Chairman Mao’s theory of the three worlds scientifically epitomizes the objective realities of class struggle on the world arena today. In this theory he inherited, defended and developed basic Marxist-Leninist principles.
In his talk with the leader of a third world country in February 1974, Chairman Mao said, “In my view, the United States and the Soviet Union form the first world. Japan, Europe and Canada, the middle section, belong to the second world. We are the third world.” “The third world has a huge population. With the exception of Japan, Asia belongs to the third world. The whole of Africa belongs to the third world, and Latin America too.”
This differentiation is a scientific conclusion which is based on the analysis of the development of the fundamental contradictions of the contemporary world and the changes in them in accordance with Lenin’s theses that our era is the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, that the development of imperialist countries is uneven and the imperialist powers inevitably try to redivide the world by means of war, and that, as imperialism has brought about the division of the whole world into oppressor and oppressed nations, the international proletariat must fight together with the oppressed nations.
In order to have a correct understanding of Chairman Mao’s thesis of the differentiation of the three worlds, we must apply dialectical materialism to appraising present-day international political phenomena and start from reality and not from abstractions, as Lenin and Stalin did when they discussed the connections between national and international problems, saying that these must “not be considered in isolation but on ... a world scale” and “should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism.”
In appearance, this theory of Chairman Mao’s seems to involve only relations between countries and between nations in the present-day world, but, in essence, it bears directly on the vital question of present-day class struggle on a world scale. In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. The same holds true of relations between countries. Relations between countries or nations are based on relations between classes, and they are interconnected and extremely complicated. We can hardly form correct judgments on international political phenomena and make a correct differentiation of the political forces of the world if we adopt an idealistic or metaphysical approach and make abstract, isolated observations instead of proceeding from the international class struggle as a whole and making a concrete analysis of concrete cases at a given time, in a given place and under given conditions.
Marxist-Leninists invariably adhere to the stand of the international proletariat, uphold the general interests of the revolutionary people of all countries in international class struggle and persist in the replacement of the capitalist system with the communist system as their maximum programme. But the situation with regard to this struggle is intricate and volatile. The international bourgeoisie has never been a monolithic whole, nor can it ever be. The international working-class movement has also experienced one split after another, subject as it is to the influence of alien classes. In waging the struggle on the international arena, the proletariat must unite with all those who can be united in the light of what is imperative and feasible in different historical periods, so as to develop the progressive forces, win over the middle forces and isolate the die-hards. Therefore, we can never lay down any hard and fast formula for differentiating the world’s political forces (i.e., differentiating ourselves, our friends and our enemies in the international class struggle).
Following the emergence of the first socialist country, Lenin, referring to the two kinds of diplomacy, the bourgeois and the proletarian, said in 1921 that “there are now two worlds: the old world of capitalism, . . . and the rising new world. . . .” Stalin said in 1919, “The world has definitely and irrevocably split into two camps: the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism.” Of course, this conclusion reflected the new fundamental contradiction in the world following the October Revolution. But Lenin and Stalin never denied that other fundamental contradictions existed in the world or that there were other ways to differentiate the world’s political forces. For instance, in his report on the national and colonial questions at the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920, Lenin said, “The characteristic feature of imperialism consists in the whole world . . . being divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an insignificant number of oppressor nations, the latter possessing colossal wealth and powerful armed forces.” When Stalin dealt with the national question in The Foundations of Leninism in 1924, he too said that “... the world is divided into two camps: the camp of a handful of civilized nations, which possess finance capital and exploit the vast majority of the population of the globe; and the camp of the oppressed and exploited peoples in the colonies and dependent countries, which constitute that majority.” In fact, these conclusions reflected the existence of another kind of fundamental contradiction in the world. The differentiations drawn by Lenin and Stalin are undoubtedly both correct, the only difference lying in what they emphasized. When they had to make a comprehensive and concrete differentiation of the world’s political forces in a given period, they started with an over-all investigation of the many fundamental contradictions existing in the world.
The transition from the capitalist to the socialist system on a global scale is a very long and tortuous process, full of complicated struggles, and it is inevitable that in the process there will be different alignments of the world’s political forces in different periods. The objective realities of world class struggle determine the proletariat’s differentiation of the world’s political forces and the consequent strategy and tactics to be adopted in the struggle. Here it will be helpful to our understanding of the theory of the three worlds if we briefly review certain historical instances in which Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao differentiated world political forces.
While mainly carrying out their revolutionary activities in Western Europe, Marx and Engels invariably had in mind the general situation in Europe and the world as a whole when they surveyed the class struggle in different countries. For the first time in history they sent out the great call “Workers of all countries, unite!” and again for the first time they pointed out that the cause of the international proletariat was inseparably linked with the struggle of the oppressed nations for liberation. Engels said, “A nation cannot become free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations. The liberation of Germany cannot therefore take place without the liberation of Poland from German oppression.” Marx said, “After occupying myself with the Irish question for many years I have come to the conclusion that the decisive blow against the English ruling classes (and it will be decisive for the workers’ movement all over the world) cannot be delivered in England but only in Ireland.” Both of them attached great importance not only to the struggle for independence by European nations such as Poland and Ireland but also to that waged in China and India, countries remote from Europe. The sum total of the international proletariat’s interests was always the starting point from which they examined specific national movements and political forces. As Lenin once pointed out, “Marx is known to have favoured Polish independence in the interests of European democracy in its struggle against the power and influence – or, it might be said, against the omnipotence and predominating reactionary influence – of tsarism.” Engels said of Marx that one of his contributions was that he was the first to make the point in 1848 – and he subsequently stressed it time and again – that “the Western European labour parties must of necessity wage an implacable war against Russian tsarism,” because the Russian tsarist empire was the biggest fortress of European reaction and because it always had expansionist ambitions with respect to Europe and aimed at making the liberation of the European proletariat impossible. To the end of their days Marx and Engels made frequent reference to resolute opposition to the Russian tsarist empire’s policy of aggression as the criterion by which to differentiate Europe’s political forces and to determine to which national movement in Europe the international proletariat should give its support. It is clear that in so doing Marx and Engels were by no means oblivious of the international class struggle. On the contrary, they had the proletariat’s fundamental interests in the international class struggle very much in mind. What should we learn from Marx and Engels in this respect? We should at least learn the following: First, like Marx and Engels, we should acclaim the great national revolutionary movement that has embraced all oppressed nations and shaken the world, and should regard it as an important pre-condition and a sure guarantee for the triumph of the international proletariat. Second, we should pay constant attention to the contradictions between the capitalist countries and identify the arch enemies of the international working-class movement as Marx and Engels did, and wage an unrelenting struggle against the biggest fortresses of world reaction today, namely, Soviet social-imperialism and U.S. imperialism.
Lenin was the first to point out that the world had already entered the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution and also the first to found a socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat. He was the first to regard the struggle of the oppressed nations against imperialism as a component part of the socialist movement of the world proletariat and set forth the strategic policy, “Workers of all countries and oppressed nations, unite!” In his article “The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx” written in 1913, Lenin said, “But the opportunists have scarcely congratulated themselves on the inauguration of ’social peace,’ and on the fact that storms were needless under ’democracy,’ when a new source of great world storms opened up in Asia. The Russian Revolution was followed by the Turkish, the Persian and the Chinese revolutions. It is in this era of storms and their ’repercussions’ in Europe that we are now living.” Concerning the relationship between the revolutionary movement of the international proletariat and that of the oppressed nations, Lenin wrote in 1916: “The social revolution cannot come about except in the form of an epoch of proletarian civil war against the bourgeoisie in the advanced countries combined with a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including movements for national liberation, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations.” These views of Lenin’s remain valid today.
After the October Revolution and World War I Lenin made a “Report on the International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist International” at the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920 in which he explicitly divided the countries of the world, whose total population was then 1,750 million, into three categories and made this division the basic point of departure for determining the strategy and tactics of the international proletariat. He said: “Thus we get the main outlines of the picture of the world as it appeared after the imperialist war. A billion and a quarter oppressed in the colonies – countries which are being cut up alive, like Persia, Turkey and China; and countries which have been vanquished and flung into the position of colonies (Here Lenin meant such countries as Austro-Hungary, Germany and Bulgaria as well as Soviet Russia which was likewise thrown back by the war “to what is equivalent to a colonial position” – Ed.). Not more than a quarter of a billion inhabit countries which have retained their old positions, but have fallen into economic dependence upon America, and all of them, during the war, were in a state of military dependence, for the war affected the whole world and did not permit a single state to remain really neutral. And finally, we have not more than a quarter of a billion inhabitants of countries in which only the upper stratum, of course, only the capitalists, benefited by the partition of the world (Here Lenin meant countries such as the United States, Japan and Britain – Ed.). ... I would like you to memorize this picture of the world, for all the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, of imperialism, which are leading to revolution, all the fundamental contradictions in the working-class movement which have led to the furious struggle against the Second International . . . are all connected with this division of the population of the world.”
How well Lenin put it! With respect to the question of differentiating the world’s political forces, it sounds as though he had the actual struggles of today in mind. Attaching the greatest importance to the contradiction between oppressed and oppressor nations and the contradiction between imperialist countries, Lenin divided the countries of the world into three categories and linked this division closely to all the fundamental contradictions in the imperialist world and in the international working-class movement. This proposition of his is diametrically opposed to the opportunism, or ”bourgeois socialism” of the Second International which always looked down upon the struggle of the oppressed nations. In his report, instead of simply dividing the countries of the world into two categories, capitalist and socialist, Lenin put different countries of the capitalist world into three categories – the oppressed colonial and semi-colonial countries and vanquished countries, countries which retained their old positions, and countries which had won the war and benefited by the partition of the world; he placed socialist Russia and the oppressed nations and countries in the same category. Lenin took full account of the great role the 1,250 million people played in the revolutionary struggle against imperialism on the world arena, saying, “There are 1,250 million people who find it impossible to live in the conditions of servitude which ’advanced’ and civilized capitalism wishes to impose on them: after all, these represent 70 per cent of the world’s population.” Speaking shortly before his death of the inevitability of the final victory of socialism throughout the world, Lenin continued to maintain: “In the last analysis, the outcome of the struggle will be determined by the fact that Russia, India, China, etc., account for the overwhelming majority of the population of the globe. And it is precisely this majority that, during the past few years, has been drawn into the struggle for emancipation with extraordinary rapidity, so that in this respect there cannot be the slightest shadow of doubt what the final outcome of the world struggle will be. In this sense, the complete victory of socialism is fully and absolutely assured.” Obviously, except for the Soviet social-imperialists who have completely betrayed his cause, no one will say that Lenin “abandoned class principles,” “preached reactionary theories of geopolitics,” and so on when expressing these views, which are imbued with proletarian internationalism and confidence in victory for the communist movement. What should we learn from Lenin here? We should at least learn the following: Like Lenin, we should hail and support the liberation movement of the oppressed nations in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere and regard it as an important component of the socialist revolutionary movement of the world proletariat. We should divide the countries of the world today into three new categories on the basis of the new international class relations now prevailing and find complete and absolute assurance of the ultimate victory of socialism throughout the world in the united struggle of the international proletariat and the third world people who make up more than 70 per cent of the world’s population.
After Lenin’s death, Stalin defended his thesis that the proletariat must unite with the oppressed nations and pointed out that the national liberation movement should embrace all the forces opposing imperialist aggression, regardless of their class status and political attitude. By way of example he indicated that although the Emir of Afghanistan held fast to monarchy as an institution and the leaders of the Egyptian national liberation movement were of bourgeois origin and were opposed to socialism, the struggles they waged for the independence of their nations were, objectively, revolutionary struggles, for they served to “weaken, disintegrate and undermine imperialism.” When criticizing the Trotskyite opposition, Stalin pointed out: “The sin of the opposition here is that it has completely abandoned this line of Lenin’s and has slipped into that of the Second International, which denies the expediency of supporting revolutionary wars waged by colonial countries against imperialism.”
Stalin more than once spoke of the capitalist and the socialist worlds opposing each other, but in concretely differentiating the world political forces in different periods he proceeded from the over-all situation in the changing international class struggle. As early as 1927, at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), he made the following division of the existing world political forces, saying, “Judge for yourselves. Of the 1,905 million inhabitants of the entire globe, 1,134 million live in the colonies and dependent countries, 143,000,000 live in the U.S.S.R., 264,000,000 live in the intermediate countries, and only 363,000,000 live in the big imperialist countries, which oppress the colonies and dependent countries.” In March 1939, at the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), he defined Germany, Italy and Japan as aggressor countries and Britain, France and the United States as non-aggressor countries. Immediately after Hitlerite Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, Stalin saw to it that the Soviet Union became allied to the United States, Britain and other countries to form an anti-fascist camp. In 1942 he said that “it may now be regarded as beyond dispute that in the course of the war imposed upon the nations by Hitlerite Germany, a radical demarcation of forces and the formation of two opposite camps have taken place: the camp of the Italo-German coalition, and the camp of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition” and that ’’it follows that the logic of facts is stronger than any other logic.” Of course, in the world today there is no such thing as a new Italo-German coalition or a new Anglo-Soviet-American coalition. Instead, there are two hegemonist powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, and a united front of the people of the world against them. What we wish to stress here is that the action taken by Stalin did not in the least affect the status of the Soviet Union as a socialist country or impede the development of the revolutionary struggle of the international proletariat. On the contrary, his was the only correct course of action for defending the fundamental interests of the socialist Soviet Union and the international proletariat. Can we blame Stalin for not strictly following the formula of the capitalist world vs. the socialist world in this instance? Can we doubt the great significance of the division of the world’s political forces at the time into the fascist camp and the anti-fascist camp? Can the division of the world’s political forces be based not on the logic of facts but on a logic that transcends facts?
Let us go back for a moment to a thesis of Stalin’s in Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. written a year before his death: “It is said that the contradictions between capitalism and socialism are stronger than the contradictions among the capitalist countries. Theoretically, of course, that is true.” “Yet the Second World War began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between capitalist countries.” “Consequently, the struggle of the capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their competitors proved in practice to be stronger than the contradictions between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp.” He further pointed out that “the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries remains in force.” It is primarily between the United States, a capitalist country, and the Soviet Union, where capitalism has been restored, that world war is inevitable today. Apparently, the thesis that the logic of facts is stronger than any other logic still holds true.
It is thus plain that all the revolutionary teachers of the proletariat differentiated the world’s political forces by relying on an objective and penetrating analysis of the over-all situation in the international class struggle in different periods, instead of following any hard and fast formula. The differentiation of the present-day political forces into three worlds by Chairman Mao, the greatest Marxist of our time, is a historical product of his creative application of Marxism over the years to the observation and analysis of the development of the world’s fundamental contradictions and the changes in them.
In his work On New Democracy published in 1940, Chairman Mao inherited, defended and developed the theory of Lenin and Stalin that after World War I, and especially after the October Revolution, every national liberation movement formed part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution. He pointed out in explicit terms, “No matter what classes, parties or individuals in an oppressed nation join the revolution, and no matter whether they themselves are conscious of the point or understand it, so long as they oppose imperialism, their revolution becomes part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution and they become its allies.” Did this analysis of Chairman Mao’s correspond to the objective realities of international class struggle? Obviously it did. No one can doubt this, because it was precisely by proceeding from this viewpoint that in the years of the Japanese imperialist invasion of China the Chinese Communist Party formed a united front with all the anti-Japanese forces, including Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang, and won victory in the war against Japan. Similarly, after the war it was by uniting with all the anti-imperialist democratic forces which could be united that it went on to overthrow the Kuomintang’s reactionary rule and found the People’s Republic of China under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In the days following World War II, U.S. imperialism raised an incessant anti-Soviet clamour. With exceptional perspicacity Chairman Mao exposed the real purpose of this hue and cry. He pointed out that “the United States and the Soviet Union are separated by a vast zone which includes many capitalist, colonial and semi-colonial countries in Europe, Asia and Africa” and that “at present, the actual significance of the U.S. slogan of waging an anti-Soviet war is the oppression of the American people and the expansion of the U.S. forces of aggression in the rest of the capitalist world.” Chairman Mao called on the American people and all the nations and people faced with the threat of aggression by the United States to unite and counter the attacks of the U.S. reactionaries and their running dogs. Did this analysis of Chairman Mao’s correspond to the objective realities of international class struggle at the time? Obviously it did. No one can doubt this, because events then and since have confirmed the validity of his analysis.
The Suez Canal incident of 1956 brought to light the sharpening contradictions between the imperialist powers. Chairman Mao pointed out at the time, “From this incident we can pin-point the focus of struggle in the world today. The contradiction between the imperialist countries and the socialist countries is certainly most acute. But the imperialist countries are now contending with each other for the control of different areas in the name of opposing communism. ... In the Middle East, two kinds of contradictions and three kinds of forces are in conflict. The two kinds of contradictions are: first, those between different imperialist powers, that is, between the United States and Britain and between the United States and France and, second, those between the imperialist powers and the oppressed nations. The three kinds of forces are: one, the United States, the biggest imperialist power, two, Britain and France, second-rate imperialist powers, and three, the oppressed nations.” Did this analysis of Chairman Mao’s correspond to the objective realities of international class struggle at that time? Again, it obviously did. No one can doubt this, because events then and since have likewise borne out the validity of his analysis.
It is not difficult to see that Chairman Mao’s analysis of the three kinds of forces was the forerunner of his theory of the three worlds. The difference between the two is chiefly due to the existence, however precarious, of a socialist camp at the time. Later, with the Khrushchov-Brezhnev clique’s complete betrayal of the cause of communism, capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union, and it degenerated and became a social-imperialist country. True, there are China and the other socialist countries, but what was once the socialist camp no longer exists, nor do historical conditions necessitate its formation for a second time. Meanwhile, many countries in the imperialist camp no longer took their cue from the United States and even openly stood up to it. Through hard struggles, most of the colonial and semi-colonial countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America successively declared independence. Through a period of great upheaval, great division and great realignment the world’s political forces are now faced with a new historical situation. In the 1960s, the ruling clique in the Soviet Union were already very far gone in their betrayal of socialism, but for a time U.S. imperialism remained the arch enemy of the people of the world. Then, after a succession of grave events, the Soviet Union not only turned into an imperialist superpower that threatened the world as the United States did, but also became the most dangerous source of another world war. The Soviet ruling clique’s betrayal inevitably led to splits of varying degrees and caused temporary difficulties in the international workers’ movement and the ranks of the world’s anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle. What is the way out? Can we shut our eyes to the events taking place in this period and make believe that the imperialist camp and the socialist camp still exist in the world and regard the opposition between the two as the principal contradiction in world politics? Can we just exclude the Soviet Union and the countries subservient to it from the socialist camp while sticking to the formula and assume that, apart from the socialist countries, all the rest are just an undifferentiated reactionary mass constituting the capitalist world? Obviously, this would only make it impossible for the people of the world to ste the facts and therefore the correct way forward. Tremendous changes in the present-day international situation and the daily growth of the people’s strength in different countries and of the factors for revolution demand a new classification of the world’s political forces, so that a new global strategy can be formulated for the international proletariat and the oppressed people according to the new relationship between ourselves, our friends and our enemies. Chairman Mao’s theory of the three worlds meets precisely this demand.
This theory makes it clear: The two imperialist superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, constitute the first world. They have become the biggest international exploiters, oppressors and aggressors and the common enemies of the people of the world, and the rivalry between them is bound to lead to a new world war. The contention for world supremacy between the two hegemonist powers, the menace they pose to the people of all lands and the latter’s resistance to them – this has become the central problem in present-day world politics. The socialist countries, the mainstay of the international proletariat, and the oppressed nations, who are the worst exploited and oppressed and who account for the great majority of the population of the world, together form the third world. They stand in the forefront of the struggle against the two hegemonists and are the main force in the world-wide struggle against imperialism and hegemonism. The developed countries in between the two worlds constitute the second world. They oppress and exploit the oppressed nations and are at the same time controlled and bullied by the superpowers. They have a dual character, and stand in contradiction with both the first and the third worlds. But they are still a force the third world can win over or unite with in the struggle against hegemonism. This theory summarizes the strategic situation concerning the most important class struggle in the contemporary world in which the people of the whole world are one party and the two hegemonist powers the other. The internal class struggles of various countries are actually inseparable from the global class struggle. Therefore, this theory of the differentiation of the three worlds is the most comprehensive summing-up of the various fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world. This scientific thesis of Chairman Mao’s has enriched the theories concerning the uneven development of imperialism and the contradictions between imperialist countries inevitably leading to war, concerning social-imperialism, concerning the struggle of the oppressed nations as forming an important component of the socialist revolution of the world proletariat, concerning the mutual support between the international proletariat, the socialist countries and the national liberation movements and concerning the strategy and tactics of the proletarian revolution – all of which are important contributions to Marxism-Leninism.
Small wonder the Soviet social-imperialists have viciously attacked this brilliant theory of Chairman Mao’s. They cannot be expected to admit that the Soviet Union under their rule has become an imperialist superpower and the most dangerous source of another world war, just as renegades and aggressors cannot be expected to admit what they are. They frantically malign the theory of the three worlds as renouncing class struggle and lumping socialist countries together with capitalist countries, and so on. Not only is their abuse directed against the great Marxist Chairman Mao and the great Communist Party of China, it is hurled at the great Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin as well. For, as we have seen, in principle Chairman Mao’s differentiation of the three worlds completely accords with the criterion set by Marx and Engels in the latter half of the 19th century for differentiating the political forces in Europe according to their attitude towards the Russian Tsarist empire. Similarly, it accords with Lenin’s classification of the world into three types of countries after World War I and Stalin’s division of the countries before World War II into aggressor and non-aggressor countries and into the fascist camp as distinct from the anti-fascist camp during the war. Moreover, it is a logical development from their theories on differentiating the world’s political forces.
True, those who frenziedly calumniate the theory of the three worlds still style themselves ”loyal successors” to Lenin’s cause, but when we judge a person, can we go by his mere words and not by his deeds? If we judge them by their deeds, doesn’t it become clear that it is they who have betrayed the proletariat in the class struggle and made a socialist country degenerate and become a capitalist one?
In our own country, there are persons who frantically oppose Chairman Mao’s theory of the three worlds. They are none other than Wang Hung-wen, Chang Chun-chiao, Chiang Ching and Yao Wen-yuan, or the ”gang of four.” Hoisting a most ”revolutionary” banner, they opposed China’s support to the third world, opposed China’s effort to unite with all forces that can be united, and opposed our dealing blows at the most dangerous enemy. They vainly tried to sabotage the building of an international united front against hegemonism and disrupt China’s anti-hegemonist struggle, doing Soviet social-imperialism a good turn. To a certain extent, their disruptive activities had a deleterious effect, but our Party and government have unswervingly adhered to the revolutionary line in foreign affairs formulated by Chairman Mao. The “gang of four” in no way represent the Chinese people. They are traitors disowned by the Chinese people.
No matter how the Soviet social-imperialists and the “gang of four” curse the theory of the three worlds, its validity is borne out more and more by what is actually happening in world politics today. Its impact is therefore making itself increasingly felt. In the Political Report to the Eleventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China Chairman Hua Kuo-feng says, ”Chairman Mao’s thesis differentiating the three worlds gives a correct orientation to the present international struggle and clearly defines the main revolutionary forces, the chief enemies, and the middle forces that can be won over and united, enabling the international proletariat to unite with ail the forces that can be united to form the broadest possible united front in class struggles against the chief enemies on the world arena.” This thesis not only meets the strategic requirements of the contemporary struggle of the international proletariat and the oppressed people and nations of the world. It also meets the strategic requirements of the struggle for the victory of socialism and communism. It will inspire the people of the world in their united effort to strive for great victories in the struggle against imperialism and hegemonism under the guidance of a firm and explicit policy.
 V. I. Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up,” Collected Works, Vol. 22.
 J. V. Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism,” Works, Vol. 6.
 Mao Tsetung, “Statement Supporting the Afro-Americans’ Just Struggle Against U.S. Imperialist Racist Discrimination,” August 8, 1963.
 Mao Tsetung, “Current Problems of Tactics in the Anti-Japanese United Front,” Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. II.
 V. I. Lenin, “The Ninth All-Russia Congress of Soviets,” Collected Works, Vol. 33.
 J. V. Stalin, “Two Camps,” Works, Vol. 4.
 V. I. Lenin, “Report of the Commission on the National and the Colonial Questions,” delivered at the Second Congress of the Communist International, Collected Works, Vol. 31.
 J. V. Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism,” Works, Vol. 6.
 K. Marx and F. Engels, “On Poland,” Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Vol. 4.
 “Marx to S. Meyer and A. Vogt, April 9, 1870,” Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels.
 V. I. Lenin, “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up,” Collected Works, Vol. 22.
 F. Engels, “The Foreign Policy of Russian Tsarism,” Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Vol. 22.
 V. I. Lenin, “The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx,” Collected Works, Vol. 18.
 V. I. Lenin. “A Caricature of Marxism and ’Imperialist Economism,’ ” Collected Works, Vol. 23.
 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist International,” delivered at the Second Congress of the Communist International, Collected Works, Vol. 31.’
 V. I. Lenin, “Better Fewer, But Better,” Collected Works,Vol. 33.
 The Soviet journal International Affairs, No. 6, 1974
 J. V. Stalin, “The Foundations of Leninism,” Works, Vol. 6.
 J. V. Stalin, “Political Report of the Central Committee,” delivered at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Vol. 10.
 J. V. Stalin, “Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution,” Pravda, November 7, 1942.
 J. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.
 Mao Tsetung, “On New Democracy,” Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. II.
 Mao Tsetung, “Talk with the American Correspondent Anna Louise Strong,” Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. IV.
 Mao Tsetung, “Talks at a Conference of Secretaries of Provincial, Municipal and Autonomous Region Party Committees,” Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. V.