First Published: The Call, Vol. 8, No. 26, July 2, 1979.
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.
A number of U.S. Marxist-Leninists and centrist organizations have recently undertaken a sharp two-line struggle focused mainly on Mao Zedongs theory of the three worlds.
The three worlds analysis is primarily a differentiation of class and national forces on a world scale. Based on the concrete conditions today–the existence of a “first world” of the two imperialist superpowers: a “second world,” mainly the lesser imperialist powers; and a “third world” of the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the socialist countries–it enables revolutionaries to distinguish between friends and enemies. It is necessary for a correct practice of proletarian internationalism and for building a broad united front against superpower hegemonism and the danger of a new world war.
It is a good thing that struggle over this theory has broken out among the centrists and their followers and allies. It will enable genuine revolutionaries to unite on the basis of real rather than sham Marxism. And it will weaken centrisms hallmark: its ability to promote a revisionist line under the guise of “anti-revisionist” phrases.
The present debate is taking place within the context of the Organizing Committee for an Ideological Center (OC). The OC is a centrist bloc of about 20 local circles, the leading representative of which is the Philadelphia Workers Organizing Committee (PWOC). Some Marxist-Leninist circles have also chosen to work within the OC, while some other Marxist-Leninist groups–such as the Proletarian Unity League (PUL)–have taken part in the OC deliberations without formal membership status. The sharpest polemics, however, are taking place between PWOC and PUL.
What is the substance of this debate and what lessons can Marxist-Leninists draw from it?
First we must take a brief look at some background. The OC bloc was established in opposition to “dogmatism” and “left opportunism” which supposedly dominates the majority of the Marxist-Leninist movement and is especially concentrated, according to the bloc, in the line and program of the CPML. Still, a wide range of differences existed within the bloc, many of which initially surfaced on questions of party building: whether “fusion of the communist movement with the workers movement” or “theory” was primary now, whether “dogmatism” or “leftism” was the root of the problem and whether “centralized” forms were needed to move the bloc forward.
It soon became clear that the bloc had to establish at least the semblance of some definite principles on matters of political line if it was to attain any stability and not be condemned to total irrelevance. As soon as a list of “18 Principles of Unity” was established, however, the struggle sharpened, principally around the content of “Principle 18.”
What is Principle 18? It states: “The working class must practice the principles of proletarian internationalism; it must take up every struggle against imperialism anywhere in the world and champion it as its own struggle. In the present context the practice of proletarian internationalism is impossible without correctly identifying the main enemy of the worlds people. By main enemy Marxist-Leninists understand the main obstacle to the consolidation of national liberation, democracy, peace and socialism. Today that main enemy is U.S. imperialism.”
There are a number of things wrong with this statement, the most obvious of which is its unscientific assessment of the actual forces in the world today. It makes no mention of Soviet social-imperialism as one of two chief enemies and the most dangerous source of war.
But it is not really the aim of the OC to be scientific on this matter. Instead it wants a demagogic formula so it can establish itself as the headquarters of “anti-U.S. imperialism” while its opponents are tagged as “social-chauvinists” and “class collaborators” with the U.S. ruling class.
The problem for the OC and the PWOC is that this formulation doesn’t fit with the reality of the revolutionary movement in the U.S. The CPML and other Marxist-Leninists are known for waging class struggle against the U.S. bourgeoisie on all fronts–from the auto factories in Detroit, to the anti-Klan fight in the South, to building solidarity with the Azanian freedom fighters and the anti-Somoza upsurge in Nicaragua. As for “social-chauvinism,” it is well-known that the CPML supports and is part of the Afro-American peoples struggle for self-determination, while PWOC opposes this revolutionary demand.
Several groups within the OC wrote a position paper against the OCs adopting Principle 18 as a point of unity. Among other things, the paper explained that the principle did not demarcate a “left” opportunist line, since both right and “left” opportunists have stood on both sides of the issue. If the OC wanted to take a general stand against social-chauvinism, these groups offered an alternate to Principle 18, which was basically correct: “The chief responsibility of U.S. revolutionaries is to overthrow U.S. imperialism, while fighting against all imperialism.”
But this was not sufficient for PWOC and the OC majority. They insisted on the adoption of the original formulation and won. By doing so, however, they demonstrated a number of important points. First, they showed that the root problem in this particular debate is not over formulations about fighting or collaborating with U.S. imperialism, or about the chief responsibility of U.S. proletarian revolutionaries to overthrow their chief enemy, the U.S. ruling class.
The differences that should be the starting point in this debate are over the nature of revisionism and especially the Soviet Union. This also involves the Marxist view of the state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, class struggle under socialism, and the nature of imperialism and its law of uneven development.
Naturally, differences over the nature of revisionism and Soviet social-imperialism also have an effect on whether one fights the U.S. bourgeoisie correctly or incorrectly. If you think Soviet-backed invasions are acceptable tactics in the third world, what does this say about your view of the U.S. when it does the same? If you do not oppose the USSRs oppression of its minority nationalities, where will you stand on the national question in the U.S.? The communists are the most consistent fighters against fascism and imperialist aggression around the world.
PWOC itself supplies a noteworthy example in making an analogy, even though todays conditions are not identical, to the tactics of class struggle under the conditions of the worldwide front against fascism in World War II. It states in the May issue of its newspaper, The Organizer:
If the USSR is cast in the role of Nazi Germany and the U.S. is again to be a part of the democratic camp, then where does that leave we Marxist-Leninists in relation to our own bourgeoisie in the event of war? Is it not clear that the logic of both the analogy and Chinas view of events in the world today casts us in the role of supporters of our own ruling class?”
The answer is no. Even under the conditions of the wartime united front against fascism, the communists maintain their strategic aims and their independence. They persist in class struggle under the conditions at hand. That is, unless your name is Browder or Trotsky. Is PWOC suggesting that either of these lines were inevitable or correct during World War II or the events leading up to it?
PWOC only managed to spread a thick fog over the debate by stressing Principle 18 and the role of U.S. imperialism. But now the fog is lifting and PWOCs true features are being exposed. This is seen initially in the position paper of the OC minority, which states in opposition:
The Standing Committees view is the following: The contradiction between the proletariat and revisionism is a non-antagonistic contradiction. That view, in turn, is based on a definite view of the class nature of the Soviet Union: It is a socialist country, ruled by some sort of petty-bourgeoisie or labor aristocracy, whose interests are not directly opposed to the proletariat and the oppressed peoples of the world.” By backing Principle 18, they add, “We would be effectively uniting behind this analysis of revisionism, like it or not.”
PWOC begins to clutch at straws once the argument is put on these grounds. Its first line of defense, stated in the May issue of The Organizer, is that it doesn’t matter whether the Soviet Union is capitalist or socialist in naming the U.S. as the sole main enemy. It says:
An analysis of the main impediment to social progress in the world did not depend on whether the USSR is capitalist or socialist; if the Soviet Union were proven to be capitalist, it would no more be inherently a co-equal of U.S. imperialism than Japan.”
Really? One might ask PWOC how many countries Japan occupies with its troops, or why its nuclear striking force was not mentioned at the SALT talks, or how many coups or invasions Japan has organized in the last 5 or 10 years, or how many Soviet islands Japan has annexed, or how Japan managed to get an army that matches the Soviet forces without anyone noticing. PWOC’s ridiculous claim here is merely the result of upholding a dogma that the U.S. must always be the sole main enemy, no matter what the conditions are and in spite of the great changes in the world since the 1950s.
PWOC’s second line of defense is one of its more well known features–pin the label of “dogma” on any tenet of Marxism you disagree with or dont understand. Getting clear on the Soviet Union is very important, PWOC says, but the “thesis of capitalist restoration” is “dogma” and “without throwing off this baggage, there can be no question of advancing the development of Marxism-Leninism in the modern period.”
PWOC admits that the OC majority is not consolidated on its view of the Soviet Union. As to the Soviet Union being capitalist, “the majority had grave reservations about this view. Although only a section of the majority would argue that the Soviet Union is socialist (such as ourselves), even those among the majority who had previously supported the restoration thesis were open to re-examining their suppositions.”
PWOC’s third line of defense is one of desperate attack. In discussing the question of capitalist restoration and class struggle under socialism, PWOC’s opponents obviously referred to the theory and analysis developed by Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party, just as, when discussing the question of imperialism, one would refer to Lenin and the Bolshevik party. PWOCs response is also to label Mao Zedong Thought, a component part of Marxism-Leninism, as a “dogma” and “baggage” to be overthrown.
PWOC continues this attack with some anti-communist slander of the Communist Party of China. The CPC, it says, is the “international headquarters of ultra-leftism.” It accuses Marxist-Leninists of “marching to the baton of the CPC.” And in response to a recent joint delegation of six U.S. Marxist-Leninist organizations to China, PWOC says the CPC “will use their influence to press all those on the delegation to unite with the CPML and subordinate their differences with its line to the common good of support for the CPCs united front against hegemonism–i.e., the Soviet Union.”
Set aside for a moment PWOC’s claim that the CPC is “ultra-left” or PWOC’s view of the three worlds theory. It is pretty well known in the international communist movement that the CPC refuses to consider itself as the “international headquarters” of anything and that it steadfastly refuses to “wave the baton” in relations between parties. This was one of the points of difference between China and Albania.
China also practices what it preaches. This was completely evident to the U.S. Marxist-Leninist delegation. While the CPC and all genuine communists support the general trend of Marxist-Leninist unification around the world, the CPC has consistently refused to intervene in the internal affairs of the American revolution. PWOC’s fantasies about “what must have happened” during the delegations visit only provides us with a display of PWOC’s own anticommunism.
What can be summed up from this analysis of the debate in the OC and PWOC’s role within it?
First, the struggle around Principle 18 and the role of U.S. imperialism is a ruse, a diversionary ploy. It got PWOC a 15-to-l majority vote, but PWOC itself admits this majority was not unified on the basic issues in question. Moreover, PWOC also confirms this by stating that the challenge to Mao Zedong Thought was “an even larger contribution of the conferences than the actual resolution of the correct line of demarcation.”
In fact, if PWOC wanted to draw a really substantial line of demarcation on a principled basis, it would have reworded Principle 18 as follows:
• “In the present context, the practice of proletarian internationalism is impossible without correctly identifying the Soviet Union as a socialist country and China as the reactionary headquarters of left opportunism. Whatever its weaknesses, the USSR plays a progressive role in the world overall; whatever its strengths, China plays a reactionary role. Modern revisionism has no basic antagonistic contradiction with Marxism-Leninism, but Mao Zedong Thought is not part of Marxism-Leninism but a reactionary imperialist dogma hostile to it. For these and other reasons, we must view the Soviet Union as a powerful ally, the U.S. as the main enemy, and China as a secondary enemy that poses the greater danger within the revolutionary movement.”
Perhaps PWOC would still have gotten a majority of the OC to vote in favor of such a statement; perhaps not. But those followers of the centrist line who may have some doubts about where PWOC is leading them would do well to note that these are the basic differences if has with the CPML and other Marxist-Leninists on international questions. As to other matters, the CPML places importance on solving problems of both right and “left” errors, on the matter of “fusion,” and so on. The real question is whether one uses Marxism or revisionism to solve these problems.
But as for PWOC, where is it headed, after all? It can become a semi-Trotskyite sect. It can lead a group of centrists back into the CPUSA as a “left” faction. Or it can head up a kind of pro-Soviet social-democratic grouping that serves as a “loyal opposition” to the CPUSA. It definitely will not be able to form a genuine Marxist-Leninist party.
The centrist camp is in growing disarray. In part this is due to its internal weaknesses. But there is also an objective factor conditioning its confusion the growing aggressiveness of Soviet social-imperialism. Worldwide it is provoking two tendencies within the anti-imperialist forces. One is to capitulate, to find these changes “progressive.” The other is to resist, to stand firm against superpower hegemonism and the danger of war. That choice is becoming clearer to those in and around the OC.