Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

International Declaration

From the Central Committee of AKP (m-l), the Workers Communist Party (ML), Norway


First Published in English: Class Struggle, No. 16, August 1984.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Sam Richards and 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.

Publisher’s Note: This declaration was adopted by the Central Committee of the AKP (m-l) in May 1984. It contains the Central Committee’s views on a number of questions which are at present being discussed within the party, and which will be finally clarified at the Party’s National Conference to be held this year.


The opposing forces in the world today become increasingly antagonistic. Rivalry between ”the Soviet Union and the United States has heightened the danger of a new world war. The two super-powers continue to interfere with the internal affairs of countries all over the world, refusing their peoples the right of determination over their own futures. The USSR and USA and other imperialist powers continue their abuse, including not unsubstantial exploitation of Third World countries. In the wake of imperialism come famine and calamitous upheavals of nature. Peoples on every continent have risen in resistance; waging, in some countries, armed liberation struggles against intervention and occupation.

In the West, the economic crisis deepens and lasting unemployment grows. Class struggle is sharpened in most countries.

World development shows in every way that the imperialist world system inevitably leads to crises and war. Actual developments on all continents prove daily that this system represents a threat to the future of humanity. The objective need for socialism and communism throughout the world has seldom if ever been more clearly illustrated.

In such a situation there is an urgent need to encourage and coordinate on all continents those forces which can lead the struggle against suppression, for national liberation and social revolution.


This is why today’s need for a strong international marxist-leninist movement is so great. The tasks and challenges are enormous, and many. The immediate tasks will vary from country to country. But the strategic goal – socialism and communism throughout the world – is a common one. And the need for common support is great.

The revolutionary marxist-leninist movement is strong in some countries and regions, particularly in the Third World. Here we find experienced parties leading broad, popular uprisings and peoples wars. But the movement in most countries is weak and strongly marked by crisis. This is a philosophical, ideological, theoretical, and political crisis, and involves a lack of “roots” within the masses. The crisis has led to great confusion, division and disolation, not least in the West and particularly in Europe.

The reasons for this crisis are many and complex. It is not our task to analyze them here. But we wish to point out that large objective changes in the world, together with changes in the politics of the Communist Party of China, have been external influences that have contributed to creating this crisis. But weaknesses, mistakes and deficiencies in the ideology and politics of the marxist-leninist movement and lack of roots among the masses in ones own country have also been revealed. In the last few years there have been strong tendencies to solve the problems by turning to left-social-democratic and reformist ideas, not least on our own continent. In an otherwise necessary fight against dogmatic thought and sectarian style of work, many parties and groups have taken a turn to the right, been dissolved or ended up with various forms of social-democratic ideology, politics or organisation.

This is regrettable. All revolutionary communists should feel a common responsibility to change this situation in the years to come. For, in spite of great problems, an international marxist-leninist movement does exist. World developments expose, daily, an urgent need to strengthen this movement.


AKP(m-l) has itself been through a difficult period: from 1979 onwards. A relatively comprehensive ideological and political struggle and clarification has taken place. This clarification is not yet concluded. Important problems still have to be solved. We also face theoretical problems that cannot be solved with old answers. But the party has put the worst of its crises behind it, and AKP(m-l) has achieved a certain amount of influence in the Norwegian class struggle. Today we have sufficient strength to again actively participate in an international discussion on the politics of the marxist-leninist movement. We are able to participate in active cooperation on different tasks of common interests.

Consequently we will give priority to working with international contacts in the coming years, and strengthen cooperation step by step. This new international declaration is one of the first steps in this work. (The last declaration was printed in “Class Struggle” in January 1981.)

In this declaration we treat only some of the many and important questions that are being discussed in the movement today. We shall deal with other questions at a later date; articles in “Class Struggle”, and by other means. We have chosen here to give particular attention to the problems that specially affect the movement in Western Europe. Our point of view will reflect the fact that we live and fight on the European continent. Many questions concerning the struggles in the Third World should have been given more conscientious treatment. But we trust that our sister parties in the Third World themselves will contribute information on and analysis of the conditions under which they fight. Let this be a small contribution to a debate that concerns the entire movement, with the intention of strengthening international cooperation.


The situation in Western Europe is not as dramatic as in large parts of the Third World. But it is nevertheless serious. The two most important reasons are: 1. the increasing, permanent capitalist crisis, and 2. the danger of war.


In this part of the world, with its highly developed capitalism, the relatively long period of good economic conditions after The Second World War is over. Most countries in Western Europe are increasingly being marked by the large and lasting problems created by capitalism. High unemployment, that looks like becoming a permanent feature of society. Destruction of social and health services. Wages are pressed down, buying-power reduced. The most important mass organisation of the working class – the trade union movement – loses members because of unemployment, disappointment over the leaderships lack of ability to combat the crisis, and because of the bourgeoisies attempts to split and break the unions. The political influence of the European trade unions is diminished. The bourgeoisie wages a comprehensive ideological struggle to weaken class-solidarity. Social-democracy and various forms of revisionism – particularly the so-called “euro-revisionism” – have a relatively strong position. At the same time the revolutionary communist movement is very weak.

It is the combination of longstanding economic stagnation and depression and the rapid development of new technological revolution, that makes the crisis especially serious. The development of capitalism in Japan, Western Europe and the USA has led to an enormous development of the powers of production, and an enormous technological revolution that we as yet can only see the outlines of. Under socialism this new labour saving technology could have led to a comprehensive liberation of human beings, and paved the ground for great social and political advances. But under capitalist forms of production this development leads to ever deeper contradictions within the capitalist system, and between different states, and leads to enormous problems and suffering for the working class and the masses. No short-lived cyclical economic booms can stop this development.

This development shows at the same time that capitalism develops forces which deepen the contradictions within its system, and illustrates the need for an alternative future; socialism and communism. In spite of sharp inter-imperialist contradictions, the bourgeoisie in each individual country manage to coordinate their common struggle against the working class and the masses. Their most important weapon is to divide the working masses in spite of common interests. Workers in the same trade in different countries are set against each other by “their” bourgeoisie, and reformist trade-union leader ship. Men and women from the working people are set against each other. And, not least, there is a dangerous tendency to encourage increased racism and chauvinism, and the making of large groups of foreign workers and immigrants responsible for the crisis – which they, of course, are not.


No bourgeois crisis-policy can solve this crisis. Nor does the highly praised northern European social-democracy have a solution. Because of the working class’s struggle, and the general economic boom after the war, the Scandinavian social-democrats managed to-build a so-called welfare state – with social welfare services and a health service. These reforms gained the social-democrats the trust of large sections of the masses. Now that the economic upswing is gone, this trust is failing. Temporary, short-lived cyclical booms cannot hinder this from happening. None the less the social-democrats have a large following, and from time to time are in a positron of government. That one or more conservative parties and the social-democrats “take turns at” being in government is typical for countries like ours. In opposition the social-democrats gain increased support. But when they are in government, their economic policy is in all consequence similar to the policy of the openly bourgeois parties. When the Norwegian social-democrats were in government up to 1981, they had among others, the following policies: razing weak industry; wage cuts and coercive laws against wage-struggles; starting cuts in important health and welfare services; an enormous increase in the cost of housing; favourable tax and investment conditions for big capital, lightening restrictions on export of capital; a racist immigration-policy, etc., etc. In our country the leadership of the social-democrats is part of the bourgeoisie. The upper strata are partly integrated with and are included in the leadership of the rapidly growing state monopoly capitalist sector in Norway. The social-democrats also control the central leadership of our countries trade unions, and this greatly hinders the power of union membership.

The concept of social-democracy as a radical and pro-working class movement is a myth. In fact social-democracy is today the most important barrier to the development of the forces of revolution in a country like outs.


Western Europe is ah important area for the Superpowers, also economically. It still has over 30% of the worlds total industrial production, a highly educated working class, and a large market. Although there are tendencies within the American monopoly bourgeoisie to give priority to other regions at Europe’s cost, the American economic interest here are still large. On their side the USSR are not satisfied with exploiting most of the eastern European countries. Social-imperialism has long worked to get a foothold in the western European markets, to get hold of important high-technology goods and to ensure for themselves enormous industrial cooperative projects with countries in Western Europe. (Like the huge gas-pipe from Siberia to Western Europe.) In this situation the West-German monopoly-bourgeoisie has turned increasingly eastwards to gain new markets, invest capital and maximise profits. This means that an important part of western European capitalism is turning in the direction of the USSR and Eastern Europe. The danger of the two superpowers the USSR and the USA starting a new world war with the strategically important European continent as the center of battle, is also a part of the day to day existence of the people. The USSR has now built the world’s largest war machine. Much of this power is concentrated on the European continent. Here the USSR has deployed a large number medium range missiles equipped with nuclear warheads. On their side the USA has started deploying a large number of medium range missiles in several European countries. But in spite of the US and NATO rearmament it is clear that today the USSR has the largest war machine. It is just this qualitatively new soviet military strength that has created the NATO crisis and the breakdown of several NATO-doctrines about the “defense of Western Europe”. The enormous Soviet-rearmament and nuclear blackmail has led to a serious tendency to pacification in both the bourgeoisie and in the masses, likewise in the new peace movement. In Western Europe a political tendency has emerged that is marked partially by pacification, partly by pacifism, and partly by a euro-chauvinisms willingness to “buy peace” in our continent by ignoring those peoples fighting against the superpowers.

Face to face with the new strength of the USSR very many have lost their faith in the ability of the USA to defend Western Europe – and rightly so. Neither of the superpowers has a first-strike capability with nuclear weapons any longer. At the same time the conventional defence in the Western European countries has become weaker, one of the reasons being a one-sided reliance on the US nuclear “defence”. This has led to the following situation: faced with USSR blitzkrieg capability the US doctrine of reinforcement over the Atlantic has little credibility. And faced with USSR superiority in conventional weapons, the US and NATO alternative will in reality mean “defending” Western Europe with nuclear weapons when their conventional forces fold. For the peoples living on our continent this is a defence doctrine that can only lead to mistrust in its authors.

This mistrust is based on facts – irrespective of whether or not pro-Soviet forces try to profit by it.

The new strength of the USSR, the distrust of the US defence doctrines, and a real fear of a war where nuclear weapons will be used – this is the background for Western European debate on security and defence today.

We will later discuss the new peace movement in Europe, As far as Social-democracy, particularly in northern Europe, is concerned, it is marked by a well-developed policy of adaptability vis-a-vis the USSR, although there are conflicting tendencies within the parties.

In conclusion, one might say that the situation of the working class and masses in Western Europe is difficult; in regards to both the struggle against recession, and the threat of war.


But the situation is not exclusively dark. The policy of class-struggle is strengthened in some countries. Class struggle and the struggle to save jobs in important parts of industry is hard. We have good examples of solidarity with foreign workers. There is struggle against open fascism. The women’s struggle advances in some countries. And the war-threat and reaction against it is forcing a strategically important discussion about what kind of defence the peoples in Europe need. Solidarnosc in Poland represents an enormous force and inspiration for people both in Europe and elsewhere.

But exactly because the tasks are so large and because neither reformism nor adaption politics will solve any problem, the need for strengthening the revolutionary communist movement is so great on our continent. Because of the bourgeoisies coordinated attack upon the working class and the masses, there is today an urgent need to strengthen European workers solidarity across the borders. A stronger communist movement will strengthen such coordination greatly. It will strengthen class struggle, the struggle against the bourgeois crisis-policy, against reformism and adaptionism. In this way it will make an important contribution towards a stronger ideological, political and organisational independence of the masses.

This would be a strategically important contribution to a European policy in the interests of the masses – far more important than most of what is being officially termed European policy today.

In such a situation and with such tasks, a deciding factor is naturally, in which direction the communist movement itself develops in Western Europe. Will the revolutionary politics be strengthened or will they end up in a kind of militant reformism, in or near, social-democratic or euro-revisionist tendencies and parties?

Which tendency becomes the stronger depends both on roots in the mass-struggle and which principles this movement builds on.

We will now submit some views on which principles we believe this movement must follow.


Our premise for cooperation build on the individual party’s full independence and right to adapt theory to the conditions in its own country. At the same time we believe there are universal principles that guide all who fight for revolution. A hundred years experience of class struggle and other forms of struggle, has been summed up by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao at various stages in history. Their contributions differed and were of varying importance. Mao’s development of marxism-leninism has been of particular importance to our own movement and party.

On the European continent parts of the young marxist-leninist movement have thrown central principles overboard in their crisis. Usually this has happened while claiming that one must find ones own particular path, that conditions in the highly developed capitalist countries present totally new tasks, etc. A lot of independently sensible views have been used to deny that marxism-leninism-maoism contains important principles which are the result of long experience, and which the whole movement must follow, also at the present time. We will discuss some of these principles here so as to defend them and give our view on how they should be adapted. At the same time we distance ourselves strongly from various forces who claim that they represent the international movements like Moscow-revisionism and euro-revisionism. We will also distance ourselves from attempts to create a movement on a “left” -revisionist platform. A revolutionary, communist movement must distance itself clearly from these tendencies if it is to have the right to exist. For us, working in Europe, it is a matter of life or death of the movement.


Our defence of the common principles and our wish for active cooperation over the borders also builds on the parties full independence; they must not be subservient to any kind of centre or “mother party”.

Experiences with “one centre” are negative. As far as historical experiences with Comintern are concerned, our view is that Lenin was correct in as much as communists in all countries had to support each other and cooperate against capitalism, imperialism and opportunism. To create an international organisation to coordinate this struggle was necessary. The Comintern doubtless played a positive role by marking a break with the social democratic parties and it gave the impetus for the founding of many communist parties.

But it was wrong to found Comintern as an international organisation built upon democratic centralism, A world party with the right to give orders to the individual national parties and with an international discipline subordinated to a centre in Moscow gave considerable and harmful results. In our opinion the mistaken tendency to subordinate the interests of other parties to the Soviets has its origins here. This damaged the struggle which the working class and communist parties led in the individual countries. Such a centralistic organisation conflicts with the tasks of socialist world revolution, both today and in the foreseeable future. Revolutions in individual countries cannot be ordered from an international centre, but must come with the event of each people – backed by active international support – liberating themselves according to local conditions.

Our opinion is that a new international organisation with the same kind of centralized power should not be created. We believe revolutionary communists must be on the watch for, and fight, tendencies towards creating an international centre wherever they occur. Our policy is active and equal cooperation between parties, and step by step participation in building an international movement of independent, fighting, parties.


In Western Europe there is a tendency towards denying the need for a communist party, a party of a particular kind – built on the democratic centralism. Various rightist deviations have been suggested as alternatives to the leninist party, including “green” and the “third road” proposals for new broad socialist mass-parties. There are also proposals for dissolving the party as an independent organisation and instead becoming a fraction in large social-democratic or euro-revisionist parties. All these ideas have in common that they will liquidate a party built on democratic centralism. The various ideas on how to change parties into “large” and “open” mass parties are directly opposed to the need for parties able to combine both legal and illegal work. They deny the need for developing parties that can quickly take the lead in class-struggles, that prepare organisationally against attack from the bourgeoisie and the class enemy and that also prepare for the possibility that the country be a battlefield in a new war.

We think that democratic centralism is valid for all stages of the class struggle, and that it is not only needed in periods of acute crisis and war. Charges of lacking democracy in such organisations cannot be met by throwing away the basic principles of organisation. The enemy is a strongly centralised power with large political, economic and military means. The working class has one great strength compared with this enemy; its numbers. But unity and discipline in the organisation are needed if the numbers are to mean anything. The party – as the foremost fighting organisation of the working class – must, because of this, organise in a way that unites strong discipline externally with wide democracy internally. Problems in practising democratic centralism will undoubtedly repeat themselves, but these contradictions cannot be solved by reformist methods.

There is no revolutionary alternative to the leninist party-structure, developed further by Mao’s theory on the massline and with an internal entity which practises criticism and self-criticism. We think it absolutely vital that a party of this kind maintains its full and unabridged independence as a proletarian class-party. Only by opposing every kind of bourgeois tendency and by taking-the organisational consequences, can the party fulfill its historic tasks. The party’s full independence is a concern which, of course, does not eliminate cooperation. Our view is that it is absolutely necessary to develop a non-sectarian and fearless united front-tactic.

At the same time as we distance ourselves from right-wing ideas, on the party-model, we also want to distance ourselves from certain other tendencies that exist today, tendencies whose roots can be found In the Soviet party of long ago. The theory of “the monolithic party”. The idea of there always being “monolithic unity” inside the party and that everyone who deviates from “the only correct line” must be purged from the party, is unscientific and highly damaging. In any party there must be lively debate. Opinions and policies must vie with one another. Class struggle is often reflected in complicated ways within the party. In a real communist party there must be created an atmosphere and a style of working that encourages debate, analysis and scientific thought. This is a decisive factor for the party’s ability to act under the changing terms of class struggle. The idea of “the monolithic party” is a dogmatic idea that leads to the degeneration of all scientific work. It leads to harsh reactions, and the suppression of all differences of opinion and ideological debate within the party. It represents a break with the mass-line both within and outside the party. It is a dogmatic “left”-revisionist theory that there is every reason to combat.


Central to right-opportunism in Western Europe, is the theory of the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in highly developed capitalist countries. This idea is expressed in many ways, either by allowing the question of what is possible to remain open, or in the form of declared theories of gradual “structural reforms”. The central idea is that by gradually using parliament to enlarge bourgeois democratic rights, the relationship of strength between the classes will be changed until socialism can be introduced peacefully. These theories are largely represented in the euro-revisionist movement.

We believe these ideas lead to a strategically dangerous dead end. We cannot see that a peaceful transition is easier under highly developed capitalism than under historically less developed conditions. On the contrary, the state apparatus of the ruling class is more and more developed. In a country like today’s Norway the state is a highly-developed apparatus for one class to suppress other classes. The state as an apparatus to secure the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by violence is highly developed. The economic power of the state increases drastically, state monopoly capitalism has long ago become the dominant sector. State power has been developed into capitalisms most important tool for spreading bourgeois culture and ideology. And through the highly developed parliamentary system there is today a tool well able to give the people maximum illusions about democratic influence combined with maximum lack of real power. Parliamentarianism is today an ingenious system, vital for prolonging dictatorship without the ruling class having to use the last defence of capitalism: the army and police.

Even though the working class and the masses have a high level of education, are better organised and have more experience of struggle than before, this does not outweigh increased bourgeois power, and a well-developed state apparatus. In a country like ours, the role of social democratic and reformist leaders in the trade union movement also play an important, but negative, role for the fighting power of the masses. Social democracy is today the most important hindrance for developing the forces of revolution. The social democracy must be made into a minority movement if a revolutionary situation is to come about.

We can see no factual argument for claiming that the transition to socialism will be peaceful – not even in our part of the world. We can see no reason to argue for “the long and peaceful march through the institutions”. Quite the opposite, we will work to prepare the masses ideologically, politically and organisationally for confrontation when a revolutionary situation occurs. That such a situation does not exist today on our continent, is no argument for abandoning the theory of armed revolution.

Communists do not wish to use violence. If it was up to us and the masses the introduction of socialism would be non-violent. But all historical experience says that the bourgeois and the imperialists take to violence and terror when their power is threatened. A party; working class and people, that do not prepare for this, will have their revolution smashed and be subjected to great suffering. Also on our continent the rulers will smash bourgeois-democratic rights if needed to preserve minority rule. In this situation exalted respect for the right to vote will not count for much, a state of emergency will be declared and armoured cars roll, if their power was threatened by a broad and strong mass-movement.

It is absolutely necessary to distance oneself from various forms of “left”-revisionist and openly terrorist ideas about the revolution being armed insurrection without mass support, a coup or small group terrorism. This is not the alternative to a “peaceful transition.” The only possibility – also in a country like ours – is a revolution carried out by a strong communist party at the head of a broad united front prepared for armed struggle and with widespread support in a majority of the people.


The forces that deny the need for a leninist party and revolution also deny the theory of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat as the form the state will take under socialism. The alternatives are usually launched under the label “democratic socialisms.” But such a state would be neither democratic nor socialist. In practice it would mean that the capitalist system remains and that the only change would be that reformist and/or revisionist forces would take the government from openly bourgeois forces.

Through a socialist revolution a new state and a new class dictatorship must be created – this time for the working class and the working people. Neither under capitalism nor under socialism do classless democratic rights, or power structures without class-character, exist.

We will point out some aspects of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, such as we believe historical experience tells us they should be. We emphasise that this is valid under conditions similar to those in our society. We don’t treat the question of neo-democratic revolutions in former colonies or half-colonies and the state structure built under such or similar conditions here. Because of imperialisms direct exploitation in many such countries, because of the limited development of the forces of production, and as a result a weakly developed working class, state structure after a revolution takes other forms than after a revolution in a country like ours. What is common is that in both cases it is a matter of a new class dictatorship where the majority for the first time rules, and the minority – the former rulers – are deprived of power and suppressed if they try to regain it. The following are some of the characteristics of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat we believe it important to work to safeguard:

Proletarian democratic organs where the working class and the working masses are favorized both as regards positions and influence must be created. These organs must not least be given the decisive power over the direction in which the forces of production develop.

The new state form must build on the alliance between the working class and the working people – where the working class has the leading role, but where the allies have real power.

There must be wide reaching proletarian democratic rights and freedoms, such as freedom from national oppression, full legal equality between women and men, personal individual legal protection, free trade unions and right to strike, freedom to political organizing and activity – a government built on free elections, and wide reaching rights for the masses to look into state affairs. There is a tendency in the history of communist parties to be sceptical to far reaching democracy and freedoms for the working class and the masses. We believe this to be a harmful tendency that weakens trust in socialism and communism.

The state leadership under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Norway must build on free and secret elections. These are the principles for elections to the government from the Paris commune and the October revolution. The people must themselves be able to choose between candidates who represent different political alternatives. The government must be chosen by the elected assembly, and be responsible to it.

There must be organised broad studies in marxism-leninism-maoism and we must work purposefully for the direct participation in state affairs of the working class and their allies, so that they will become political rulers and not mere producers.

A strong and leading communist party, both in government and in the leadership of the army apparatus, is needed to achieve this and safeguard the survival and development of the new state. This leading position cannot build on exclusive formal rights, but must be created and developed through the party’s work and ability to lead the building of socialism.
Confronted with contradictions within the people the party must win through by political initiative, ability to convince and win the people’s trust. If the party degenerates to replacing this political work with administrative methods and violence, it will weaken the new state structure.

If socialism is endangered, we will lead the defence of the socialist state, and by any means smash attempts at counter-revolution.

This underlines the strategically vital need for the party to be built where the masses are, also under socialism and not only in the leadership of state and industry.

At the same time as we distance ourselves from various forms of social-democratic and revisionist theories about socialism, we also reject “left”-revisionist theories on the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. The idea of the proletariat exclusively being in power and the party having a formal right of veto in the state leadership, we reject as harmful and dogmatic.


Opposing the theory of consolidated socialisms that both Khruschev and his successors defended consistently, Mao has written vital theoretical material on the understanding of socialism as a complicated transitional society between capitalism and communism. He points out that socialism is full of contradictions, among other reasons because of the inheritance from the old society, weakly developed forces of production, an inherited division of labour that creates large and important contradictions, leftovers from the old bourgeoisie, economic and social factors that reconstitute bourgeois elements in the state and the party, etc. Mao sums this up in his thesis on the continuation of class struggle. Socialism is not secure once and for all. On the contrary the danger of capitalism being reintroduced through a counterrevolution is present.

A main task for socialism is to develop the forces of production to create the material basis for a development in the direction of communism. If this does not happen, it will not be possible to break down the division of labour that socialism inherits from capitalism. Thus it will not be possible to remove the division between intellectual labour and manual labour or between town and country. At the same time history shows that economic and technological progress in itself does not automatically lead to liberation. The question of how the forces of production are to be developed, and what the. increasing public surplus shall be used for, is in reality one of the most important questions for class struggle under socialism. The working class and the people must struggle to ensure that the forces of production are developed in their own interests.

Class struggle without developing the forces of production will mean defeat for socialism. At the same time a development of these forces that does not serve the people and safeguard the power of the working class, will also lead to the defeat of socialism. It is important to mobilize the masses to participate more and more directly in the ruling of the state and the economy. Such mobilization is necessary to stop the growth of new privileged groups within the state and the party. Under certain conditions such groups can cause political counter-revolution.

As regards the Chinese cultural revolution, AKP(m-l) has not yet reached any final conclusions. We will use what time we need to scientifically analyze the cultural revolution.

But it is not necessary to wait for such analysis to conclude that Mao’s tribute to the development of marxism-leninism has been epoch-making. This is also true of his views on the problems in the development of socialism. His work here is vital for an understanding of the fact that the communist party under socialism must take the lead in developing the working class and the masses to political rulers in the new state, not merely producers.


The strategic importance of women’s liberation has not always been well understood in the history of the communist movement. Generally, it is true to say that the importance of the “woman question” has been clearly underrated, and this has weakened the building up of socialism.

The situation of women round the world varies greatly. In countries with little developed forces of production and where the deprivations of imperialism keep almost all social and economic development down, the position of women is absolutely different from that in highly developed capitalist countries like Norway. Irrespective of the class-structure, we consider that men and women within the ranks of the people have common objective interests. But actual tasks in the women’s struggle vary greatly. Bourgeois-feminist tendencies, particularly in Europe and the US, have a tendency to try to fit all struggles for women’s liberation into a narrow, bourgeois context, unable to see that women’s struggle in most of the world’s countries must take other forms and develop in different ways than in the western, capitalist countries. They particularly underestimate the importance of imperialisms oppression of women in the third world. We combat this tendency. Our view is that the women’s movement in the capitalist countries must support women’s struggle in the third world, not force upon them their own terms.


In Norway the situation is such that half the working population is women. In our country women are used by the capitalists, as cheap labour and they do almost all work with house and children. Their working day is therefore particularly long. One of the central women’s demands is therefore 6 hours normal working day with full wage compensation. The 6 hour day is important to the whole working class, but is of particular importance for women. Shorter working hours will make it possible for more women to work a full day, it will give them more free time and increased chances to participate in society, also politically, and it will open the way for more equal distribution of the housework between men and women. In Norway it is the women’s organisations which together with women in the trade unions, have led the struggle for the six hour day. The struggle for women’s demands is not a struggle parallel to the struggle of the working class, but an important part of it. A workers revolution in Norway without the participation of women is unthinkable. To strengthen the fighting power of the working class in Norway means to mobilize the women, and to fight male chauvinist tendencies within the workers movement.

Another central field in the women’s struggle is the struggle against pornography, prostitution and maltreatment of women. This struggle aims directly at the reactionary view that woman is an object existing only to fulfill the needs of men. It is also directed against men’s “right” to rule and control women.


The especially oppressed position of women means that they have everything to win by a socialist revolution, and a development towards the communist society. Experience shows that socialism does not automatically lead to women’s liberation, or to advances for women’s struggle, beyond a certain point. This is partly the fault of certain, historical, problems in those countries which thus far have been socialist. But it is also the fault of serious mistakes in the political line of the communist parties. The sexual division of work in the home has not been systematically dealt with. Women have continued to work double having the main responsibility for housework – a gradual dismantling of the family as an economic institution, as private system of provision, has not been put on the agenda. Nor has it been acknowledged that the men of the working class and the working people have had certain advantages from the oppression of women, and thus privileges to defend. Because of this the oppressive structures that socialism has inherited from capitalism, have largely been maintained.

At the same time a communist society without full women’s liberation is impossible. This means that the women’s struggle under socialism also has a special, strategic importance. Women’s struggle for liberation is an important resource for developing society in a communist direction, continued oppression of women forms part of the basis for the resurrection of the old society. Therefore women’s liberation must be one of the targets for planning and production under socialism, and women must participate in leadership in all areas.

We reject bourgeois feminism that claims that full women’s liberation can come about within the limits of capitalist society, and that the male is the main enemy. Our party considers the struggle for full liberation of women to be inextricably bound to the struggle for socialism and communism.


A decisive question for the international communist movement is what its views are on the Soviet Union today. Where the background to the counter-revolution in the USSR is concerned our view is as follows:

The USSR was the first socialist country in the world, and the October revolution was a model and an inspiration for the working class and all oppressed all over the world. Even though the starting point was not the best possible, the first decades led to sizable results in many areas, with enormous advances for the working people. Nonetheless, the revolution was defeated. Socialism was finally overthrown, and a new bourgeoisie took power. The reason for this being primarily that the communist party did not understand that a new bourgeoisie could grow up under socialism.

The working class, which had made heroic efforts to change society, was not sufficiently mobilized as a ruling class. This led to difficulty in taking a political reckoning with the enemies of socialism.


Stalin underestimated this danger. Even though he tried to fight bourgeois tendencies also in his last years, he has his part of the responsibility for letting a new bourgeoisie grow up in the bureaucracy and the party. Our analysis of the Soviet Union under Stalin is not completed, and the debate should continue for many years. Our view today is that he defended and developed correct theories put forwards by Marx and Lenin. He played a positive role in the building of socialism and in the struggle against fascism and imperialism. In these areas it is correct to defend the heritage of Stalin. The soviet party oppressed reactionaries, but also workers and communists who wanted criticism and debate. This damaged proletarian democracy under socialism. The USSR infringed on the rights of other states and weak nations, and demanded the right to command other parties. A tendency toward dogmatic theory developed, which prevented independent development of marxist policies in other countries. The violation of proletarian democracy, Great Russian chauvinism and theoretical dogmatism are negative sides of the heritage from Stalin. The new bourgeoisie in the USSR affirmed its power formally on the 20th party congress in 1956. But the outcome of the class struggle was decided several years earlier.


As regards the USSR today, we share Mao’s view: the USSR is a social-imperialist superpower, a state of the Hitler-fascist kind, and the most dangerous and aggressive of the two superpowers in the world today. We are face to face with a bureaucrat-capitalist state with a fascist form of government. This internal economic end social system leads to social-imperialism in foreign policy. This hegemonism can be explained by the internal system in the USSR itself.

Today this system is marked by the domination of the state-capitalist sector. The USSR today has the worlds most centralized capitalism. So far the USSR’s trade and traditional export of capital is relatively small, although growing. The main reason for this is that the soviet economy today is organised on a war footing. Enormous amounts of capital are bound up in building the world’s greatest military-machine. Because of this only restricted amounts of profit can be freed for capital export. Another reason for the relatively restricted export of capital is that the US and the old imperialist powers already had a dominating position in the world markets when the USSR joined them as a new imperialist power. In the struggle for new markets, the USSR has therefore developed a new and different type of capital export: export of capital in the form of credits for so-called economic and military aid to countries in the third world. The enormous war-machine, the rapidly increasing economic strength of the USSR and the – thus far restricted though increasing, economic control round the world – makes the USSR a superpower that takes largely to military means in the struggle for a reportioning of the world. Of the two superpowers today fighting for world domination, it is the USSR that is the ascending and most aggressive.


As regards most of the other countries in Eastern Europe, our view is that in these countries bureaucrat-capitalism and a more or less fascist state form rules. To depict these countries – whatever the motive – as socialist, is an important mistake in principle. This bureaucrat-capitalism with a political system that oppresses and exploits the working class and the masses, has nothing to do with socialism. To spread illusions about these countries being socialist today, is to contribute socialism being even more discredited in countries like ours.

In a country like Poland the regime suppresses the free and independent trade union Solidarnosc. Active dissenters with highly varying political beliefs in this broad democratic front, are jailed and put under surveillance, their activities and organisation forbidden. Their struggle against the fascist rulers is met with terror and tanks. This has nothing in common with socialism. The view on the USSR and the Eastern European societies is vital for the international communist movement. To draw the correct conclusions is a question of life and death for the whole movement.


Because Norway is a country in western Europe, we have particular reason to show our views on euro-revisionism. Because this political tendency beyond doubt has influenced the weak maoist movement on our continent. It is particularly important for revolutionary communists to understand the character of euro-revisionism.

Euro-revisionism has a relatively strong position on our continent, but exists as a tendency on other continents as well. On many subjects these parties are more or less in opposition to the policies of the USSR, both as regards the occupation of Afghanistan and the view on human rights in the USSR and Eastern Europe. In international work it is undoubtedly important to use these contradictions to build as broad a united front as possible against the superpowers, and especially against social-imperialism.

At the same time it is our view that euro-revisionism on all important questions represents a strategy that is directly opposed to revolutionary communism and the interests of the masses on the European continent. Euro-revisionism represents:
The theory of the peaceful transition to socialism.
A view of socialism as a society with “absolute democracy,” which in practice means a society that without a revolution and without the introduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat will continue as a capitalist dictatorship in one form or another.
A party-theory that in practice means bureaucratic mass-parties.
The theory that the USSR still is socialist, but has faults.
Criticism of the treatment of dissenters and of human rights in the USSR and Eastern Europe, without criticising the system in these societies.
The theory that the USSR is surrounded by enemies and therefore many of their “security political” actions must be understood.
The theory of the US still being the greatest imperialist threat to the peoples of the world today.

At the same time these parties have conflicting views on some important questions, for example the Italian party PCI condemns the soviet occupation of Afghanistan while the French PCF supports it. Some of these parties also represent blatant discrimination and racism against foreign workers. The PCF is one.

Despite the partial criticism of the USSR and the different tendencies that euro-revisionism represents, it is vital for the international communist movement to clearly mark the line between revolutionary communism and euro-revisionism.

To represent these parties as part of the international communist movement is not in accordance with the truth and can only harm the building of the communist movement.


As revolutionary Communists we fight for communism in the whole world. The struggle for a socialist revolution is a way to reach this goal.

This also means that we support all the peoples of the world who fight against imperialism and oppression, including struggles against imperialism and national chauvinism from the Norwegian nation. This includes support for the Samii nation and the national minorities in Norway.

This also means that we must combat all kinds of racism and chauvinism.

We have given our views on which principles revolutionary communists should maintain in the struggle for revolution and socialism. We will also put forward some views on the struggle against the superpowers, imperialism, and, on the question of the threat of a third world war.

It would be impossible to fight and win the struggle against imperialist exploitation, underdevelopment, war, genocide, fascism, hunger and ecological disasters without fighting the two superpowers at the same time. It is they who are the greatest hindrance to real revolution, liberation and progress in the world. The struggle for neo-democracy and socialism can only be won if it is waged against the superpowers. The struggle going on in different countries and continents naturally takes differing forms and has different tasks. In some countries there are revolutionary wars of liberation. Some countries have fascism, others bourgeois democracy. In some countries the struggle against imperialism dominates, in others the struggle against the local ruling class.

On a world scale these struggles must none the less come together and take the same direction. They must be directed against the two superpowers.

The most dangerous and most aggressive of the two at present is the USSR. It is necessary to be particularly on guard against that superpower which is in a state of progression and expansion. At the same time US imperialism is still a strong and dangerous enemy of the peoples of the world.

Primarily, it is the two superpowers that interfere on all continents and create problems. At the same time there are many medium and small imperialist states that participate in and are part of the system of exploitation. Also in Norway, a small country with four million inhabitants, an imperialist monopoly bourgeoisie is in power, actively participating in the exploitation of countries both in the second and third world.

This is another reason for us as communists to struggle against imperialism. It is a struggle in which the masses in the third world and the working class and masses in our country have common interests.


In the common struggle against the superpowers and imperialism, and for world revolution it is the third world and the peoples there that are the main force. We therefore consider solidarity with the struggles waged in the third world as one of the main questions for all revolutionaries and progressives in our time.

The large majority of countries in the third world today are subjected by imperialism to an enormous economic exploitation and oppression. Agriculture is destroyed, the development of local industry hindered, important raw materials are taken from the countries at a ridiculously low price, many countries are forced into large debts, etc. An enormous number of people become jobless. Ecological disasters follow in the footsteps of imperialism. Large scale starvation is caused mainly by this exploitation. The imperialist exploitation blocks an economic and social development that could serve these peoples and countries own interests. Millions upon millions are driven into greater need and oppression. These are the actual results of the rampages of the two superpowers and imperialism, in most third world countries today. Claims that imperialism is good for the third world because it develops capitalism and progress, are both highly embroidered, reactionary and untrue. In reality imperialism creates enormous poverty through exploitation, crisis and wars, and treats most of humanity as useless and inferior. Imperialism is in this way also a system that exposes most of humanity to brutal racism.

Exactly because of its objective situation, the third world is today the most important force in the struggle against imperialism and for world revolution. No real progress is possible for the majority of the peoples of this world while the imperialist yoke exists. No reformist strategy can solve this basic contradiction between the peoples and nations of the third world, and imperialism and the superpowers. This is why the third world is the hotbed of revolutions and rebellions in our time – not just a battlefield for imperialism’s exploitation. In the coming decades there is thus every reason to expect that the masses in many third world countries will strengthen their resistance to exploitation and carry out rebellion and revolution. Various forms of cooperation between states and liberation movements will develop. We who work in imperialist countries must show active solidarity with the third worlds struggle – the foremost force for rebellion and revolution in our time. To give united resistance as much weight as possible, it must include as many as possible in the capitalist countries and in the two superpowers. The front must unite liberation movements and national parties in the third world, workers organisations and anti-imperialists in the capitalist countries, and opposition groups in the countries ruled by the USSR. It would also be a good thing if governments in the second world would support such a front, on single issues, or generally.

In such a front it would be necessary to cooperate with many different forces. National united fronts against one superpower can include forces that wilt fight this power, yet are not progressive or anti-imperialist in other contexts.

To develop a front against the superpowers is not opposed to developing class-struggle in each individual country. Governments that oppress their own people can at the same time take a stand against the two superpowers. That they go against the two superpowers is good and must be supported. If the people rebel forming a revolutionary government instead, that is even better. The working people are the main force in the struggle against imperialism. The capitalist countries in the second world are also threatened by the two superpowers. In these countries it is particularly important to develop solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the third world, and with those subjected to racism and chauvinism in the developed countries themselves.


It is imperialism and the capitalist exploitation of the third world that is the background for extensive labour-migrations. This has forced large numbers of foreign workers and immigrants to find work and housing in some of the capitalist, developed countries. In a Western Europe map ked by recession, the bourgeoisie now uses these immigrants as a partial explanation for increasing unemployment and the deepening recession. The bourgeoisie encourages racism, partly by discrimination on the part of the state, partly by encouraging the racist tendencies that exist in parts of the working class and the people. In this way the rulers are able to set groups against each other, groups that have everything to win by cooperating in solidarity against the crisis.

In Norway we fight for an immigration policy that builds on proletarian internationalism and a policy that treats the development of a multinational society as a strength and not primarily a problem. This is why we fight the state ban on immigration, which functions in a racist and discriminatory manner against immigrants from the third world. This is why we fight racism and fascism, for unity on the basis of class struggle. This is why we fight for asylum for refugees in Norway.

The working people in countries like ours also have to fight the imperialism of their own bourgeoisie, fight political tendencies that ignore the anti imperialist struggle in the third world and fight imperialist ideology and politics that exist within the ranks of the working people. This is decisive for whether the working people in the second world will make a force for or against the struggle waged against the imperialist system by the majority of peoples on the Earth.


We believe that the most important common task of the peoples in the world is to build a broad, international united front against the two imperialist superpowers, the USSR and the US.


The most effective way of developing this front is by strengthening concrete solidarity work for the peoples who at any given time are in the forefront of the struggle against imperialism. In 1984 this means the liberation fronts in Kampuchea, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Palestine, southern Africa, Central America, Solidarnosc in Poland and others. Concrete solidarity with those who fight is foremost a direct support to the liberation struggle. At the same time our active support is a contribution towards weakening the superpowers, since these struggles bind the forces of the superpowers and weaken them. The struggles are also an example to others, and encourage resistance in other places. If this front is to be developed further, the most conscious and anti-imperialist forces must strengthen contacts amongst themselves. Revolutionary parties and governments, liberation movements, trade unions, women’s organisations, fighting intellectuals, anti-imperialists, anti-racists and democrats throughout the entire world must therefore cooperate actively and support each other. All liberation from the control of the imperialists and the superpowers is objectively in the interests of humanity. The struggle for national self-determination and the right to decide their own future is vital for all peoples in this age of imperialism. This struggle is also objectively part of the socialist world revolution.


The threat of a third world war grows. Local wars are multiplying and spreading. The question of fighting against war is very important. But this fight against war can only succeed if it really attacks and removes the source of war in our time.

Imperialism means war. There can be no end to war before the imperialist system is demolished. Primarily this means that the oppressed people must rise and overthrow imperialism. But this can only happen by taking to arms. Mao said; “We want to get rid of war. We do not want war. But war can only be gotten rid of through war, and to get rid of weapons it is necessary to grasp the rifle.”

It is vital to differentiate between just and unjust wars. Imperialist wars of aggression are unjust. Anti-imperialist wars of defense are just. Civil wars and mass murders staged by fascists are unjust. Rebellion by anti-fascists and revolutions by oppressed majorities are just.

The rivalry, hegemony and uneven development of the strength of the imperialist powers is a source of war under imperialism. Attacks by such states and war between them is unavoidable as long as imperialism exists. These are unjust wars.

Unjust wars lead to just wars: countries that are exposed to imperialist aggression defend themselves, colonies and oppressed peoples rise against colonialism and fascism. Such national and democratic wars of liberation and defence are just wars. The oppression and exploitation in the imperialist countries leads to rebellions against the bourgeoisie by the working class and the people. Such proletarian revolutionary wars are just.

To stop imperialist wars against liberation movements and oppressed countries, the only right thing to do is to give those who fight imperialism as much aid as possible, so that imperialism may be defeated.

The forces that work against a concrete imperialist war affect the time of its outbreak, the extent and course of the war. If these forces are strong enough, they can sometimes force the imperialists to abstain from starting a particular war.

But this doesn’t mean that it is possible to prevent all imperialist wars, as long as imperialism exists. As a rule wars and genocide spread to larger and larger areas under imperialism. The history of the second world war and the unbroken line of significant, bloody wars after 1945 confirms this.


World developments have long gone in the direction of a third world war between the superpowers, the USSR and the US. Generally speaking, such a war has become more probable during the last ten years.

The USSR, the ascending superpower and the most aggressive, is in our opinion the most likely to start such a war.

In a third world war it is probable that the European continent will be a central part of the battlefield.

Because of this, it is an extremely important task to strengthen forces against the superpowers, particularly against USSR war preparations.

In our own policy of fighting against these preparations, and of defending the peace, we emphasize the following:


Active support for the armed liberation struggle against the USSR by countries in the third world. Active support for the peoples who fight against US tyranny and interventionism. Such support gives the fighting peoples increased strength. At the same time it strengthens the security of the European peoples themselves by adding force to the opposition of the superpowers, in particular the USSR’s, war-preparations. The armed liberation struggle that countries in the third world wage against the USSR is the most important force against these preparations today.

Active solidarity with the opposition in Eastern Europe. Charta 77 and not least Solidarnosc in Poland have become an important force against these war preparations.

Fighting compliancy and tendencies to capitulation vis-a-vis the USSR, pacifism and euro-chauvinism. These tendencies in reality encourage the USSR.

Strengthen the defence capability of our own people and build a strong defence which is not dependent on reinforcement from abroad. The defence against social-imperialism must not be dependent on the other superpower, the US. The US tries to turn the small nations into front soldiers in its own interests, or bargaining pieces in the struggle with the USSR.
One way of strengthening defence capabilities is to strengthen the civil defence capability noticeably.

Build such defences without making them dependent on nuclear weapons. Demand that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC-weapons) are outlawed. Raise the demand that it is primarily the two superpowers which must disarm, both as regards conventional weapons and NBC-weapons.

We have no illusions about it being possible to get rid of NBC-weapons and the genocides that follow in the wake of the superpowers rampages, by means of protests alone. That can only come about by getting rid of imperialism. But in the meantime it is very important to mobilize maximum opposition to the attempt of genocide of the two superpowers, so as to decrease the dimensions of the wars going on now.

In a world where the US and the USSR dispose nearly all nuclear strength, the struggle against nuclear rearmament and the nuclear blackmail of the superpowers becomes important. In reality these weapons are today used in powerful political blackmail – primarily useful to pacify and paralyze those who may become the first victims if these weapons were used: The peoples. These weapons are primarily potential weapons of terror, not means of defence for the peoples. A defence in Western Europe that is dependent on the US nuclear umbrella, is weakened by the decreasing of its conventional strength, and by its being dependent on the dispositions of a superpower.

A strong independent defence without nuclear weapons is, in our opinion, the way to strengthen defence capabilities.


The peoples of Europe have every reason to fear a third world war. There is reason to be afraid of the USSR. There is no reason to “trust the US”. Millions in Europe have understood that it will be the peoples who will be butchered if this war breaks out. This has led to protest movements and large demonstrations demanding peace. What role the European peace movement can play depends on the direction it takes.

If this movement joins the forces which really oppose the war preparations, it can play a positive role.

This means supporting the liberation struggles in the third world, and the real peace groups and opposition in the USSR and Eastern Europe. It means opposing both the USSR and the US. It means exposing and condemning rearmament and aggression from the USSR. It means supporting European independence from the US and US nuclear arms. It means building public opinion against USSR aggression, not pacifying it. It means directing the struggle against nuclear weapons in both the East and the West, not against those parts of the defence of small European countries that does not threaten anyone, but can discourage an attacker.

A movement that builds on the people’s just wish for working for peace, but points this movement in the wrong direction, can only do damage.

The peoples of Europe do not need a “peace movement” that betrays the third world to “secure peace” in Europe. Nor do the peoples of Europe need a “peace movement” which will buy “peace” in the West at the cost of the right to freedom and national self-determination of the peoples of Eastern Europe. A “peace movements that conceals USSR aggression, that participates in official state controlled “peace congresses” in the East, and that will buy peace by capitulating to social-imperialism, is opposed to the interests of the peoples in Europe. A movement of this kind, in reality, increases the danger of war. Such a “peace movement” also betrays the interests of those who fight for national self-determination in the third world and other places. This kind of “peace movement” would be an expression of a very harmful euro-chauvinist tendency, putting ones own fate and security interests over and against the future and present struggles of non-European countries. A policy that sacrifices Poland’s or Afghanistan’s right to national self-determination on the altar of European “peace”, is cynical and dangerous – both for the fighting peoples, and for the future of the European peoples themselves.

As revolutionary communists, we see it as a special task to fight such tendencies.

As of today large sections of-the leadership of Western-European peace movements have not managed to make the movement a part of those forces that really combat the war preparations. There are varying tendencies in this complex movement. But in most countries – including Norway – the leadership forwards demands and policies that mainly damage the struggle for peace.

This makes work to build a real movement against the war preparations of the superpowers even more important. At the same time we emphasize that it is necessary to hold no illusion that such a movement alone – without other and stronger forces moving in the third world and Eastern Europe – can brake the development towards war.


It is necessary to evaluate soberly the forces that can lead to a third world war.

We reject the idea that such a concrete war can not be stopped, that history cannot develop differently. Determinism is a sign of a mechanical understanding of history, not dialectical materialism. But at the same time it is clear that developments the last ten years have shown that the forces for such a war grow more rapidly than the forces opposing it. The danger of war grows, and the future looks bleak, not least in Europe.

If a third world war breaks out – with the disastrous consequences this would have – there is only one thing to do. That is to fight for freedom against imperialist attack and occupation, fascism and genocide. In Europe and other places where imperialism attacks, the task will be to mobilize the people to war for liberation. They must wage people’s war to gain national liberation and democracy, and fight for revolution against capitalism and imperialism.

In a third world war the peoples must above all rely on themselves, and fight to make it a war for their own liberation, not for one imperialist group or the other. Workers and oppressed must join forces if this is to be possible: In countries that attack and in those that are being attacked, in rich and poor countries, in small imperialist powers and in colonies. Against the threatening imperialist war we raise the old slogan of the revolutionary communists: Workers and oppressed peoples and nations all over the world, join forces!


In our own country we fight for our strategic goal: socialism and communism. In today’s capitalist Norway, the main contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In our daily work we do not put class struggle to one side because of our efforts against the war. Such a policy would mainly strengthen the bourgeoisie and the various reformist tendencies in the leadership of the trade unions. The strategically vital work to free the working class and the masses from bourgeois reformist and imperialist hegemony in the direction of independence, would suffer greatly. This would also harm defence capabilities in the case of an attack on Norway. At the same time as we wage class struggle in a number of areas, AKP(m-l) works to create the basis for broad alliances of ail patriotic and “democratic forces in the struggle against the war and for solidarity with all fighting peoples.


We have put forward our views on some subjects we believe concern the future of the international communist movement. We are aware that many other subjects should have been treated, and that some questions have not been satisfactorily dealt with. This does not mean that we think these subjects unimportant, but that we had to choose which subjects to treat first. Later we hope to participate in debate on other subjects. We hope our contribution will be of interest. As we consider it unthinkable that AKP(m-l) could exist except as part of a larger international movement, we wish to systematically develop cooperation with all revolutionary communists. Cooperation can take many forms: Bilateral contacts, common resolutions, seminars where chosen subjects are discussed, unilateral and mutual support for struggles waged in different countries, participation in political summer camps, cooperation to strengthen solidarity with peoples in struggle, democratic opposition, common discussions on propaganda-work, etc. We are also in favour of multilateral conferences that on an equal basis for all participants discuss subjects of-common interest, including support for common actions such as for peoples in struggle, the struggle against the threat of war in Europe, the struggle against the capitalist crisis, against racism, etc. At the same time we wish to exchange as much written material as possible with other interested parties.

We believe that a large number of forms of cooperation between revolutionary communists would be both useful and possible. The prerequisite for this cooperation success would naturally be that it is organised on an equal basis and without interference in the internal affairs of the individual party. Such active cooperation would no doubt strengthen the revolutionary communist movement.

We would also like to come into contact with workers organisations, groups, parties and individuals that may have completely different views from ours on many questions. But where mutual contacts and exchange of opinions can contribute positively.

We will also work to strengthen the contacts with, and support to, fighting liberation movements, democratic opposition and others who fight for revolution, democracy and national self-determination. We wish to learn from the experiences of others, present our own, and step by step, take our part in building the international movement.