It’s important that we realize that often in the communist movement political struggle tends to take on a hothouse character. In the midst of all the charges and counter-charges, it’s easy to lose sight of what is really at issue, what is really being debated, and what are the political implications of the two views in contention. In fact the whole debate can seem, and very often does seem, to many people to be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
It’s particularly important not to lose sight of the political consequences of our debate here today because the two views in contention have the utmost political significance. And in order that we do not do so I would like to open my remarks by setting our debate in the context of developments in the international arena.
Recently the people of the world narrowly escaped a major catastrophe– a catastrophe that would have severely tested the capacities of all Marxists-Leninists. The events in South East Asia brought the world perilously close to a third World War. A melt-down of the situation resulting from Chinese aggression on Viet Nam would not have led just to the slaughtering of thousands of people but of hundreds of millions, and perhaps set all of humanity back into the dark ages. It is impossible to underestimate the destructive capacity of such a conflict.
Yet, is it not the case that even the narrow section of the anti-revisionist movement in this room could not unite in opposition to those primarily responsible for this situation? It is perfectly clear to all who care to open their eyes that this war would have been the continuation of the joint policy of the leaders of the CPC and the most reactionary and chauvinistic sections of the US ruling class. Their policy calls for setting up an international united front of US imperialism, European imperialism, Japanese imperialism, and People’s China directed against the SU. This front would see as its primary purpose promoting counter-revolution all over the world and would be spearheaded by none other than US imperialism. From this it follows that the primary force behind this development and the primary force to oppose is none other than US imperialism.
But the majority of the anti-revisionist movement, and in particular the minority representatives and its leading element, the PUL, as well, are so thoroughly blinded by ultra-leftism that they would enter into an alliance with US imperialism in this reactionary purpose. This fact is clearly demonstrated by their open support for China’s aggression against Viet Nam.
Let us contemplate the significance of these developments. Once again we see our “left” internationalists making preparations to collaborate with US imperialism. But this time it is no minor act of support for US inspired counterrevolution. No, they are prepared to collaborate in an assault of immense proportions–an assault directed not only against the working class but on all humanity.
For this reason I think it is particularly important that we not lose sight of political implications of our struggle here today. Not only because today we are faced with defending proletarian internationalism from attacks by those who would have us ignore these dangers looming on the international horizon but also because today we are faced with defeating those who are attempting to prevent us from breaking decisively with an opportunist line. This incorrect line threatens to lead us into advocating a counterrevolutionary world war spearheaded by our own ruling class. So as we take up the issues before us let us not forget that we live in the real world, that important conflicts are developing in the international arena, and that our discussion today is inextricably bound up with these developments.
The particular question that has been put before us is this: What does proletarian internationalism mean to those of us who desire to consolidate an anti-ultra-left tendency within the anti-revisionist movement in the US? To be more concrete, we are faced with defining a proper starting point for the development of our tendency’s international line. I would like to emphasize “starting point” and emphasize it for two reasons. First of all, we must begin with a genuine break from the ultra-left international line–a line which has already exposed itself in instance after instance of collaboration with the US bourgeoisie. But we must remember that we cannot consolidate that break fully just on the basis of point 18. And second, we must recognize that our alternative line as expressed in point 18 is only a beginning one. It’s a step toward the development of a full Marxist-Leninist international line but only an initial and partial one. It is only by pursuing the development of this international line that we can attain a firm basis for proletarian internationalism.
It is not of course any formulation that can serve as such a starting point. It’s clear the formulation cannot be, abstract. It can’t be formulated without reference to the historical evolution of the anti-revisionist movement in general and the emergence of the anti-“left” or anti-ultra-left tendency in particular. And it cannot be opportunist. It cannot be formulated without reference to profound differences in principle, between the bulk of the ultra-lefts and those of us who are genuinely anti-“left,” consistently anti-“left,” and in particular, an assessment of these differences and their significance for the task of building a genuine Marxist-Leninist tendency.
Both the majority and the minority viewpoints should be subjected to the test of these three criteria. The majority view is as follows: “In the present context the practice of proletarian internationalism is impossible without: correctly identifying the main enemy of the world’s people. Today that main enemy is US imperialism.” To this our minority counterposes: “The chief responsibility of US revolutionaries is to overthrow US imperialism while fighting against all imperialism.”
In our view the majority position has the distinctive advantage of meeting all the criteria. It is concrete. It takes 2 explicit and a precise stand. It defines the anti-“lefts” in relationship to other views. It is historical. It immediately identifies our tendency with a central two-line struggle that has emerged generally in our movement and in particular with the watershed of the ultra-left line. And it is not opportunist. It states clearly that the consistent practice of proletarian internationalism is impossible without the identification of US imperialism as the main enemy, and it states that no genuine Marxist-Leninist tendency can be constructed without unity on this point.
Now let’s examine the minority’s point of view. Is it not apparent that it does not fulfill any of these criteria? It is abstract. It takes no explicit or precise stand; does nothing to define our tendency in relationship to the ultra-lefts; and in fact, there is not a single ultra-left group that could not unite with this formulation. It is ahistorical. It connects us with no two-line struggle and avoids connection with the watershed of ultra-leftism in particular. And it is opportunist. It seeks to cover over our fundamental differences–especially any assessment of the significance of those differences for building a genuine Marxist-Leninist trend.
The question each of us must ask ourselves is this: Why does our minority fail to meet these criteria? Clearly they do not intend to be abstract, ahistorical, or opportunist. We do not doubt their sincerity on this point. But the point is that objectively they have no choice. They have no choice for the very simple reason that they are fighting not for a genuine break with ultra-leftism, but for a conciliation of ultra-leftism. They have no choice because they are concentrating all their efforts not on opposing ultra-leftism but on fighting for a place for “left” internationalism in our tendency. This is true for both the Milwaukee Alliance Workers Unity Organization current and the dominant BPO, CUO, and PUL current. Their arguments differ in minor elements of form. But their essence is one and the same. Both currents oppose any genuine break with “left” internationalism and both advocate conciliation.
Now obviously explicit advocacy of conciliation is not a possibility. It will not wash. So our minority must erect a smokescreen for its objectives and seek to conceal the views that underlie those objectives. In response it is our responsibility to unearth the basis of opposition to point 18 and expose its real essence.
At first, our minority attempted to conceal its objectives primarily by playing on the danger of sectarianism. Not only did they argue that we should not separate ourselves from the lefts on international line, but they thought it was incorrect in principle to demarcate on any question of political line. In response we argued first that a struggle against ultra-leftism must focus on political line for the very simple reason that “left” opportunism appeared first and in most pronounced form on questions of political line. Second we argued that the key two-line struggle between Marxism-Leninism and ultra-leftism was precisely on a question of political line–namely on “left” internationalism. And third, that it was opportunist to speak of building a genuine anti-left tendency without breaking with “left” internationalism.
Although a subordinate current desires to cling to it a little longer, in the main our minority has abandoned this line of argument. Now they charge that our formulation, US imperialism is the main enemy of the peoples of the world, “invites collaboration” with revisionism and so called Soviet social-imperialism in particular. And while this charge still does not get to the heart of our disagreement, it does represent a real step forward in the struggle between majority and minority. First, because I think it clearly reveals that the minority as a whole and particularly its leading center, PUL, is not genuinely concerned about the dangers of “left” errors by the OC. Instead they fear that we will carry the struggle against ultra-leftism too far and criticize its international headquarters in the Communist Party of China. Second, it does come closer to an expression of the only genuine theoretical basis for opposition to point 18.
The real basis for the minority’s opposition to point 18 is this: both currents on the minority lean strongly towards China’s theory of the “three worlds.” Just very briefly, the “three worlds” theory is an attempt to elaborate a theoretical foundation for a strategic alliance between the Chinese Communist Party and US imperialism, an alliance directed against the SU and the working class and the oppressed peoples of the world. Now for a long time, both the ultra-lefts in our minority denied that this reactionary alliance between China and US imperialism was the core of China’s international line. They said that we were distorting China’s policies and that in particular William Hinton was entirely incorrect in his interpretation of the developing perspective of the leadership of the CPC. At the same time, the leadership of the CPC was pursuing this alliance; and in fact, did everything short of hiring a skywriter to inform the people of the world that it really did believe that it was correct to unite with US imperialism against the Soviets.
Still, the ultra-lefts in our minority denied that China had any intention of uniting with the US. Now, however, Deng Hsiao Ping has pulled the rug out from under them in his interview in Time Magazine. In that interview he makes no bones about it and says explicitly that the US is part of the CPC’s united front against the SU. (It’s quite apparent that comrade Deng was not particularly sensitive to the position of our minority in the OC.) Thus it is now clear that the theory of “three worlds” means, in essence, a strategic alliance between China, the US, Japan, and Western Europe against the Soviets and the peoples of the world.
Unity between our minority’s political center, PUL, and the “three worlds” theory has been known for some time. PUL has tried to keep it quiet but they are willing to own up to agreement with the “three worlds” theory in private conversations, while at the same time, trying to maximize minor differences in particular events. But in essence they hold to the line of the “three worlds.” And recently BPO and CUO have also expressed unity with this theory by explicitly supporting China’s counterrevolutionary aggression against Viet Nam among other things.
In the case of the Milwaukee Alliance (MA), the role of the “three worlds” theory is more difficult to demonstrate. This is true for two reasons: first, the MA comrades claim not to have a line on the international situation. And second, the MA comrades also explicitly disagree with China’s position on Angola. In this latter respect I would say that while it comes a little late the recent MA pamphlet on Angola does represent an important step forward from the position of the rest of our minority in several respects. It recognizes that it was wrong not to support the MPLA. It also recognizes that the US was the principal enemy of the Angolan people. And finally, it recognizes that the failure to oppose US intervention in Angola did stem from ultra-leftism.
Nevertheless, –and especially given that it was written in late 1978, 3 years after the events it describes–this pamphlet presents a shallow, partial, and narrow analysis, of the Angolan question. It is shallow in the following respects. First, it fails to connect Angola with a whole series of errors around international line made by the ultra-lefts–errors which occurred both before and after Angola. For example, just recall the position of the ultra-lefts on Portugal, on the Persian Gulf, their slogan “two superpowers out of Puerto Rico,” and their position on the situation in Zaire on two distinct and separate occasions. And consider the support of the ultra-lefts (and the minority comrade raises the failure of the SU to support the PLO!) for Sadat’s peace initiative, endorsed both by the CP(ML) and the CPC, and most recently the treacherous invasion of Viet Nam. So the pamphlet isolates Angola from a whole series of similar errors.
Second, the MA pamphlet fails to connect Angola with a counterrevolutionary general line which provided the theoretical foundation for China’s support for US imperialism –the theory of the “three worlds.” In the MA’s view it would seem that Angola was not a manifestation of an incorrect general line and orientation but a minor aberration in an otherwise sound foreign policy. This same approach is characteristic of the minority, including BPO, CUO, and PUL. They are willing to say that they disagree with Deng’s interview in Time, that they disagree with the united front against hegemonism, but at the same time they want to uphold the theoretical foundation of that united front in the “three worlds” analysis. They are willing to make minor differences with the CPC’s points of view and perspective: they don’t want to support Deng’s remark that the US should have played a more decisive role in intervening in Iran. But at the same time they want to uphold the general theory on which that line and policy is founded–a theory which has developed and matured over a period of five years or more.
And most importantly for our present discussion the MA pamphlet fails to see any implications of the events in Angola for determining the question of who is the main enemy of the peoples of the world. Now comrades should ask themselves this question: Why does the MA not follow through on its critique of Angola?
The answer is manifested in the pamphlet itself. The pamphlet makes clear that the MA and its leadership has very strong leanings towards the theory of “three worlds.” Consider, for example, the fact that while the MA claims it does not have an overall line on the international situation and on the nature of the USSR, it does not hesitate to call the SU a “superpower.” Now the usage of this term in relationship to the SU originated with the CPC and it has a very precise meaning. Let me quote to you from Peking Review. What is a superpower? “The distinctive features of a superpower are as follows: its state apparatus is controlled by the monopoly capital in its most concentrated form, and it relies on its economic and military power which is far greater than that of other countries to carry on economic exploitation and political oppression and to strive for military control on a global scale.” Thus the usage of this term implies a belief in both capitalist restoration and so-called Soviet social imperialism.
The MA also writes about, and again no quotation marks –the “neo-colonial interests of the USSR.” Could the SU have “neo-colonial interests” without being imperialist in the Leninist sense? Obviously not. And we should also note that the MA is fond of using the term “Mao-Zedong Thought.” Now we don’t have any problems with views that see Mao as a great Marxist-Leninist, as a main contributor to the development of the critique of revisionism. But what is the meaning of “Mao-Zedong Thought?” Is it not in essence an attempt to give legitimacy to a number of theories that were advanced by Mao-Zedong particularly in the recent period and including the theory of the “three worlds,” which has a very explicitly and precise stand on the international situation. You cannot uphold “Mao-Zedong Thought” without upholding the theory of the “three worlds.” The Chinese Communist Party makes it clear that this is the case, they make no bones about it, and I think it’s clear from the whole history of development of that term that all the forces, that hold to the formulation “Marxism-Leninism Mao-Zedong Thought” make a principle out of defending the “three worlds” theory.
Thus it’s clear, that all segments of our minority to varying degrees pay homage to the theory of the “three worlds.”
A central feature of this counterrevolutionary theory is the idea as BPO puts it, that the SU “is a superpower capable of contending with the US on the world scale” and that therefore it must be regarded, “as one of the two main enemies of the world’s people.” Now no one in our tendency would deny that the USSR is active on a world scale, nor that it contends with the US for hegemony. But even if we grant capitalist restoration–and many of us including myself do not, and how could we given the feeble presentations of that line of argument or China’s flip flop on Yugoslavia which was once held to be a capitalist country and becomes a socialist country overnight, or their totally self-serving analysis of Rumania which is a socialist country although it has a socio-economic makeup very similar to East Germany which is a capitalist country. But even if we grant capitalist restoration, the fact that the USSR is active on a world scale or that it contends with US imperialism is not sufficient to uphold that it is one of the two main enemies of the world’s people. Instead, what has to be demonstrated, is that the USSR is capable of contending with the US as its qualitative equal.
Here, I’d like to use the example Muhammed Ali and myself. I am capable of entering into the ring with Muhammed Ali and raising my fists (although I would not like to do so). But am I capable of contending with Muhammed Ali on a qualitatively equal basis? Clearly not.
It is only qualitative equality that can provide the basis for disputing that it is the US which remains the main enemy of the world’s people. Such equality neither the Chinese Communists, nor the Albanians, nor our minority can demonstrate for the very simple reason that any genuinely scientific and Marxist analysis will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Soviets are not capable of contending on an equal basis with the US. On the contrary, the US has distinct military, political, and economic advantages over the USSR which when taken together provide a qualitatively and overwhelming advantage in contention for hegemony. And this is what we are talking about–not just the relative strength of the two countries–but their ability to contend for hegemony, to promote the policies of imperialism.
Let’s examine the facts. Militarily the US has a distinct advantage. While the US and the Soviets do have what bourgeois scientists call “strategic military parity,” this phrase is misleading. It only means that neither can wipe out the other without suffering unacceptable consequences; it does not mean that both have qualitatively equal military might. If one takes the total NATO forces and measures them, including US imperialism (There was a funny situation last week when the BPO representative gave statistics on NATO and just happened by accident to leave out US imperialism and all its forces)...if you measure the total of NATO, including the US (and of course, the BPO comrade did not forget to include the SU in the Warsaw Pact–just to make myself clear) against the Warsaw Pact, including the SU, it is clear that the US bloc–and we are dealing with international military blocs not just a single power–has an edge in almost every respect, including manpower, tanks, and missiles. It even out spends the Warsaw bloc presently by about $10 billion annually for military appropriations.
But quantitative analysis does not reveal the real edge of US imperialism. You can talk about cannons and field artillery, but if we’re going to measure the means of modern warfare, the US and its allies have an even clearer advantage. The US has clear advantages in sea power, particularly aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Are not these the means of modern warfare? (Our comrades from the MA lists Soviet destroyers, battleships, and escort ships which were the means of warfare in the Second World War. If we were talking about that period they could be measured. But we are today talking about different techniques of warfare, and aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines are key.) In air power, which is also key strategically, the US has an advantage both in strategic bombers and advanced fighters. And most especially it has an advantage of overall nuclear fire power: less missiles but an ability to deliver a much higher destructive power. Finally, consider the particularly significant advantage to the US in its 3 to 10 year gap over the Soviets in military technology–a gap which according to all experts shows no signs of closing. The significance of this technological gap can be shown by a simple example. Over the last few years the Soviets have spent in excess of a hundred billion dollars on constructing an air defense system. This system has cost, and continues to cost, in excess of $15 billion a year to maintain. But according to military experts this whole system has been rendered utterly useless and totally ineffective by the development of the Cruise missile. The Cruise missile costs the US less than 1% of the hundred billion spent by the Soviets. Let us not forget that arms sales are particularly important in the contention for hegemony. It is a fact that countries buy Soviet arms only when the US alternatives are unavailable for political reasons. This is why in 1975 the top three in the US bloc sold over $5 billion in arms, a figure which is more than double the top 3 in the Warsaw Pact.
So that it is clear, in the military aspect of contention for hegemony, the US has a clear qualitative edge–an edge which becomes even more decisive, when political and economic aspects are considered.
Politically, US hegemony is also more potent. If one examines the concretes and not just the empirical evidence it is clear that the development of US hegemony is almost always associated with steps towards shoring up capitalist exploitation and oppression and restrictions on the rights of the masses, that is almost always accompanies by social retrogression. But Soviet hegemony–even in the cases of Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and other places which have been pointed to–is usually accompanied by advances in socialization and democracy.
This is why a break in the chain of US domination almost always requires a social revolution and a protracted revolutionary struggle. Consider for a moment, the significance of the struggle of the people of Viet Nam against US imperialism. They had to fight not only a foreign enemy but domestic props with significant political and economic power in their own country who are in alliance with imperialism. Consider the protracted struggle waged in Angola. Consider the struggle in Zimbabwe, or consider the struggle in Iran. Or perhaps the failure of the revolutionary struggle in Chile. What do they tell you about the power of US imperialism and what it takes to throw US imperialism out.
But is it not a fact, in contrast, that a break with the Soviets is often accomplished without social or even political revolution? Contrast for example, the positively unceremonious dumping of the Soviets in the Sudan, Egypt, India, or more recently Somalia. In India, the Soviets lost a preeminent position through an election. Where in history has imperialism ever been dumped by elections? In Sudan, Egypt, and Somalia, the Soviets were given the boot without even so much as a change in the leadership. Even in the Soviet’s own backyard, Eastern Europe, while the dangers of armed intervention are clearly greater it is not so difficult to stand up to the Kremlin. Do not the examples of Rumania and Yugoslavia show this to be true? Can anyone really imagine any country in Western Europe standing up to US imperialism in the way that Albania has stood up to the Soviets?
Let’s also consider the rather shallow argument about the “socialist cover” of the SU. If one opens one’s eyes to the real world it is clear that wearing the mask of socialism is not always an advantage–particularly when it comes to contending for hegemony over countries where a capitalist system is in power. Is the socialist cover an advantage in Egypt? Is it an advantage in the Arab countries? Is it an advantage in most of the African countries? If it was such an advantage you wouldn’t find US imperialism making such political capital out of its human rights initiative on an international scale. Nor would you find it so eager to pin the socialist label on the SU, calling it a communist subversive force. The human rights campaign is a direct appeal to the national bourgeoisie in these countries that provides a major prop for US imperialism. So when we talk about this “socialist cover” let’s look at it in an all-sided way.
It’s in the economic sphere where the real qualitative superiority of US imperialism becomes abundantly clear. Is not economic strength in the modern world the base of political and military strength? Consider a few of the US economic advantages in creating economic dependency. Remember that we’re talking about mechanisms to create and promote economic dependency which is the basis from a Marxist standpoint of all imperialist hegemony. The US has the muscle provided by 137 billion dollars in direct foreign investments. And these investments not only provide the basis for the export of capital but they are concentrated in key sectors of industry in underdeveloped nations and Europe, those sectors which are central to economic independence. The Soviets, even on the most inflated account, have less than 0.5% of US investment.
The US is also the main financier of the debt of the underdeveloped countries. These nations owe the US and its allies in excess of $175 billion. This debt allows the US to dictate plans for development and economic growth in a manner totally out of reach of the Soviets. For example, contrast Zaire and Egypt. Zaire’s debt to the US banks was so substantial that it had to agree to direct intervention on the part of the international monetary fund or face economic collapse. And in 1978 the international monetary fund sent one of its agents to take over and direct the Zairean ministry of finance as a condition for continued credit. But a few years ago the Egyptians renounced the debt of $1 billion to the Soviets and have suffered no economic repercussions whatsoever. Can anyone imagine a unilateral liquidation of debt to US imperialism, the US banks and international capitalist finance short of withdrawal from the capitalist world?
Incidentally, it’s worth noting that the SU is itself in hock to the West to the tune of $19 billion, a debt that has grown 10 fold in the last 7 years. Now our comrades from the minority want to deny the significance of this and so they raise the issue of US history. They say US imperialism was a debtor nation prior to World War I. But the difference is that in the early 20th century the US had developed strength in precisely those areas which lead to strength in the international sphere and international economic competition particularly in exports. If we look at the situation in trade and compare the SU and US imperialism we’ll see the difference between the US prior to World War I, and also the US and the SU today. The US today has advantage in trade in precisely the areas which make for dependency in underdeveloped countries. The US exports are primarily finished capital goods; steel, machinery, and computers, and agricultural commodities. These same commodities also happen to be the primary imports of underdeveloped countries and as all economic studies show also the source of their dependence on the U.S Soviet exports, in contrast, are mainly raw materials; also like the exports of underdeveloped countries. On the other hand, they primarily import finished goods and agricultural commodities, also like the underdeveloped countries. And if you take competition between Soviet goods and US products you will see that the Soviet products am not competitive in either their price on their quality in international markets. It takes the SU twice the input of labor power to produce the same good that is produced in the US. And their commodities are universally recognized to be of shoddy quality.
Finally, let’s examine economic aid which has long been a mechanism for establishing imperialist domination. To show Soviet “export of capital” our comrades from the MA point to its economic aid. But the MA adopts an empiricist methodology. Because they do not look at the distinctions between amounts and kind of aid provided by the SU and the US. Between 1954 and 1975 the SU dispensed some $11 billion in economic aid. During that same period the US gave out over $81 billion or almost 8 times as much. And total Soviet aid represents only 1% of the total annual aid flows to the underdeveloped countries.
Here again, quantitative analysis cannot reveal the distinction between Soviet and US aid as a source of domination. As has been demonstrated over and over again, US aid is designed to promote economic dependency on US imperialism. But Soviet aid, while it may be said to promote political dependency, more often fosters economic independence. According to all accounts Soviet aid is generally, although there are some exceptions, given at extremely low interest rates. Most of this aid has been given at rates of interest between 2 and a half or 3% over a period of 12 years. Anyone who has studied the terms of economic aid from US imperialism will see that this is totally out of line with anything that the US finance mechanisms do. But even more importantly Soviet aid is mainly concentrated in public sector development, particularly in state industry. For example, three-quarters of all Soviet aid has gone into heavy industry –something unheard of for US imperialism. The US does not invest in any industries that may compete with its exports, nor does it invest in any industries that may provide a basis for economic independence. Examples of the SU’s public sector projects are the Aswan dam in Egypt, the Bokaro steel mill in India, the Eskafan steel mill in Iran, and the oil industry in Iraq and Syria. In each case these projects and their development have provided a basis for economic independence for the countries that own these projects. And in no case, comrades, has the SU retained ownership of the plants and projects that it has built. Can we say the same for the US?
Thus it is clear that the Soviets are economically inferior in terms of supplying capital, financing, trade, and economic aid. And are not these precisely the tools of the struggle for economic hegemony and political hegemony? Let me also point out that we have not taken into account such other important factors as US dominance in currency in dealings, international banking, various trade cartels, and so on. We could go on, but it is clear that by any significant yardstick the Soviets are incapable of contending on an equal basis with the US. No one, comrades, can present any significant evidence to the contrary.
All this brings us to the following question: If US qualitative supremacy is so clear what prevents our ultra-left and minority comrades from acknowledging the fact? Their reluctance to face up to these facts stems from two things, one subordinate and the other dominant. The first, and subordinate, is empiricism. Examine for example the analysis of Soviet military strength advance in the article, “Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of Three Worlds is a Major Contribution of Marxism-Leninism.” It advances 4 areas of what it calls Soviet superiority over the US. It does not speak to any of the economic, political factors that I’ve mentioned, ignoring any statistics or facts in those areas. But it advances the following facts in relation to military balance. It compares numbers of men, tanks, armored cars, and field guns, the number of missile launchers, the total tonnage of the Soviet navy and the Soviet defense budget. Leaving aside the fact that these statistics are all drawn – and you can see it in the sources –from the Pentagon’s estimates made yearly at budget time, it is apparent that the Chinese are trying to mislead people. The Soviet advantage in men, tanks, and other minor armaments, and its larger defense appropriations, even if we accept these statistics, are liquidated as soon as one considers the Warsaw Pact and NATO, and that, comrades, is why the BPO comrade had to drop US imperialism out of NATO. The Soviet advantage in missile launchers is more than made up for by the larger throw-weight and better targetability of US missiles. The reference to Soviet naval tonnage is positively amusing. In their calculations, the Chinese include a thousand Soviet patrol boats, mine sweepers, and other small craft, and hold this up as balance for the tonnage of US aircraft carriers. Comrades, is it not absurd to measure patrol boats against aircraft carriers?
Another example of empiricism is the fact that the Chinese point to the development of the US in decline and the Soviets making progress. But these developments are not analyzed scientifically and no attempt is made to show that the US has declined qualitatively in relationship to the SU. The fact that the US is in decline does not make it any less the main impediment to social progress. The MA, for example, tries to buttress the Chinese position by pointing to the historic tendency of the rising imperialist powers to attempt to pass themselves off as champions of national liberation struggles. It is true that rising imperialist powers have on occasion tried to attach their tail to the kite of a national liberation force. But it is not true that any rising imperialist power has supported a genuine national liberation movement. In all of the examples–we cannot go through them one by one, I don’t have time to do it-raised by our minority there is not one case of genuine support for a national liberation movement, helping it develop and consolidate its power. In fact, the only case of genuine support for a “national liberation movement” that can be brought to bear is the support of Nazi Germany given to the so-called struggles of German “National Minorities” in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria.
In fact, if one wants to judge on the basis of decline and progress and adopt an empiricist method so dear to the heart of our ultra-lefts, recent developments would seem to indicate advances in the US position. What is the significance of the Middle East peace? Did not the US displace the SU, push it out of the negotiations and did it not succeed in bringing in Egypt, the largest Arab power, into an alliance with Israel against the interests of the Palestinian people? What about the recent alliance between China and the US? What is the significance from an empirical standpoint, from the standpoint of the kind of analysis offered by our minority of this development for the relations of power between the SU and US imperialism.
Aside from that, even the so-called Soviet advances are viewed in a totally empirical manner. For example the BPO parrots the Chinese and says that recent developments in Afghanistan represent an advance for Soviet imperialism and the forces of retrogression. Since when, comrades, does a genuine democratic revolution–not a socialist, but a democratic revolution –represent an advance for any kind of imperialism? And is that not precisely what has occurred in Afghanistan? What is the meaning of cancelling all poor and landless debt? What is the meaning of redistributing land to 32 million peasants? What is the meaning of setting profit ceilings for training and industry: of setting price controls for food; of abolishing that “nice” feudal custom of, payments by bridegrooms to the bride’s father for marriage rights; and of legalizing trade unions, women’s organizations, and other mass organizations? Does that represent an advance for imperialism?
For our “lefts” however, empiricism plays second fiddle to “left-wing” exaggerations of the danger of revisionism. This is why so much emphasis is placed on such phrases as “Flaunting the banner of socialism to bluff and deceive people everywhere.” This is why so much is made of “revisionism holding state power,” as if revisionism was a variety of monopoly capitalism like fascism. It is through playing on such ridiculous phrases that the ultra-lefts seek to elevate a secondary and qualitatively lesser enemy above the real main enemy of the peoples of the world. And it is this same exaggeration of the danger of revisionism that has led our “lefts” to collaborate with US imperialism in Angola, Portugal, the Persian Gulf, Zaire, Sadat’s peace initiative, and most recently, and hardly the least significant, with China’s counterrevolutionary attack on Viet Nam.
Thus, it can be clearly seen that ultra-leftism does underlie the opposition of our minority to point 18. It is precisely this infantile approach to the struggle against revisionism which is so clearly revealed in the attack on the OC steering committee for “inviting collaboration” with revisionism. And it is this same approach to the struggle against revisionism that explains their whole effort to prevent the consolidation of a genuine anti-“left” tendency.
Now let us address the question of why is it that it is so important to demarcate with “left” internationalism. Why is it that no genuine anti-“left” tendency can emerge that does not separate itself from ultra-leftism on this point?
First, any historical analysis will show that “left” internationalism has been key to the ultra-left line as a whole. “Left” internationalism has been the central point of attachment of the ultra-lefts to their international center in the CPC. If you look at the historical development of the communist movement in this country you will see that not one of the many forces which reneged on the struggle against ultra-leftism ever developed any significant critique of the CPC and its international line. And the organization that has made the most of its “left” internationalism, that has parrotted and followed every nuance and shade of Chinese foreign policy even to the point of printing two opposite statements at the same time is the CP(ML). Has not this organization achieved the dominant position among the ultra-lefts?
Was it not the need to adhere to the center of the ultra-left trend internationally that caused the split in the RCP? Study Red Papers 8. The Revolutionary Workers Headquarters is upheld by our minority as part of the “anti“-left “reaction.” We do not deny that they have some critique of ultra-leftism. But study Red Papers 8 and you will see that any questions facing the US working class receive short shrifts and the major question, fully three-quarters of that document, is devoted to the struggle between the Gang of 4 and Chairman Hua.
“Left” internationalism has also caused BACU to renounce the struggle against “left” opportunism and return to the camp of the ultra-lefts. BACU was one of the earliest voices of our tendency. But BACU never broke with “left” internationalism and tried, at the same time as opposing “leftism,” to uphold unity with the CPC’s international line. Two years ago, all of a sudden, revisionism becomes the main danger, and the “three worlds” theory becomes the key line of demarcation in the communist movement.
The “three worlds” theory is the basis, also, for the developing unity among ultra-lefts and certain sections of the so-called anti-left reaction. Recently a trip to China included the CP(ML), the League of Revolutionary Struggle, BACU, Revolutionary Workers Headquarters, and PUL. All these forces united in a trip to China which was off limits to any force that opposed the “three worlds” theory. They set their goals in the following order, the primary goal was to build unity with the CPC, the leadership of the international ultra-left trend, and a secondary goal was to build unity among US Marxists-Leninists. Can anyone doubt what the character of that unity will be? Can anyone seriously contend that that unity will be characterized by opposition to ultra-leftism?
Second, “left” internationalism is the most exposed point in the ultra-left line; it best demonstrates the treachery of “left” opportunism. It showed concretely that our “lefts” were willing to oppose legitimate national liberation movements in Angola and a number of other situations. It showed that they were willing to attack socialist countries and read those countries out of the socialist movement. And it showed that they were also willing to align themselves with racist South Africa and fascist Chile. (It is a fact that China has outstanding loans of a hundred million dollars to the Junta.) But that was not enough, they were even willing to collaborate with their own ruling class. And now we see that collaboration taken to the point of supporting US condoned aggression against the historic Vietnamese revolution.
Now according to comrades who are active in the international arena around South Africa, they say that there are indications that China might support the internal settlement in Zimbabwe. And I can’t say that that’s true. We can’t prove it. But can anyone doubt that if China did so that our so-called anti-“lefts,” PUL and these other forces, would rush to support the internal settlement as well? Can we doubt this based on the history of these comrades and their stand on international issues? We can not.
Third, and the most important reason for breaking with “left” internationalism is that without such a break there can be no real struggle against ultra-leftism. The historic pole of ultra-leftism over the last 14 years has been the CPC. Wherever they’ve waved the baton the ultra-lefts have followed. Without at least an initial break with the CPC no genuine Marxist-Leninist trend can be built anymore than an anti-revisionist trend can develop without breaking with the CPSU. History has demonstrated this fact over and over again.
Even the history of PUL’s opposition to the OC demonstrates that no anti-“left” trend can be built without breaking with “left” internationalism. In the last two years PUL concentrated all its energies not on the critique of ultra-leftism but in fact on trying to prevent the consolidation of the OC against “left” internationalism. In fact, at the last point 18 conference some of the comrades from the minority (I think it was a CUO comrade) made the statement that any deviation from the CPC, any break of any kind with the CPC other than a minor difference, any deviation in terms of line or any break with “Mao-Zedong Thought” is, in essence and by definition, revisionism.
This is what underlies the struggle around point 18. These are the views that are being presented. With PUL supporters in the OC it will be utterly impossible to deepen our critique of the ultra-left line because they will stop at nothing to prevent us from identifying the CPC as the headquarters of that line.
Before closing my remarks I would once again like to remind you of what is happening in the real world. Is it apparent that the most consistent advocates of “left” internationalism are on the verge of passing from being a class collaborationist trend in the working class movement to being a social imperialist one–and in the Leninist sense of the word? Consider the historical development. The drift towards social imperialism began with the CP(ML)’s opposition to the so-called appeasement policy which they say characterizes the dominant view of US imperialism, and is centered, of all places, in the Pentagon. And it has matured with the CP(ML). PUL, and BPO supporting Chinese aggression against Viet Nam –a policy clearly condoned by the US government and openly advocated by the most reactionary and chauvinistic sections of US monopoly capital. The possibility of China provoking a confrontation between the US and the Soviets is very real. Our lefts and the bulk of our minority at least, would clearly side with the US ruling class in this struggle.
Does this not just serve to emphasize the need to break with a line that is trying to lead us down the road to “left-wing” social imperialism? How on earth can we unite in the struggle against left opportunism with those who are prepared to sacrifice the interests of the US working class on the altar of an ultra-left alliance between the CPC, Japan, France, West Germany, and US imperialism, directed against the peoples of the world? Is it not crystal clear that a deep and unbridgeable gulf lies between these two lines, the line of the ultra-lefts and ourselves on the international situation? Is it not clear that the two views cannot co-exist, even now, within a genuine anti-“left” tendency?
We cannot and must not unite with our minority’s policy of conciliation with ultra-leftism. To do so would be to renounce in practice the task of consolidating a trend in opposition to ultra-leftism. To do so would be to renounce in practice the struggle for a viable revolutionary party. And to do so would be to renounce in practice the US revolution.
We can and we must decisively reject the minority’s position.
Thank you.
April 14, 1979