in Eastern Europe by the presence of the Red Army which suppressed reactionaries and prevented right wing coups arid military support from other capitalist countries can not exist in Western Europe, the U. S. or Japan. The presence of nuclear weapons in the hands of the capitalist class also means that the importance of political work within the military is enhanced and the possibilities of Guerrilla warfare resulting in the building up of a Red Army to fight pitched battle with the regular armed forces are now all the more remote. It is likely that the capitalist class would resort to nuclear weapons against their own people rather than peacefully give up their power, only a strong organization within the military is likely to preclude this possibility. It is also likely that the ruling class of a nuclear armed capitalist country would be likely to try to provoke a nuclear war against the Soviet Union or China in the event of the danger of it being overthrown by a popular revolutionary movement, in order to mobilize the people, blaming the Soviets or Chinese for active intervention tantamount to invasion (by supplying arms and advisers to the local revolutionaries). Here again a strong organization within the military would seem to be key to preclude this.