First Published:The Workers’ Advocate Vol. 7, No. 7, December 20, 1977.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
In part one of this article, published in the Nov. 1st issue of The Workers' Advocate, we denounced OL's flimsy fraud that Chairman Mao supported the theory of "Three Worlds". (The October League now pretends to be the "Communist Party (M-L)". In order to mask their social-chauvinism, their rabid propaganda in favor of allying with U.S. imperialism in order to "strike the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism", their support for the B-l bomber, the OL social- chauvinists have taken to throwing mud at the name of Chairman Mao. They are trying to turn him into a Titoite revisionist, to slander his close comrades-in-arms Comrades Stalin and Enver Hoxha and to wipe out his immortal teachings. We pointed out that this was just a desperate gamble on the part of the OL leaders to shore up the sagging fortunes of their Browderite revisionism. The OL is like a drowning man grasping at a straw, and they are frantically using political blackmail in order to bludgeon the American Marxist-Leninists into capitulation to U.S. imperialism.
Since then, the OL has continued to degenerate. The November 21, 1977 issue of The Call has a major article entitled "People's Daily Editorial on Theory of Three Worlds, 'A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO MARXISM' In fact, this article in The Call is a major contribution to the exposure of social-chauvinism. In this article the OL puffs itself up with pride and arrogance because.. .finally, over a year after Chairman Mao's death, a few sentences torn out of context from an alleged conversation with an unidentified person have been published in which the terms "first world", "second world" and "third world" occur. The OL is delirious with joy. The Call, however, doesn't have the faintest idea that its very joy exposes the flimsy fraud that the theory of "Three Worlds" belongs to Chairman Mao. How is it that this "great strategic concept of world revolution" is not emblazoned in all Chairman Mao's major works? Why, the fact that the "three worlders" are forced to resort to a few sentences tom out of context highlights the fact that this theory of "Three Worlds" is totally absent from all of Chairman Mao's work and is in antagonistic contradiction with all the teachings of Comrade Mao Tsetung! You can judge the desperation of the social-chauvinists, their fear of being left high and dry with their desperate gamble, by their joy over such trivia.
THE SOCIAL-CHAUVINISTS ADMIT THAT ALL THEIR PREVIOUS "EVIDENCE" WAS A PATENT FORGERY
The Call states the following: "This section (the first section of the article in 'People's Daily' published on November 1, 1977 -- ed.)...also for the first time, quotes Chairman Mao directly on the thesis (the theory of "three worlds" -- ed.)" (underlining added). Thus The Call openly admits that prior to November 1, 1977, Chairman Mao was never quoted "directly" on the theory of "Three Worlds" anywhere! And for once the OL social-chauvinists are telling the truth, or at least part of it! And with this truth they prove that they are patent liars and political blackmailers.
In OL's journal Class Struggle, Winter, 1976-77, #6, pp. 44-5, Dan Burstein, the editor of The Call, says that "Chairman Mao's views on the third world, although not publicly articulated outside of China until the 1970s, were developed consistently throughout his work in the period since World War II.
"In 1946, for example, Mao held his famous interview with Anna Louise Strong in which he pointed out: 'The United States and the Soviet Union are separated by a vast zone which includes many capitalist, colonial and semi-colonial countries in Europe, Asia and Africa.' " But now The Call has admitted that Chairman Mao was not "directly" quoted on the theory of "Three Worlds" until Nov. 1, 1977. Then what is the above quotation from Burstein? Burstein claimed it was an "example" of Chairman Mao developing consistently the theory of "Three Worlds". But The Call has now called its own editor a liar. In fact, the above quotation had nothing to do with the "Three Worlds". Chairman Mao's works since World War II the crucial ones having been published and circulated, have nothing to do with "Three Worlds". The Call is obliquely admitting the truth of what we maintained all along: that Burstein is confusing Chairman Mao with Tito, who developed the theory of "non-bloc", "red imperialism", and the "non-aligned movement" since World War II. As for the intermediate zone, this is just the orthodox Marxist-Leninist analysis of the international communist movement.
Then again, in an editorial on May 9, 1977, TheCall says: "Most significantly, they (the article in Vol. 5 of the Selected Works of Mao Tsetung -- ed.) include Chairman Mao's teachings on... (a list follows -- ed.)... and the concept of three worlds which is being used today to guide the world-wide struggle against the two superpowers." This too was a lie, just as we proved in Part I of "Flimsy Fraud, Desperate Gamble". The Call now admits that there was no "direct" quote on "three worlds" in Vol. 5.
In the September 12th issue of The Call, a centerfold article quotes the fifth volume in order to exhibit an "early version" of the "three worlds" theory. This too was just a lie, just as we proved in Part I.
SHAMELESS METHODS OF POLEMICS
But, it will be said, what about the alleged new quotations from Chairman Mao published on November 1, 1977? These quotations are just tiny fragments tom from informal talks with unknown "leaders of third world countries". There is no context. For a number of years the theory of "Three Worlds" has been hotly debated. For example, over four years ago the anti-revisionists in Brazil, united in the Communist Party of Brazil, publicly denounced the theory of "three worlds". No Congress of the Communist Party of China while Chairman Mao was alive ever endorsed this theory. Suddenly, after Chairman Mao dies, the social-chauvinists begin a big chorus that this is Chairman Mao's theory --but fail to give any "direct" quotations until over one year after his death. Such quotations or articles would have made a big sensation -- why did it take a year to find them? The answer is obvious. Anyone at all familiar with the nature of polemics will simply shake his or her head and chuckle over quotations being pulled out a year after someone's death to negate his whole life's teachings. What brazen hustlers!
As a matter of fact, these alleged quotations prove nothing. Right from the very start of our polemics against "three worlds" we pointed out that "It is not the term in itself that is the issue. Terms such as 'Third World', 'Second World', 'non-aligned world' or 'developing countries', etc., can indicate certain secondary features of the world... But these terms all cover up the fundamental questions of world politics. They cannot be the basis for the strategy of the world revolution. Thus the issue being raised by the OL is the question of the 'Three Worlds' theory as a worked-out conception of strategy of international and national politics" (The Workers' Advocate, March 10, 1977, p. 6). The question isn't the terms in themselves, but the strategy of world revolution. The OL is descending to the level of those religious freaks who "prove" that Chairman Mao was a god-fearing man by quoting "The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains".
In fact, one's chuckles over OL's methods will simply turn to Homeric laughter when one notices that OL is relying on quotations with a "leader of a third world country". Please tell us, which leader? As is well-known, all Marxists holding state power are compelled to hold diplomatic discussions with all sorts of people holding state power, including the most unpleasant task of talking to blood-stained reactionaries masquerading as "Third World" anti-imperialist heroes. But up till now these talks were never taken as the source of "great strategic concepts for world revolution". Customarily "great strategic concepts of world revolution" are given at Party Congresses, in major articles, and in public calls.
A TYPICAL METHOD OF REVISIONISTS
What OL is doing is taking a few alleged sentences produced out of thin air to negate Chairman Mao's whole life and teachings. Marxism-Leninism is alleged to have been overthrown by changed conditions in 1974. Why read On New Democracy, when it is allegedly out-dated, replaced by these new quotations ? Why read Vols. I-IV of Chairman Mao's SelectedWorks, works checked and revised by Chairman Mao himself, when one can simply listen to the chatter of those "in the know", those who have an "inside source", those who will not hesitate to distort facts in order to serve their ends?
The same method is always used by the revisionists and even the capitalists themselves to distort a revolutionary leader's teachings after his death. The social-chauvinists in World War I extensively "quoted" Marx and Engels to justify taking sides in an inter-imperialist war. They "quoted" and became like acrobats in their "dialectics" in order to give up Marxism while preserving a pseudo-Marxist coloring to fool the masses. The German social-chauvinists, for example, quoted Marx and Engels' (condemnation of Russian Tsarism. They quoted Engels about a possible war between Germany and Russia in the 1890's to hide the fact that all Marxists had agreed in 1912 in the Basle Resolution that the coming war was an inter-imperialist war, that no one had dared to even suggest using Engels' correct remarks about the situation in the 1890's and the danger of Russian Tsarism to negate the inter-imperialist character of World War I.
A particularly glaring example of this method of perversion of Marxism achieved a certain importance in the history of Marxism. In Engels' famous 1895 introduction to Marx's The Class Struggles in France.1848 - 1850, Engels discussed the tactics for the German Social-Democratic Party in a particular historical period. He stressed the role of careful preparatory work including parliamentary work and legal work in leading up to the successful violent revolution. When this introduction was published in 1895, both in book form and in Die Neue Zeit, theoretical journal of the German Social-Democratic Party, certain deletions and changes were made. Everything relating to peaceful and legal tactics was left in, everything relating to the violent revolution taken out. Engels was then presented as a believer in "legality at all costs". Engels was incensed and protested, but to no avail. A correct edition of his introduction was not published until 1930, 35 years later, in an edition printed in the Soviet Union, then the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
What the revisionists and deviators from Marxism wanted was that the working class should replace the theory of Marxism with the theory of peaceful transition. For example, the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) in the U.S. published a pamphlet in 1923 with Engels' introduction retitled as "Peaceful Revolution Vs. Violence: Can Socialism be achieved peacefully?" Their version had a preface by one SLP hack and an appendix reprinting Daniel DeLeon himself. The pamphlet claimed that "Engels shows that it is the capitalist reaction that wants rebellious workers to play the role of cannon fodder and that such a role must be rejected." The preface indignantly denounced opposition to this as "the teaching of a Bakunin" (anarchism) and denounced Leninism as "anarcho-communism". After all, didn't Engels say in his introduction: " Does the reader now understand why the powers that be positively want us to go where the guns shoot and the sabres flash? Why they accuse us today of cowardice, because we do not betake ourselves without more ado into the street, where we are certain of defeat in advance? Why they so earnestly implore us to play for once the part of cannon fodder?" But you may object, Marx and Engels called for violent revolution in The CommunistManifesto? Yes, but conditions had changed, the SLP said. Didn't Engels himself say in the introduction: "...the old tactics must be revised."Didn't he list the disadvantages that changes in conditions had brought to barricade fighting?
Of course, Engels' words were being distorted. For example, a whole paragraph beginning "Does that mean that in the future street fighting will no longer play any role ? Certainly not. " had been deleted. His words warning the socialists "not to fritter away this daily increasing shock force in vanguard skirmishes, but to keep it intact until the decisive day" were deleted. But this was not known until 35 years later. But the real Marxists did not abandon revolution for 35 years. They upheld the great banner of Marx and Engels and contemptuously cast aside the revisionist distortions of Engels' introduction. Marxism is the sharp weapon which explodes all flimsy frauds.
UPHOLD THE GREAT LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF COMRADE MAO TSETUNG
The social-chauvinist "three worlders" were Chairman Mao's bitterest enemies while he lived and they haven't changed now that he is dead. Do you want to see what these social-chauvinists are, how thin is the flimsy fraud of "orthodoxy" with which they are trying to cover themselves ? Both in OL's article and in the current issue of Class Struggle, #8, the OL picks up the modern revisionist, Togliattist banner of "poly-centrism". They denounce the idea of a "center" in the world revolutionary movement in the most disgraceful, demagogical language, designed to appeal to anti-communist sentiments among the backward elements of the activists. Tell us, dear social-chauvinist gamblers, if there is no "center" in international communism, then why are you printing alleged quotations from Chairman Mao? Was not Chairman Mao a "center" while he lived? Were not Comrades Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin "centers" of the world revolutionary movement ? Is not Comrade Enver Hoxha the leader of the international communist movement today ? You are quoting Chairman Mao not from respect for Marxism-Leninism, but only for the purposes of political blackmail, to hide your ugly chauvinism behind the great respect the revolutionary masses quite correctly hold for Chairman Mao. What a disgusting spectacle!
We call on all American Marxist-Leninists to uphold the life and teachings of the great Marxist-Leninist and leader of the international communist movement, Mao Tsetung. To uphold Chairman Mao's teachings means to wage a most determined and stem fight against the slanderers of Comrade Mao Tsetung, against the opportunist "three worlders" and poly- centrists who are throwing mud at his name. We must uphold the banner of Comrade Enver Hoxha, Chairman Mao's close comrade-in-arms who is continuing his work. Today to uphold Mao Tsetung Thought means to raise up the great banner of Marxism-Leninism in struggle against the social-chauvinist "dialecticians" of the "three worlds" and against all revisionism and opportunism.