Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Tucson Marxist-Leninist Collective

On the International Situation

Issued: October 1976.
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.

U.S. imperialism is definitely the main enemy of the international proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world. Although U.S. imperialism has suffered political and military defeats in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Angola, and elsewhere, it is still the most powerful and aggressive of the imperialist powers. Even though there does exist inter-imperialist rivalry between the U.S., Japan, the countries of Western Europe, and other imperialist powers, the U.S. is still by far the dominant imperialist power in the world today.

In opposition to the imperialist powers led by the U.S., there are the socialist countries which have been liberated from the imperialist system through proletarian revolution and have consistently opposed the aggressiveness of the imperialist system. Also in opposition to imperialism are the national liberation movements which can either develop into proletarian revolutions and build socialism under the leadership of the working class based on the alliance of workers and peasants, or they can develop capitalism further if the national bourgeoisie gains hegemony over the working class.

The Tucson Marxist-Leninist Collective (TMLC) rejects the idealist view of the international situation which views the “two superpowers”, the U.S. imperialists and “Soviet social-imperialists”, as the “main enemies of the oppressed peoples of the world.” There are two interpretations of this view, the first being that the U.S. imperialists and “Soviet social-imperialists” are “equally” the enemies of the peoples of the world; and the more recent, now dominant view, that “Soviet social-imperialists” is the main enemy of the world’s peoples. We reject both of these positions on the international situation which have been dogmatically accepted by most organizations in the U.S. anti-revisionist communist movement.

The source of this incorrect view of the international situation is the characterization of the Soviet Union as first a capitalist, imperialist, and fascist country, and second that “Soviet social-imperialism” is the main enemy of the world’s peoples since it’s a “young aggressive imperialist power.” This view is also characterized by an incorrect understanding of the nature of revisionism which is equated automatically with the restoration of capitalism in the base and superstructure when it becomes the dominant ideology In the communist party. Revisionism is bourgeois ideology within Marxism-Leninism, specifically within the communist party, which stops the movement from socialism towards communism since the communist party is no longer able to provide correct leadership to the proletariat, but this revisionist hegemony does not automatically restore capitalism.

The Soviet Union is a socialist country today which is under the leadership of the leading revisionist communist party in the world, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). This has resulted in the Soviet Union no longer advancing towards communism as it was up to the 1950’s, but has actually gone backwards towards capitalism since the CPSU has been fully revisionist since 1956. The view that the Soviet Union could evolve from socialism in the 1950’s to capitalism, imperialism, fascism, in only twenty years without a violent counterrevolution is completely unscientific.

The movement of Soviet society towards communism was stopped by 1956 when the ideology of revisionism became dominant over Marxism-Leninism in the CPSU when the revisionist Khrushchev clique took control of the party. The revisionist Khrushchev clique revised Marxism-Leninism by denying the inevitability of war under imperialism, by denying the historical necessity of overthrowing the bourgeois state and replacing it with the dictatorship of the proletariat, by denying the need for a vanguard communist party of the proletariat throughout the entire transitional period of socialism, and by their international class collaboration under the guise of “detente.” Since the fall of Khrushchev, revisionism is still the dominant ideology in the CPSU now under the revisionist clique. Although revisionism has become dominant in the CPSU, the social relations and economy of the Soviet Union are still socialist with the absence of inflation, unemployment, economic crises, private ownership of the means of production, and the transformation of labor into commodity labor power which are all characteristics of the capitalist mode of production. But revisionism has had some effect on both the base and superstructure within Soviet society. Within the economy there is an overemphasis on profit-making in individual enterprises, material or individual incentives, the relative underdevelopment of communist relations of production, the decentralization of the planning and production, and special privileges for managers who exercise more control over economic development than they should at this time. In the state there is a well entranced, powerful bureaucracy which has resulted in relative degree of separation of the state apparatus from the masses.

To understand the nature of the Soviet Union and the international situation, it is necessary to have a correct understanding of the historical role of socialism as the transitional period from capitalism, where the capitalist mode of production is dominant, to communism, where the communist mode of production is dominant and fully developed. Socialism is not a separate mode of production but is a transitional period in which both the capitalist and communist modes of production exist in different forms and different levels of development, that is the lower phase of communist society. This view is set forth in Lenin’s ECONOMICS AND POLITICS IN THE ERA OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT (1919):

Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite transition period. It cannot but combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period cannot but be a period of struggle between moribund capitalism and nascent communism – or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but which is still very feeble.

On the question of the retrogression of societies, it “would not be possible for a fully communist society, that is a society without classes or a state and where the communist mode of production is fully established, to go back to either a socialist or capitalist society. How would it be possible for the disposed, but not destroyed, bourgeoisie under socialism to regain state power without a violent counterrevolution.

The TMLC also rejects the view of the world which sees the U.S. and the Soviet Union as “superpowers” which are fighting over the “Third World”. The concepts of “superpowers”, along with “Third World”, are imprecise, ideological concepts which obscure the class nature of the social systems of the U.S., Soviet Union, and the rest of the world. The term “superpower” is applied to both the U.S. and Soviet Union without regard to the imperialist nature of the U.S. and the socialist nature of the Soviet Union, which determines the use to which this power is put. The Soviet Union is no doubt a powerful socialist country, but generally its economic and military Power has had the objective result of assisting the socialist countries in their development and the national liberation movements in their struggle against imperialism. The “Third World” is likewise an imprecise, ideological concept which includes such diverse countries as Chile and Cuba, which have different social systems, in the same “World” which are supposed to have some kind of common interests against the two “superpowers”. The “Third World” is itself divided into two categories of countries with different social systems, one being the developing socialist countries where the working class holds state power, and the other being the developing capitalist countries where the national bourgeoisie holds state power. In the world as a whole there are two “Worlds” into which the countries of the world belong. These being the first the capitalist world which has countries at different levels of capitalist development, such as the strongest imperialist power in the U.S. and developing capitalist countries which are neocolonies of the imperialist powers. There is also the socialist “World” which contains socialist countries at different stages of development on different levels, such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC) which has the most developed social relations of the socialist countries and the Soviet Union which is the most developed economically and militarily.

There can also be abstracted from the world today four major contradictions from which we can understand the development of the different class contradictions and forces in the world and from that develop a correct strategy for leading a proletarian revolution in the U.S. as part of the world proletarian revolution. The first, or principal contradiction, is between the imperialist powers (the most powerful and aggressive being the U.S.) and the national liberation movements of the oppressed nations. The second major contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within the capitalist countries. The third major contradiction is between the imperialist countries and the socialist countries. And the fourth major contradiction is between the imperialist powers. From this understanding of the world situation we realize the importance of the U.S. anti-revisionist communist movement leading the struggle against U.S. imperialism within this country and supporting the struggles of the national liberation movements in oppressed nations against U.S. imperialism; and the need for a new revolutionary communist party in the U.S. to lead the proletarian revolution and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

From this understanding of the world situation the incorrect nature of the present foreign policy of the PRC which is led by the Communist Party of China (CPC) becomes apparent. We recognize the important historical role that the CPC has played under the leadership of Mao Tse-tung in leading the world-wide struggle against modern revisionism, the building of socialism in China, and the support of revolutionary movements around the world. While recognizing the important contributions the CPC has made in the history of the development of the international communist movement, we believe that the view of the international situation of the CPC and the foreign policy of the PRC since 1969 has been fundamentally incorrect and has resulted objectively in international class collaboration with U.S. imperialism. The foreign policy of the PRC has produced the same result as that of the Soviet Union, albeit by different paths. The incorrectness of the PRC’s foreign policy stems from the CPC’s incorrect understanding of the nature of the Soviet Union being a capitalist, imperialist, and fascist state; the incorrect view of the Soviet Union being the main enemy of the world’s peoples; and the incorrect understanding of the nature of revisionism. This incorrect foreign policy has resulted in China opposing the national liberation movements in Angola, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere, and its support of NATO. China’s foreign policy has also isolated it further from the revolutionary movements around the world and has actually allowed the Soviet revisionists to gain more hegemony over the national liberation movements. From our understanding of the nature of socialism being a transitional period where classes, class contradictions, class struggle, and bourgeois ideology still exist, we realize that it is possible for a communist party to take an incorrect position that it is possible to fall prey to bourgeois ideology. These incorrect positions can only be overcome by the further development of Marxist-Leninist theory and the struggle against bourgeois ideology.

The foreign policy of the Soviet Union which is led by the revisionist CPSU has also been incorrect since 1956 when the revisionist Khrushchev clique took control of the CPSU. The foreign policy of the Soviet Union is primarily guided by national chauvinism, that is the abandonment of Marxist-Leninist proletarian internationalism to the interests of the Soviet Union and it’s revisionist leadership. The Soviet Union’s foreign policy is also characterized by the CPSU’s seeking revisionist ideological hegemony over revolutionary movements and communist parties throughout the world. Although the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is guided by revisionism and national chauvinism, it has had the objective result of advancing the national liberation movements In certain countries, such as Angola, Vietnam, and elsewhere.

Since both the Soviet Union and China have incorrect foreign policies it is of the greatest importance that the anti-revisionist communist movement in the U.S. wage a principled struggle to develop a correct understanding of the international situation which would enable the anti-revisionist communist movement to lead the struggle to defeat U.S. imperialism. To develop the correct understanding of the international situation it will be necessary for the genuine communist movement to wage a conscious struggle against dogmatism, especially “China flunkyism”, which has become the main form of opportunism in the anti-revisionist communist movement and is retarding the building, of a new revolutionary communist party.