ISML WEB VERSION:
ISSUE NUMBER 3.

INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE MARXIST-LENINIST
Number 3; 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBSCRIPTION DETAILS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PRINCIPLES & FOUNDING STATEMENT OF
INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE MARXIST-LENINIST;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
CORRESPONDING ADDRESSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
SECOND CONFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE-MARXIST-LENINIST
CONWAY HALL, December 8-10, 1997, LONDON UK, INVITATION . . . . . . . . . . . .7

DISCUSSION ARTICLE: THE REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN COLONIAL-TYPE
COUNTRIES By Bill Bland for the >Communist League= UK (1994). . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A PAPER ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION BY :
MARXIST LENINIST COMMUNIST PARTY (OF TURKEY) (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

MATERIALS FROM PROLETARIAN PATH, INDIA; & CORRESPONDENCE. . 36
i)A20th Congress and Stalin: Khrushchev and Soviet History@, (1956) :
ii) Fraternal Critique of International Struggle Marxist-Leninist Founding Documents (1997).
iii) A Fraternal Reply from Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America)


TO ALL MARXIST-LENINISTS, AND COMRADES OF THE WORLD!
We are honoured to announce the birth of a new Journal : "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist". The task of the journal is to analyse, debate and clarify, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, and within the Communist movement, the major theoretical, political, economic and social questions thrown up that face the world=s proletarians, toilers and the conscientious working people. The fundamental aim of the journal is to defend and spread Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory; to assist the birth of new revolutionary historical eras; to fight against any revisionist and opportunist deviations within the working peoples=s and communist movements; finally, it aims to work for the unity of the Marxist-Leninist movement in order to move to the establishment of a new Communist Marxist-Leninist International.

The journal aims to form a common revolutionary, political platform for the Marxist-Leninist groups, organisations and parties in the world, who will take part in this editorial initiative, for theoretical discussion and to exchange their experience of revolutionary struggle.

Especially today, when there is a resurgence of imperialist economic and military dominance all over the world; with the super-exploitation of labour for super profits from invested capitals; with the violent oppression and super-exploitation of under-developed countries; and the destruction of nature; with the fostering of racism, nationalist war and even fascism - it is necessary and urgent to obtain the unity in action of the International Marxist-Leninist movement.

Only this latter Unity can retard and potentially obstruct the advance of capitalist and imperialist barbarism; only this can transform the coming third inter-imperialist world war into a war against the bourgeoisie and imperialism; and only this can prepare the new proletarian revolutions for the final victory of Socialism all over the world.

Since the beginning of the fall of the Soviet Union from socialism under J.V.Stalin; into capitalist restoration under N.Khrushchev, the world's workers and poor toilers have struggled to re-establish the international proletarian and toilers movement. But there remain, many contradictory views and "camps", in the Marxist-Leninist left.

Many recent meetings of Marxist-Leninists, have recognised the need for a New International. Yet, despite the urgent need and desire of an International, the truth is that the communist movement is divided into many contradictory camps, which are incapable of discussing and debating. Sectarianism not only divides the movement but acts as a brake for the theoretical development of the movement. The main enemy we must fight and defeat - that Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin also had to fight against, is still revisionism. Revisionism is born and spread from capitalism, and the bourgeois culture of egoism and individualism. Unfortunately revisionism has survived inside the communist movement, and this has caused the defeat of the first experience of Socialism.

In the construction of socialism, class struggle and dictatorship of the proletariat must form a new material socialist basis; that will move quickly to eject bourgeois culture from the minds of men and women. Only this can and will prevent bourgeois culture arising again.

Before the workers and poor peasants of the world can come together in a new International, they must understand and write their own history of the last 150 years; and they must answer politically and in a revolutionary manner the new problems that arise out of historical development. The Marxist-Leninist analysis of the capitalist process of production and of the revolutionary road of the proletariat in order to smash and bury capitalism once and for all - will always be valid and relevant.

In such a situation it is impossible to build an international unless the communists prove capable of organising at the least, an international forum where theoretical differences can be aired and debated. They must answer the Question : "How did revisionism, temporarily defeat the world's communists, led by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin? Why has this happened? Why was the struggle for Socialism temporarily defeated?"

The Editorial Board of "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist", holds that without such a firm theoretical and historical clarity, it will be impossible to form a principled "United" International. At a critical stage in the development of the Russian Communist movement, Comrade Lenin called for "LINES OF DEMARCATION":

"We declare that before we can unite and in order that we may unite we MUST first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation as Iskra demands" (Works Vol 5; Moscow 1977; p.367). These "Lines of Demarcation" are required now, more than ever before. These lines can only be drawn by a scientific and clear debate aimed at answering the questions above.

The answers to these central questions will undoubtedly assist us in taking up the challenges of all the theoretical questions thrown up by the world today. These theoretical questions include the development of global finance capital, which has taken advantage of the weakness of the world proletariat in the wake of the victory of the world revisionist movement.

"INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE-Marxist-Leninist" is an international forum created by Marxist-Leninist organisations the world over, to organise non-sectarian debate on these urgent theoretical questions facing the Marxist-Leninist movement.

Ultimately we aim to assist the formation of a NEW COMMUNIST, MARXIST-LENINIST INTERNATIONAL, by promoting and fostering a open, reasoned, scientific debate between those who consider themselves Marxist-Leninists.

Appropriately enough, "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE- Marxist-Leninist" was formed by a democratic decision, at a Conference in December 1995; honouring the Centenary of the death of FREDERICK ENGELS. As co-founders of Historical Materialism and of the First International Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, jointly set the World's Workers on the only possible road to their full freedom.

This Conference was convened by "L'Uguaglianza" ["Equality"] of Italy, and held in Ischia on December 1995. At this meeting, representatives of parties and groups; from 11 countries attended to present views on the RELEVANCE OF ENGELS FOR TODAY, and to assist in the eventual formation of a new Marxist-Leninist International.

Below is listed the Editorial Board's EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES of operation. In recognition of the centenary of the death of Engels, Master of the international proletariat and one of the co-founders of our great movement, the first two issues will be largely devoted to the papers that were presented at the meeting.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD: Domenico Savio of CeCim (Italy); Sherif of Marxist Leninist Communist Party (Turkey); Hari Kumar of Alliance Marxist-Leninist (Canada and USA); Jehangir Merwanji of Revolutionary Workers Coordinating Committe (India).

_________________________________________________________________

FOUNDING EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES OF "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist".

1. We proudly uphold the following points of Marxist-Leninist principles, and believe that they form the minimum, agreed basis to unite ALL who call themselves Marxist-Leninists for the purpose of bringing out an international theoretical, political and revolutionary journal:

2. It is important that the journal involve all the groups who consider themselves Marxist-Leninists. For that reason the Editorial Board will try to contact all the Marxist-Leninist groups, organisation and parties who accept the Founding Principles of clause (1). The Editorial Board has the task to inform them about the journal and to encourage them to take part in its production and circulation, and to attend the next conference in 1997. This conference can be attended by more than one organisation from those countries where the Marxist-Leninist Party has not yet been re-constructed.

3. Until an open debate has achieved the clarity and the principled agreement that is required by the international Marxist-Leninist movement, no new, principled and meaningful Communist International can be formed. That is why a prominent section of "International Struggle" will be the "Discussion and Reply" section.

The Editors will be scrupulously fair to all points of view that conform to clause (1). That is to say, we guarantee that ALL Marxist-Leninists will be able to have a written and printed reply, either on the basis of their own, or, on their party's, or group's behalf.

Moreover, the Editors are mandated to ensure that a scientific, non-sectarian debate proceeds on MARXIST-LENINIST LINES. That is, a debate that is conducted on principled and factual lines; and eschews personality attacks, or character assassination.

4. The editors are aware that the road towards the Marxist-Leninist International cannot be covered on the theoretical level only, so they want to emphasise the importance of the establishment of communist parties and groups in order to organise the class struggle against the bourgeoisie and the reactionary forces. They want also to emphasise the importance of the exchange of political and organisational experiences between the world revolutionaries and communists.

5. The only views that will not be tolerated in the journal are those that are openly anti-Marxist-Leninist. They include openly racist, bourgeois, revisionist and Trotskyite views. Only one exception to this will be permitted; that will be where the editors take a joint decision that such an article, carried a valuable lesson to the Marxist-Leninist movement, and needed exposing by printing. Such cases will always be appended with a covering Editorial.

6. The editors number 5, including a Chief Editor. The current founding board has been decided by a democratic election. Their mandate is for 12-18 months by which time, a new Conference will be held. At this Conference all decisions, elections, and functions can be re-discussed. All groups will carry one vote at this forthcoming Second Conference. New elections will be held for the new Editorial Board.

7. The languages of "INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE - Marxist-Leninist", are initially only English. This is purely a practical consideration at this time. At this stage, participating groups and parties will have their own responsibility to translate the journal into their own other, significant languages. With further consolidation of our strength, we will be able to later assist this translation process.

8. Donations are required for the journal; but these do not confer any editorial privilege.

9. We are fully agreed that a new Marxist-Leninist Communist International is urgently needed. As LINES OF DEMARCATION are drawn, we wish to assist at the right time, in the formation of such a single, truly united Marxist-Leninist Communist International.

We request Marxist-Leninists the world over to participate in this journal. We ask that views be forwarded to the chief editor at the addresses below. We further ask, that these submissions be in both paper form and, if possible computer disc form IBM compatible. Of course, if the latter is impossible, then we will accept articles in only a written form.

EDITORIAL BOARD JULY 1996.

Domenico Savio, CeCIM, (Italy).
J.Sherif, MLCP(Turkey);
Hari Kumar, Alliance (Canada & USA)
Jehangir Merwanji, Revolutionary Workers Coordinating Committee (India).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SECOND CONFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE-MARXIST-LENINIST CONWAY HALL, December 8-10, 1997, LONDON UK, INVITATION

The journal and movement entitled AInternational Struggle-Marxist-Leninist@, were born at Ischia, Italy in 1996. As the principles and statements indicate, it was a movement born out of a recognition, that the international Marxist-Leninist movement was divided. However, it is also born out of conviction, that the only way of resolving these divisions was through active debate about these issues. We therefore proposed that this journal should, in a non-sectarian manner, actively discuss and decide what constitutes current Marxism-Leninism.
    As we see it, the minimum requirement for all Marxist-Leninist today, is to accept the stands of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Beyond that however, we all recognize that there are deep divisions. Marxist-Leninist recognise that the only way to resolve these divisions is to engage in a principled debate.
    We were mandated at the founding meeting to convene a SECOND CONFERENCE, to
examine the way forward for the unity of the international communist movement, and to try to engage further groups and organisations that are of Marxist-Leninist conviction. At this meeting we wish to constructively discuss the international movement and wether these current divisions can be bridged. What are the divisions? In what manner can organisations of a Marxist-Leninist conviction, overcome these divisions? How are the deep theoretical divisions to be debated, or is there no point in discussing them? What practical activities, in the form of the United Front work, can be engaged in the sort of a full agreement and resolution of these differences? Unless the movement internationally can resolve these issues, many comrades are likely to remain confused, and in this we include ourselves. Since the attack on Khrushchev led by Albania and China, there has been no single journal and/or forum for such a serious debate. Yet such a debate is exactly what is needed, in order to resolve the way forward. We must remember that this was the way that Iskra, under Lenin's leadership, accepted the challenge of forming one great river of Bolshevism, out of the smaller rivulets of struggle, that existed before the debates led by Iskra. We must remember that Lenin pointed out that without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement!
    In this spirit we fraternally ask that your organization join in the serious matter of resolution of these issues. The second Conference of the International Struggle-Marxist-Leninist journal and movement cordially invite your organisation, to attend at CONWAY HALL, LONDON, UK, on the 8-9-10th DECEMBER 1997. We ask that you send immediately to the London convening organizers, your acceptance of this task, the name of your organization, some of your literature and the number of delegates you plan to send. Conference fees should be according to what the delegations can afford.
    The organizers shall not be able to bear all financial responsibility for the delegates. They, however shall provide board and lodging for two persons per delegations. Each delegation is entitled to one vote and one speaker, although observers with non-speaking rights are more than welcome. Papers to be addressed at the conference should be sent in to the Progressive Documentation and Information center of Turkey (see address above) at least until the end of November and should not exceed 10 (ten) type-written pages. All delegates are advised to bring in their literature for exchange and distribution. The organizers shall try to prepare proper facilities for the exposure of such literature. Considering the high cost of hiring people competent in simultaneous translation, the organizers have decided on English being the language to be used during the conference. Those who can not communicate in English and/or want to bring their own interpreters are, of course welcome to do so. All inquiries for further information may be sent to the addresses on page 6 for the journal.

  

ARTICLE FOR DISCUSSION : THE REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRIES
By Bill Bland for the >Communist League=; Originally Read to the Marxist-Leninist Seminar. London July 1993)

1. THE MARXIST-LENINIST STRATEGY

The aim of Marxist-Leninists is to lead the working class in each country to accomplish socialist revolutions which will establish socialist, and ultimately communist, societies.

The revolutionary process will differ somewhat in each country according to the specific conditions existing:

AThe nationally peculiar and nationally specific features in each separate country must unfailingly be taken into account by the Comintern when drawing up guiding directives for the working-class movement of the country concerned."
J. V. Stalin: "Notes  on  Contemporary Themes";  (July  1927),  "Works", Vol 9; Moscow; 1954; p. 337. In this paper I shall attempt to analyse the revolutionary process in colonial-type countries. I use the term >colonial-type countries= to mean relatively underdeveloped countries which are dominated by one or another capitalist Great Power, which is usually an imperialist (ie., monopoly capitalist) country. I shall use the following definitions and terminology. A colonial type country may be:

1) a colony, which is ruled directly by a Great Power; or

2) a semi-colony, which is nominally independent but is in fact dominated by a Great Power.
A semi-colony which was formerly a colony is called a neo-colony.

A revolution in a colonial-type country which achieves the national liberation of the country is termed a national-democratic revolution.

A revolution which achieves the political power of the working class is termed a socialist revolution.

The Role of the National Bourgeoisie

A key feature of the class structure of a colonial-type country, is that the native capitalist class consists of two parts:

Firstly, the comprador capitalist class or comprador bourgeoisie, which has close ties with the landlord class and whose exploitation is based primarily upon foreign trade, making them, like the landlord class, dependent upon the dominating Great Power;

and

Secondly the national capitalist class or national bourgeoisie, whose exploitation is based on the ownership of industrial enterprises and whose economic advancement is held back by the dominating Great Power

Stalin pointed out in May 1925 to the students of the Communist University of the Toilers of the East that the native bourgeoisie in some of these countries :

AIs splitting up into two parts, a revolutionary part (the national bourgeoisie -- Ed.) . . . and a compromising part (the comprador bourgeoisie -- Ed.), of which the first is continuing the revolutionary Struggle, whereas the Second is entering a bloc with imperialism@.
J.V. Stalin "The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East"; (May 1925), "Works", Volume 7; Moscow; 1954; p. 147. The 6th Congress of the Communist International, in September 1928, agreed that the native bourgeoisie in colonial-type countries : ADo not adopt a uniform attitude to imperialism. One part, more especially the commercial bourgeoisie, directly serves the interests of imperialist capital (the so-called comprador bourgeoisie). In general, they maintain, more or less consistently, an anti-national, imperialist point of view, directed against the whole nationalist movement, as do the feudal allies of imperialism and the more highly paid native officials. The other parts of the native bourgeoisie, especially those representing the interests of native industry, support the national movement.@ 6th  Congress  of Communist International:  Theses on the  Revolutionary Movement in Colonial and Semi-Colonial Countries,  (September 1928),  in: Jane Degras (Ed.): "The Communist International:  1919-1943: Documents", Volume 2; London; 1971; p. 538. Therefore, in a colonial-type country, the national bourgeoisie is a class objectively in favour of the national-democratic revolution but objectively opposed to the socialist revolution.

It follows that the class forces of a colonial-type country which are objectively in favour of the national-democratic revolution are wider and stronger than the classes objectively in favour of the socialist revolution. The Marxist-Leninist strategy for the revolutionary process in a colonial-type country must be based on striving to mobilise the maximum class forces objectively possible for both the national-democratic and the socialist revolutions:

AIt is possible to conquer the more powerful enemy . . . only by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this fail to understand even a grain of Marxism."
Vladimir I. Lenin: "'Left-wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder"; (April 1920), in: "Selected Works",   Volume 10; London; 1946; p. 112. AThe Communist Party of each country must unfailingly avail itself of even the smallest opportunity of gaining a mass ally for the proletariat, even if a temporary, vacillating, unstable and unreliable ally."
J V Stalin:  'Notes  on Contemporary  Themes'  (July  1927),  in:"Works", Vol 9; Moscow; 1954; p. 337. Thus the Marxist-Leninist strategy of the revolutionary process in colonial-type countries is to strive to carry through the process in two Stages: Firstly, the stage of national-democratic revolution and, secondly, the stage of socialist revolution.

In the first stage, the strategy is for the Marxist-Leninist Party to ally itself with the national-bourgeoisie, to the extent that this class remains genuinely revolutionary:

ATemporary cooperation is permissible, and in certain circumstances even a temporary alliance, between the Communist Party and the national-revolutionary movement, provided that the latter is a genuine revolutionary movement, that it genuinely struggles against the ruling power, and that its representatives do not hamper the Communists in their work."
6th  Congress,  Communist International:  Theses on  the  Revolutionary Movement in the Colonial and  Semi-Colonial Countries (September  1928) in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op.cit,, Volume 2; p. 542. The Transition to the Socialist Revolution

Such cooperation, such an alliance, is temporary because the aim of the Marxist-Leninist Party is to win for the working class the leading role in the revolutionary process in order to carry this through, with the minimum possible interruption to the socialist revolution. This leadership of the revolutionary process can be won only by struggle with the national bourgeoisie. The Marxist-Leninist strategy is, as Stalin states, that :

@The proletariat pushes aside the national bourgeoisie, consolidates its hegemony and assumes the lead of the vast masses of the working people in town and country, in order to overcome the resistance of the national bourgeoisie, secure the complete victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and then gradually convert it into a socialist revolution";
JV. Stalin: "Questions of the Chinese Revolution"; (April 1927), "Works"; Vo 9; Moscow; 1954; p. 225 @.

AThe bourgeois-democratic revolution, consistently pursued, will be transformed into the proletarian revolution in those colonies and semi-colonies where the proletariat acts as leader and exercises hegemony over the movement. .. In these (colonial-type -- Ed.) countries the main task is to organise the workers and peasants independently in the Communist Party of the proletariat . . and emancipate them from the influence of the national bourgeoisie";
6th  Congress  of Communist International:  Programme of  the  Communist International (September 1928),  in:  Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 507, 522.

 If it becomes clear that the working class is winning the leadership of the national-democratic revolution, and so is attaining a position to transform the revolution into a socialist revolution, then the national bourgeoisie will inevitably desert the revolution and go over to the counterrevolution, preferring the retention of limited exploitation under colonial-type domination to the ending of exploitation under socialism. This, according to Stalin and the Communist International, was what occurred in Chiang Kai-Shek's coup in China in 1927: AThe ECCI issued directives concerned with preparing the workers and peasants for struggle against the (national -- Ed,) bourgeoisie and their armed forces. This was a few months before Chiang Kai-Shek's coup. Subsequent events . . confirmed the Comintern=s predictions: a radical regrouping of classes occurred, the (national -- Ed.) bourgeoisie committed treachery and deserted to the enemy camp; the revolution moved on to a new and higher stage";
ECCI:  Resolution  on the Present Stage of the Chinese Revolution  (July 1927), in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 393.

AIn the first period of the Chinese revolution... the national bourgeoisie (not the compradors) sided with the revolution. Chiang Kai-Shek's coup marks the desertion of the national bourgeoisie from the revolution."
JV.Stalin: "Questions of the Chinese Revolution"; ( April 1927), in: "Works"; Volume 9; Moscow; 1954; p. 226, 229.

 After the working class has gained the leadership of the revolution has begun to transform the revolution into a socialist revolution, Marxist-Leninist strategy is to bring about the establishment of the dictatorship of the working class: AThe revolution will be unable to crush the resistance bourgeoisie, to maintain its victory and to push forward to the victory of socialism unless . . it creates a special organ in the of the dictatorship of the proletariat as its principal mainstay."
JV. Stalin: "The Foundations of Leninism"; (April/May  1924), "Works", Vol 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 112A. 2. REVISIONIST STRATEGIES

The term >revisionism= is applied to any ideology which, while presenting itself as Marxism-Leninism, in fact distorts it so as to serve the interests of a capitalist class.

Revisionism is of service to a capitalist class in an environment where Marxism-Leninism has won support, serving to divert potential Marxist-Leninists into political channels which serve the interests of the capitalist class.

In so far as the revolutionary process in colonial-type countries is concerned, there are two basic types of revisionist trend:

Firstly, types which serve the interests of imperialists and comprador capitalists. Into this category fits such revisionisms as Trotskyism

and : Secondly, types which serve the interests of national capitalists. Into this category fits revisionisms such as Maoism. Because the national capitalists of a colonial-type country need national-democratic revolution in order to develop their wealth and power free of imperialist shackles, this second type of revisionism appears to be >more revolutionary= than the first type. In fact, its objective role is to seek to check the revolutionary process at the stage of national-democratic revolution and stop it from proceeding to the stage of socialist revolution.

TROTSKYISM
As we have said, Trotskyism is a type of revisionism which, in relation to the revolutionary process in colonial-type countries, serves the interests of imperialists and comprador capitalists. Trotskyism rejects the Marxist~Leninist view that the national capitalist class can play a revolutionary role in relation to the national-democratic stage of the revolutionary process:

AThe national bourgeoisie has been essentially an instrument of the compradors and imperialism."
Leon Trotsky: "The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin", in: "Problems of the Chinese Revolution"; Ann Arbor (USA); 1967; p., 21. It therefore rejects as >counter-revolutionary opportunism= the Marxist-Leninist strategy of stages in the revolutionary process in colonial-type countries: AThe khvostist (>tailist=-- Ed.) theory of >stages= or >steps= repeatedly proclaimed by Stalin in recent times, has served as the motivation in principle for the opportunist tactic.
Once we set out on this road, our policy must be immediately transformed from a revolutionary factor into a conservative one .@
Leon Trotsky: "The Chinese Revolution and the Theses of Comrade Stalin", in: "Problems of the Chinese Revolution"; Ann Arbor (USA); 1967; p., 21. Under slogans which boil down to >socialism now=, Trotskyism serves to assist the imperialists and comprador bourgeoisie by disrupting and weakening the potential objective forces of the national-democratic revolution.

MAOISM
Maoism or Chinese revisionism is the most influential of the types of revisionism which serve the interests of the national capitalist classes of colonial-type countries.

As have seen, the Chinese national bourgeoisie defected from the Chinese revolution in 1927:

AChiang Kai-Shek's coup marks the desertion of the national bourgeoisie from the revolution." JV Stalin: "Questions of the Chinese Revolution" (April 1927), "Works", Vol 9; Moscow; 1954; p. 229. After Mao Tse-tung and his supporters took over the leadership of the Communist Party of China at Tsunyi in January 1935, the Party's policy became one of striving to win back the national bourgeoisie into a united front with the Party: AThe (national -- Ed.) bourgeoisie . . . withdrew from the revolution and turned into enemies of the people. .In the present circumstances there is a possibility that the bourgeoisie will once again cooperate with us and join in the resistance to Japan, and the party of the proletariat should therefore not repel them but welcome them and revive the alliance with them."
Mao Tse-tung: "The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistance to Japan"; (May 1937),  in: "Selected Works", Volume 1; Peking; 1964; p. 271, 272. This programme naturally required the national bourgeoisie to be convinced that if they joined a united front with the Communist Party under its new Maoist leadership they would be secure from socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Mao accordingly strove to convince the national bourgeoisie of this: ACapitalists should be encouraged to come into our anti-Japanese base areas and start enterprises here if they so desire. Private enterprise should be encouraged and state enterprise regarded as only one sector of the economy."
Mao Tse-tung: "On Policy"; (December 1940), in: "Selected Works", Volume 2; Peking; 1965; p. 447.@

ASome people suspect that the Chinese Communists are opposed to the growth of private capital and the protection of private property, but they are mistaken...We have too little of capitalism.. . It will be necessary in the interests of social progress to facilitate the development of the private capitalist sector of the economy."
Mao Tse-tung: "On Coalition Government"; (April  1945),  in: "Selected Works", Vol  3; Peking; 1965; p. 281, 283.

 Maoism accepts the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the stages of the revolutionary process in colonial-type countries and the Marxist-Leninist concept: AThe Chinese revolution must go through two stages, first the democratic revolution, and second, the socialist revolution."
Mao Tse-tung: "On New Democracy"; (Jan 1940),  in; "Selected Works", Vol 2; Peking; 1965; p. 341. It also accepts the Marxist-Leninist concept that the national bourgeoisie can play a revolutionary role in the first (national-democratic) stage of the revolutionary process: AThe national bourgeoisie.. is oppressed by imperialism and fettered by feudalism, and consequently is in contradiction with both of them. In this respect it constitutes one of the revolutionary forces."
Mao Tse-tung: "The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party"; (Dec 1939), in: "Selected  Works", Volume 2; Peking; 1965; p. 320. However, Maoism reflects the Marxist-Leninist concept that the strategy of the Party should be directed towards the formation, with the minimum of delay, of a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. According to Maoism, in colonial-type countries the strategy should be directed towards the formation, as a >transitional= form of state, of a >new-democratic state=, a state of the dictatorship of several classes: AIn present-day China, the bourgeois-democratic revolution is .. . one of a new special type. We call this type the new-democratic revolution and it is developing in all other colonial and semi-colonial countries as well as in China. The new-democratic revolution.. results . . . in a dictatorship of the united front of all the revolutionary classes."
Mao Tse-tung: "The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party"; (Dec 1939), in: "Selected  Works", Volume 2; Peking; 1965; p. 326, 327.

AThe new-democratic republic will be... different from the socialist republic of the Soviet type under the dictatorship of the proletariat.. For a certain historical period, this form is not suitable for the revolutions in the colonial and semi-colonial countries... Republics under the joint dictatorship of several revolutionary classes.. is the transitional form of state to be adopted in the revolutions of the colonial and semi-colonial countries...it is an alliance of several revolutionary classes."
Mao Tse-tung: "On New Democracy"; (Jan 1940),  in; "Selected Works", Vol    2; Peking; 1965; p. 350-51

 Mao states that the classes which form this >new-democratic state= comprise all the classes in Chinese society, which have an objective interest in opposing imperialism, including the national bourgeoisie: AThe new democratic republic.. will consist of the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie and all those in the country who agree with the national and democratic revolution; it will be the alliance of these classes in the national and democratic revolution. The salient feature here is the inclusion of the bourgeoisie."
Mao Tse-tung: "The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistance to Japan"; (May  1937),  in: "Selected Works", Volume 1; Peking; 1964; p. 271-72. But, as we have seen, Marxism-Leninism holds that, in order to build and maintain a socialist society, a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary: AThe revolution will be unable to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie, to maintain its victory and to push forward to the final victory of socialism unless.. it creates a special organ in the form, of the dictatorship of the proletariat as its principal mainstay."
J.V. Stalin: "The Foundations of Leninism"; May  1924,  in: 'Works', Vol 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 112. But any transition from >new democracy= -- the joint dictatorship of several classes, including the national bourgeoisie -- to a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat must, according to Marxism-Leninism, involve class struggle against the resistance of the national bourgeoisie. Maoism, however, rejects this Marxist-Leninist view, holding that the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class can be resolved peacefully: AThe contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and exploited and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful means."
Mao Tse-tung: "On  the Correct Handling of Contradictions among  the People"; (February 1957), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.386. The >correct handling= which can resolve these contradictions by peaceful means is Which Mao defines as a policy of the Aideological remoulding@,(Mao Tse-tung: "On  the Correct Handling of Contradictions among  the People"; (February 1957), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.386) of the national bourgeoisie. But, this is the >theory= of the Soviet revisionist Nikolai Bukharin, who stated that capitalists can grow peacefully into socialism: AAccording to Bukharin's theory of the capitalists= peaceful growth into socialism, . . . the irreconcilable antagonism of class interests between the exploiters and the exploited disappears, the exploiters grow into socialism."
J.V.Stalin: "The Right Deviation in the CPSU (B)"; (April 1929): 'Works', Vol 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 32. On which >theory= Stalin commented: AThere have been no cases in history voluntarily departed from the scene. There have been no cases in history where the dying bourgeoisie has not exerted preserve its existence."
J.V.Stalin: "The Right Deviation in the CPSU (B)"; (April 1929): 'Works', Vol 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 40. If, therefore, something called >socialism= was introduced peacefully in China, not against the opposition of but in cooperation with the Chinese National bourgeoisie it must, according to Marxism-Leninism, be a spurious and not a real socialism. Indeed, by September 1953, five years after the proclamation of the People's Republic of China in October 1949, Mao was equating >socialism= with >state capitalism=: AThe transformation of capitalism into socialism is to be accomplished through state capitalism@.
Mao  Tse-tung: "The  Only  Road for the Transformation of  Capitalist Industry and Commerce"; (September 1953),  in: 'Selected Works', Vol 5; Peking ; 1977; p. 112. AState capitalism.. is to be put into practice gradually so as to attain socialist ownership by the whole people."
Mao Tse-tung: "On  the Draft Constitution of the People's Republic  of China"; (June 1954),  in: "Selected Works",  Volume 5;  Peking;  1977; p.143. This state capitalism was composed of joint state-private enterprises, that is, enterprises jointly operated by state and private capital: AThe advanced form of state capitalism in China is called a joint state-private enterprise. This is the principal way through which the transition of capitalist industry and commerce into socialist enterprises is being effected... A joint state-private enterprise is one in which the state invests and to which it assigns personnel to share in management with the capitalists... A fixed rate of interest was paid by the state for the total investment of the capitalists in the joint state-private enterprises. The interest is fixed at a rate of 5% per annum."
Kuan  Ta-Tung: "The Socialist Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Commerce in China"; Peking;   1960; p. 75, 84, 86-87.@ So, under Maoist >socialism=, as Mao himself admits, the working class continue to be exploited: AIn joint State-private industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still get a fixed rate of interest on their capital, that is to say, exploitation still exists."
Mao Tse-tung: "On  the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People"; (February 1957), in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p. 394. The Chinese national capitalists not only had no objection to Mao=s >socialism=, in which the state invested in their enterprises and guaranteed their profits), they welcomed it: AWhy were there increasing numbers of capitalists who petitioned of their own free will to have their enterprises changed over to joint state-private operation?.. The statistics of 64 factories in various parts of China which had gone over to joint operation earlier than others revealed that their profits were increasing... Taking their profit in 1950 as 100, it was.. 306 in 1953... The capitalists paraded with the beating of cymbals and drums, while sending in their petitions for the change-over of their enterprises.@
Kuan  Ta-Tung: "The Socialist Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Commerce in China"; Peking;   1960; p. 78-79, 84. By 1954 Mao was claiming that : ASocialism already exists in our country today@.
Mao Tse-tung: "On  the Draft Constitution of the People's Republic  of China"; (June 1954),  in: "Selected Works",  Volume 5;  Peking;  1977; p.143.

ASocialist relations of production have been established@.
Mao Tse-tung: "On  the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People"; (February 1957), in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p. 394.

 VARIANTS OF MAOISM

Since Maoism is a type of revisionism designed to serve the interests of the national bourgeoisie of China, variants of Maoism have arisen to serve the interests of the national bourgeoisies of other similar colonial-type countries Examples of such variants of Maoism are Leduanism (Vietnamese revisionism) and Kimilsungism (Korean revisionism)

Leduanism

Leduanism, or Vietnamese revisionism, is named after Le Duan, who was General/First Secretary of the Vietnamese Workers? Party (now the Vietnamese Communist Party) from 1960 until his death in 1986. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was founded in northern Vietnam in September 1948 on the basis of Leduanism, and in July 1976 North and South Vietnam were unified into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Leduanism follows Maoism in departing from Marxism-Leninism to put forward the strategy of working for the formation of a state which is a joint dictatorship of several classes, including the national bourgeoisie:

AOur Party guided the workers and peasants to establish a national united front with the bourgeoisie@.
Le  Duan: "Leninism and Vietnam's Revolution",  in: "On the  Socialist Revolution in Vietnam", Volume 1; Hanoi; 1965; p. 34. Leduanism also follows Maoism in putting forward the programme of the peaceful transition to >socialism= through state capitalism, by the formation, in cooperation with the national capitalists, of joint state-private enterprises. Participation in these, according to Leduanism, remoulds the national capitalists ideologically into workers: AThe national bourgeoisie.. are willing to accept socialist transformation, therefore our Party's policy is peacefully to transform capitalist trade and industry, gradually to transform capitalist ownership into socialist ownership, through State capitalism, and to transform the bourgeois from exploiters into genuine workers through ideological education and participation in productive labour@.
Le  Duan: "Leninism and Vietnam's Revolution",  in: "On the  Socialist Revolution in Vietnam", Volume 2; Hanoi; 1965; p. 39. Kim Il Sungism

Kim Il Sungism, or Korean revisionism, is named after Kim Il Sung, who was the General Secretary of the Korean Workers= Party from 1966, till his death in 1995. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was founded in North Korea in September 1945 on the basis of Kimilsungism. The DPRK is a state based on a joint dictatorship of several classes, including the national bourgeoisie:

AA Democratic People=s Republic.. must be built by forming a democratic united front . . . which embraces even the national capitalists."
Kim Il Sung: "On the Building of New Korea and the National United Front"; (October 1948), in: "Works", Volume 1; Pyongyang; 1980; p. 298.

AThe individual entrepreneurs, traders and people of other social sections participate in government.. and form a component part of the united front."
Kim Il Sung: "On the Immediate Tasks of the People's Power in Socialist Construction"; (September  1957),   in:  "Selected  Works",  Volume  2; Pyongyang; 1975; p. 37.

 Kimilsungism rejects the Marxist-Leninist concept that the dictatorship of the working class is essential to construct and maintain socialism: AThe establishment of the power of the proletarian dictatorship by force was followed as a last resort in some countries.. In the northern half (of Korea -- Ed.).. this was not necessary."
Baik Bong: 'Kim Ii Sung: Biography', Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 176. According to Kimilsungism, the joint dictatorship with the capitalist can carry through not only the national-democratic revolution but also the socialist revolution: AThe entrepreneurs and traders of our country are fellow-travellers . not only in the carrying out of the democratic revolution but also in socialist construction@.
Kim Il Sung: "On the Immediate Tasks of the People's Power in Socialist Construction"; (September  1957),   in:  "Selected  Works",  Volume  2; Pyongyang; 1975; p. 37.

AUniting with the national capitalists in the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic revolution made them.. proceed to the socialist revolution.
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p. 37.

 Therefore, the contradiction between the national capitalist class and the working class can be resolved peacefully: AClass struggle attendant on the socialist transformation of capitalist trade and industry was resolved mainly by means of persuasion and education, not by violence.@
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.26. Kimilsungism rejects the Maoist strategy of forming state-capitalist (joint state-private) enterprises, in favour of the forming of >cooperatives= in conjunction with the national capitalists: AComrade Kim Il Sung held that.. it was wholly unnecessary for the peaceful transformation of capitalist trade and industry to assume the form of state capitalism@.
Baik Bong: 'Kim Il Sung: Biography', Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 520.

AOur country was the first to transform capitalist traders and manufacturers along socialist lines by using the cooperative economy. This is an original experience.@
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.28.

 According to Kimilsungism, the mere act of joining a cooperative transforms a national capitalist into a >socialist worker=: ABy joining the producers= cooperatives, the entrepreneurs and traders . . were transformed into socialist working people."
Kim Il Sung: "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the Banner of Freedom and Independence for  Our People & a Powerful Weapon for Building Socialism and Communism"; (September 1968), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Pyongyang; 1975; p. 151. The process of cooperativisation was carried out gradually: AThe fundamental requirement of the policy of transforming the capitalist traders and manufacturers on socialist lines.. is to reorganise the capitalist economy gradually.@
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.23. Of the forms of cooperative introduced into Korea, the second and third forms were open to national capitalists. The second form was one in which the income of members was related to the amount invested by them. It was : Asemi-socialist form in which.. both socialist distribution according to work done and distribution according to the amount of investment were applied."
Kim  Han Gil: "Modern History of Korea"; Pyongyang; 1979; p. 387. The third form was defined as a >fully socialist= form in which the income of members was related only to work performed (a definition which included managerial skill and responsibility) but not to the amount invested by them: AThe third form was a completely socialist form in which only socialist distribution applied@.
Kim  Han Gil: "Modern History of Korea"; Pyongyang; 1979; p. 387. National capitalists joining a cooperative could choose freely which form of distribution to adopt. They naturally exercised this choice in accordance with their interests: AIn transforming capitalist traders and manufacturers on socialist lines, our Party applied the voluntary principle to them.. The important demand of the voluntary principle is . . . to strictly guard against coercive methods in cooperativisation and conduct this movement according to the free will of private traders and manufacturers... The essential requirement of the voluntary principle is to make... private traders and manufacturers.. choose the forms of their own accord@.
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.31, 72.

AThe voluntary principle and the principle of mutual interests were observed in the cooperative transformation of capitalist traders and industrialists.@
Baik Bong: 'Kim Il Sung: Biography', Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 520.

 Thus, in accordance with their interests, they tended to choose the second form of cooperation, since those who did so received A.. reasonable dividends upon the investments@.
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.143.

AThe second form was popular in the cooperation of capitalist trade and industry. It was a rational form which was readily acceptable to capitalists because it applied distribution according to the amount of investment.@
Kim  Han Gil: "Modern History of Korea"; Pyongyang; 1979; p. 387.

AEntrepreneurs were gradually incorporated into the cooperative economy; here, in particular, the semi-socialist form of cooperative economy was broadly applied."
Kim Il  Sung:  Report on the Work of the Central Committee to  the  4th Congress of the Workers' Party  of Korea (September 1961),  in: "Selected Works", Volume 3; Pyongyang; 1976; p. 69.

 National capitalists who chose the second form of cooperation were encouraged to pass to the higher, third form (in which the income of members was not related to investment): AIn accordance with the level of consciousness of the members and the economic condition of the cooperative, this (the second form of higher cooperation -- Ed.) was gradually developed into a higher form, that is into a completely socialist economic form, in which they received dividends entirely according to their work@.
Baik Bong: 'Kim Il Sung: Biography', Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 521. National capitalists were encouraged to choose to opt for this transition not only by the taking of managerial skill and responsibility into account in determining dividends >according to work' (Just as occurred in the revisionist Soviet Union in the period which followed the >economic reforms= of the 1960's) -- but by the payment of additional compensation to those who opted for the transition: AIn such cases (of national capitalists opting for transition to the third form of cooperation -- Ed.) he (Kim Il Sung -- Ed.) saw to it that each cooperative member was paid due compensation for his contribution made to the means of production and resources@.
Baik Bong: 'Kim Il Sung: Biography', Volume 2; Beirut; 1973; p. 521. By August 1955 all former North Korean national capitalists had joined cooperatives: AThe ratio of private traders and industrialists who joined the cooperatives stood at . . . 100% by the end of August 1958 A.
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.153. So that Kim Il Sung could declare in September 1958: AThe socialist transformation of production relations has now been completed. . . Thus, our society has become a socialist one free from exploitation@.
Kim  Il  Sung: "Against  Passivism and  Conservatism In Socialist Construction";  (September  1958): in  'Selected  Works', Volume  2; Pyongyang; 1975; p. 233. By this time, according to Kimilsungism: Official Kimilsungist literature sometimes implies that by 1956 all the cooperatives which included national capitalists had passed to the third form, in which no dividends on investments were paid: AUntil 1956 there were two forms of producers= cooperatives. The two forms of producers= cooperatives were represented by one lower form, where a co-op member got his share according to the amount of investment and the other higher form, where the dividend was not paid according to the amount of investment.@
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.60. But in fact a considerable proportion of such cooperatives continued to operate on the basis of the second form after 1956: SUMMARY

It is clear that Maoism and its variants represent deviations from Marxism-Leninism, brands of revisionism which serve the interests of the capitalist classes of the colonial-type countries. It is, therefore, not surprising that, as the American diplomat Averell Harriman relates, Stalin should have denounced Maoism as revisionism:

AStalin did not have much respect for Mao Tse-tung. During the war he spoke about him several times, and at one time he called him a >margarine Communist=. That created a great deal of puzzlement in Washington. Some didn't know what he meant. It would be entirely clear to any dairy farmer what he meant -- a fake, not a real product."
W.Averell Harriman: "America and Russia in a Changing World:  A Half Century of Personal  Observation"; London; 1971; p. 54. Mao himself confirms that Stalin considered him to be a revisionist: But, as Engels was fond of saying, the proof of the pudding is in eating.

What is the situation of China, Vietnam and North Korea today?

Few national bourgeoisies of former colonial-type countries which won political power and independence in national-democratic revolutions have remained able to retain that independence against imperialist pressure --pressure which is most obvious in such cases as Cuba, Libya, Iraq, and North Korea.

The most noticeable contradictions within the leaderships of these countries in recent years have been not between Marxist-Leninists and revisionists, but between >conservative= revisionists who sought to retain the pseudo-socialist facade of state capitalism, and >reformist= revisionists who sought to replace this by free enterprise capitalism. The pressure of international imperialism has, of course, been exerted in favour of the latter and the abandonment of the >socialist= facade. For example, in China:

AWhen it comes to making money, anything goes in Teng Hsaio-Ping=s new >socialist market=. Its economy is more deregulated than Britain=s was in 1973. But Teng=s China.. is increasingly a country without faith or ideals. The only slogan is money, money, money, and people will go to almost any lengths to get rich... The gulf between rich and poor is widening and the income gap may soon be the biggest in the world. The government boasts that China is now a paradise for more than a million millionaires. The official >China Digest= reported that the nouveau riches were swamping newly opened golf clubs with applications for membership that cost at least $30,000.
>It is not really capitalism, it is gangsterism,=complained an elderly Chinese who grew up under Mao.
At the universities, .. ideology has long since stopped being a fundamental motivation. Professors who taught Marxism-Leninism are now out of work, looking for jobs in the private sector, their departments closed down.
Some are so poor that they have to work in street stalls.
The vast sprawling cities of Shanghai, Peking and Canton are changing by the day, almost by the minute. Foreigners have committed billions of dollars to Shanghai. .
Luxury joint-venture skyscraper hotels are rising out of Shanghai's slums. . . . Shanghai=s nights have sprung to life in a blaze of neon.
Although most remain too poor for the perfumes and designer clothes on sale, yuppification has even brought back the fashion for pet dogs. One Pekinese sold for more than $13,000.. Nothing symbolises the new capitalist face of the country better than the emergence of stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzhen. .
When Teng dies, his motherland will no longer be communist except in name. His legacy is a free economy."
'Sunday Times', 6 June 1993, Section 2; p. 1, 2.

And in Vietnam:

 ADuring 1990 and early 1991 the Vietnamese leadership continued to try to implement the plan initiated by Nguyen Van Linh in 1986 to transform the country=s centralised economy to a market-orientated system@.
'Keesing's Record of World Events', Volume 37; p. 38,638.

AThe Vietnamese party.. hopes to achieve.. a planned switch to a market-driven economy.
The peasants now lease their land and are free to buy inputs and sell produce at market prices. The second aspect of doi moi (>renovation= -- Ed.) consists of dismantling price controls.. and eliminating subsidies for state industries. These are model steps to a market economy, applauded by the International Monetary Fund.. Closures and job cuts are occurring, even though unemployment is already high .. The third element of doi moi is the promotion of foreign investment through a law which compares with those of South-East Asia... In Ho Chi Minh city billboards praising communism are today dwarfed by those extolling the power of capitalism; for every mention of Marx of Lenin or even Ho Chi Minh, there are a score of advertisements for foreign companies. On top of a city centre office building, the name of Sony, the Japanese electronics company, jostles for space with Philips, the Dutch group. Nearby there are Citizen, the Japanese watch maker, Microsoft , the US software house, and Castrol, the British lubricant manufacturer... The biggest investors are the international oil groups. Vietnam has important attractions for foreign companies -- cheap and well-disciplined labour; an abundance of food for export, including rice and fish; mineral resources; and a potential mass-market of 65 million people. The government is pursuing free-market economic reforms, which envisage an important place for foreign investment. Since 1968.. foreign corporations are permitted to invest up to 100% in almost any field, have rights to repatriate profits and enjoy a host of tax-breaks and other incentives@.
'Financial Times', 14 November 1991; p. 15, 17.

AIn 1986 a new law on foreign investment was.. passed... This law is described by the specialist international press as >one of the most liberal=, even compared with other similar laws of countries with market economies@.
'Overseas Trade Services: Country Profile: Vietnam'; February, 1992; p. 54.

AThere has certainly been a resurgence of such social ills as prostitution and drug-taking@.
Economic Intelligence Unit: 'Country Report: Indochina', No. 1, 1993; p. 11.

AFor one dollar,.. Hyunh sells her body to tourists. Dressed in cotton trousers and a T-shirt, she looks no more than 12 as she sits under a hand-written sign outside a makeshift brothel.. Rows of girls in deck-chairs, playing cards or reading comics, have set up identical booths along the promenade@.
'Sunday Times', 21 June 1992; p. 22.

 In North Korea:

The Constitution was amended in April 1992 :

ATo remove mention of Marxism-Leninism and to replace it with references to Kim Jong Il=s Juche ideology;.. it also strengthened the hereditary principle by exalting the positions currently held by Kim Jong Il (Kim Il Sung=s son-- Ed.). The new constitution also encouraged foreign investment and guaranteed the rights and profits of foreigners operating in North Korea@.
'Keesing's Record of World Events', Volume 39; p. R73.

AOn Oct. 5 (1992 -- Ed.) the Standing Committee of the Supreme People=s Assembly approved North Korea=s first law on foreign investment... The new law permitted foreign investors to establish equity and contractual joint ventures within the country, and to set up and operate wholly foreign-owned enterprises in special economic zones. Foreign companies would be able to remit part of their profits abroad@.
'Keesing's Record of World Events', Volume 38; p. 39, 141-42.

 It must be clear to any objective observer that those who believe that present-day China, Vietnam and North Korea are socialist countries led by Marxist-Leninist Parties are deceiving themselves.

CONCLUSION

 Ninety-three years ago, in September 1900, Lenin wrote an article on the political situation in his country. He was writing about the situation in Russia at the beginning of the century, but what he says is only too applicable to the situation in Western Europe at the end of the century. (It must be remembered that Lenin uses the term >'social-democracy= to mean >Marxism= ): AThe principal feature of our movement.. is its state of disunity and its primitive character. Local circles spring up and function independently of one another@.
Vladimir I. Lenin:  "Declaration  by the Editorial Board of 'Iskra'".(September 1900), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 3-4 . All those who regard themselves as Marxist-Leninists will no doubt, support Lenin=s call for the formation of a Marxist-Leninist Party in each country. In Lenin's words: AWe Russian Social-Democrats must combine and direct all our efforts towards the formation of a strong party that will fight under the united banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy.@ Vladimir I. Lenin:  "Declaration  by the Editorial Board of 'Iskra'".(September 1900), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 5. Unfortunately, however, some who claim to be Marxist-Leninists call for the creation of such parties by the unification of all who call themselves Marxist-Leninists, ignoring the fact that some of these embrace in fact one or other form of revisionism. Whatever short-lived monstrosities might emerge from such unifications, they would be nothing remotely resembling the Marxist-Leninist Parties which are so urgently needed. Whether those who are working

for such unifications are conscious of it or not, such processes could only serve as temporary diversions from the historic task of building genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties free of all trends of revisionism. We must never forget that the socialist world and the international communist were destroyed -- however temporarily-- not by open counter-revolution, but by revisionism, by the lies of treacherous leaders who falsely posed as Marxist-Leninists.

Lenin=s position was quite different, and I conclude by quoting from the same germinal article of 1900:

ATo establish and consolidate the Party means establishing unity among all Russian Social-Democrats and . . . such unity cannot be brought about by. . . a meeting of representatives passing a resolution. Definite work must be done to bring it about. In the first place, it is necessary to bring about unity of ideas which will remove the differences of opinion and confusion that -- we will be frank -- reign among Russian Social-Democrats at the present time.
Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all firmly and definitely draw the lines of demarcation. Otherwise, our unity will be merely a fictitious unity, which will conceal the prevailing confusion and prevent its complete elimination.@ Vladimir I. Lenin:  "Declaration  by the Editorial Board of 'Iskra'".(September 1900), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 6. Published by : The Communist League, 6 The Avenue, Roundhay, Leeds LS8 IDW, UK.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A PAPER ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION BY: MARXIST LENINIST COMMUNIST PARTY (OF TURKEY);


Originally A Talk To the International Seminar of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations, May 2-4, 1997, Brussels.

The intensification of the attack of representatives and ideologues of bourgeoisie in the wake of the downfall of the revisionist-social-imperialist bloc in 1989-90, has inevitably been accompanied with claims of the Airrelevance@, or even the Aincorrectness@, of a Leninist-Stalinist approach to the national question. Of course, a host of petty-bourgeois, nationalist, Trotskyite and social-democratic groups and people have for years and decades, tried to vilify the Leninist-Stalinist approach, together with the bourgeoisie and imperialism. They had all portrayed Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union as a country, where the national rights of non-Russian peoples were allegedly Aviolated@. And according to them, Soviet rulers were bent on annexing as much territory as possible, and achieving a Aworld domination@.

A case in point is the social-democratic servants of the bourgeoisie, who characterized Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union as being supposedly ARed imperialist@. Khrushchev's slanders against Stalin, during the ill-famed 20th Congress of the CPSU provided then, and continue now, to provide fuel for this imperialist-revisionist crusade against communism. For example, In his so-called >Secret Speech= at the 20th Congress of CPSU, Khrushchev said:

AAll the more monstrous are the acts whose initiator was Stalin and which are rude violations of the basic Leninist principles of the nationality policy of the Soviet state."
William G. Andrews, "Soviet Institutions and Policies, Inside Views", p.78. But the fact of the matter is that, it was none other than Khrushchev himself, and his revisionist successors, who introduced the social-imperialist policies. It was these that signified a departure from the Bolshevik Party's internationalist and Marxist stand on the national question. It is only necessary to remember the Khruschevite clique=s attempts at collaboration with US imperialists. For instance, they proposed to the USA, the transformation of the UN into a sort of >world police organization=; which would be under the leadership of the two superpowers; it was proposed that it would put out the flames of peoples= struggles the world over.

And one should only remember the later Brezhnevite clique=s thesis, about a so-called >United Soviet Nation=, to justify the subordination of non-Russian peoples to the Russian bureaucratic bourgeoisie, and its so-called theories on >international dictatorship= and >limited sovereignty=. Again all these simply >justified= its intervention in the internal affairs of its Eastern European satellites.

It is quite understandable that, following the demise of the revisionist Soviet Union in 1991, the scope and number of the so-called critics of the Leninist-Stalinist approach to the national question, have grown considerably. Under these circumstances, the impact of the barrage of bourgeoisie and imperialism has been sufficient, for a great many people without a real and deep understanding of world view of the working class, to discard the Marxist-Leninist standpoint on the national question. In doing so these people have openly disputed the validity of the Leninist-Stalinist approach.

Such a case in point , is the PKK or AWorkers= Party of Kurdistan@. This a petty-bourgeois Kurdish nationalist group, which has waged a guerilla warfare against the Turkish colonialist-fascist regime since 1984. A. Ocalan, is the leader of PKK. In a long interview, that was conducted in 1993 with a left-wing Turkish intellectual, he has attacked the Soviet Union of Stalin. In this interview, he blamed CPSU and Stalin with Aselfishness@, and added the following statement :

AThe interests of world revolution are the interests of the Soviet Union; the interests of the Soviet Union are the interests of Russians; the interests of Russians are the interests of CPSU; the interests of the CPSU are the interests of the Central Committee; the interests of the Central Committee are the interests of the Secretary-General.. .You may call it a bureaucratic deviation, a nationalist deviation. For that reason, you have Russian nationalism. The natural outcome of such an approach is definitely nationalism."
Dirilisin Oykusu, p.283.
  And he said further :
  AWe now understand that socialism was a tactic for arrested capitalism, for Russian nationalism .@
Dirilisin Oykusu, p.290. Such pronouncements remind us of a Turkish proverb, that characterized human memory as being crippled with amnesia! Not very long ago, similar petty-bourgeois nationalist groups readily used to declare themselves in favor of >socialism=, or >proletarian internationalism=, and the >Leninist solution of the national question=. And they used to praise the revisionist like Brezhnevs, Andropovs, Chernenkos and even Gorbachevs to the skies.

We could remind such opportunist and pragmatic people, of the fact that the correctness of Bolshevik policy with regard to the national question, was tested in the fire and storm of struggle. Neither the bloody White Guard rebellion that lasted through 1918-21, nor the ruthless capitalist encirclement of the 1920's and 1930's, nor the sabotage and subversive activities of the fifth column, nor the attack of Hitler's hordes could drive a wedge between the whole Soviet peoples in order to break their unity. The socialist Soviet Russia of the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's, survived despite formidable and seemingly unconquerable obstacles and hardships. And what is more, the socialist Soviet Russia had become even stronger in the meantime.

Meanwhile the revisionist Soviet Russia of the 1980's and 1990's, has gone under relatively easily and almost without a struggle. This only presents us with another proof of the superiority of socialism over capitalism. As the proverb goes, AThe proof of the pudding is in the eating.@ It is very instructive to observe the fact, that such groups and people, have behaved worse than even some bourgeois scholars in being fair; at least the scholars give Lenin's and Stalin=s Soviet Union its due in the realm of the national question. For instance, A. Cobban, who was from being a Bolshevik or a revolutionary, wrote this in 1945:

AThe Soviet Union was to be no Habsburg Empire with a comparatively rich industrial and financial centre in striking contrast with miserably poor agricultural provinces. The minority nationalities had the evidence of economic progress on a gigantic scale in their own homelands and under their own eyes. If the Soviet Union eventually proves to have dealt successfully with the problem of uniting the most varied nationalities in a single great federation, that success will have to be attributed in no small measure to the steps it took from the very beginning to bring the >subject nations=, into the full stream of industrial development, and so to remove the source of economic inequality and exploitation."
A. Cobban : "The Nation State and National Self-Determination", p.211.
  And Cobban added:
  AIn so far as communism has succeeded in establishing a generally accepted ideal for progress of the whole Union, this is a spiritual bond uniting all its peoples. It is a new form of patriotism, and not the worse because it is directed to internal progress rather than to foreign conquest. At the same time, the Soviet Union is rapidly becoming - perhaps has already become - an economic nexus from which no part can be severed without severe injury both to the part and the whole, and a vast defensive structure, the parts of which are equally necessary to one another from the strategic point of view. Economic and military inter-dependence from above, local self-government, cultural autonomy and national equality from below -that is the ideal scheme, however many faults there may be in its present realisation, which the U.S.S.R. seems to be striving to achieve.@
A. Cobban : "The Nation State and National Self-Determination", p.218. The course of events since 1989 appears at first glance, to justify the stand of petty-bourgeois or nationalist critics of Marxism-Leninism. The fall of the revisionist-capitalist order in the Soviet Union was followed by a series of conflicts between Tartars and Uzbeks, ethnic Russians and Moldavians, the Russian punitive expedition against Azerbaitan, the conflicts between Azeris and Armenians, ethnic tensions between the Ukraine and Russia, the growth of Great-Russian chauvinism and, lastly by the Russian military aggression against Chechenia. A more careful examination of the matter, however shows a different story.

It is true that the demise of revisionist-social-imperialist bloc and the disintegration of the social-imperialist Soviet Union have made their contribution to the aggravation and spread of ethnic tensions and contradictions throughout the world.

BUT, we, first of all should remember that, the fall of the revisionist bloc and of the social-imperialist Soviet Union, does not signify the defeat and failure of socialism. To the contrary, they signify the defeat and failure of revisionism and capitalism.

And secondly, we should point out, that this >national explosion= in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe itself, constitutes only part of the general failure of the bourgeoisie in the solution of the national question. A casual glance at the global scene is sufficient to demonstrate this fact. Apart from the long standing national tensions and conflicts in semi-colonial countries, such as Afghanistan, India, Iran, Sri Lanka, Turkey, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa, Zaire etc., recent years have witnessed to the aggravation of national tensions, to the spread of a >nationalist fever=, to many other and developed capitalist and imperialist countries as well.

Let us list only some of these: Ethnic war among Serbs, Croats and Bosnians in the former Yugoslavia; the development of Black and Hispanic nationalism in the US; the stirring of ethnic tensions in the Sinkiang region of China; the revival of reactionary and expansionist Pan-Turkist policies in Turkey; the growth of Hindu nationalism in India; the rise of ethnic consciousness among oppressed Indian people in several Latin American countries; the continuing resentment among Black people of South Africa-who were cheated out of their victory; the failure of US-sponsored >peace= process in Palestine; the emergence of the Northern League and talk of secession of Northern Italy from the rest of the country; the failure of the peace talks in Northern Ireland; the growth of national tension between Walloons and Flemish in Belgium; the flowering of separatist Bloc Quebecois in Canada; the further growth of reactionary nationalism and even of racism in the US, Japan, Germany, France, England, Austria etc. All testify to this trend.

The development of events once again confirms, albeit in a bloody manner, the correctness of the Marxist-Leninist approach to the national question. Mankind is in a sense, being punished for its= delay in bringing capitalist-imperialist system down, punished by the growth of nationalism and aggravation of national contradictions. We, communists are theoretically and morally in a much stronger position now:

We can point out and prove to all workers and toilers and all sensible and unbiased people that, only through social revolution, through the overthrow of capitalist system of exploitation can a permanent solution of the national question be effected. Marx and Engels had demonstrated this long before. In their ACommunist Manifesto@, the founders of scientific socialism argued that the proletariat of each country first of all, had to settle its accounts with its own bourgeoisie. Thus Marx said :

AThough not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle@. And afterwards Marx and Engels had justly emphasized the inseparable connection between national and social liberation: AIn proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.@ In line with this thesis of Marx and Engels, Stalin, in March 1921 wrote this: AIt scarcely needs proof that under the rule of capital, with private ownership of the means of production and the existence of classes, equal rights for nations cannot be guaranteed; that as long as the power of capital exists, as long as the struggle for the possession of the means of production goes on, there can be no equal rights for nations, just as there can be no co-operation between the laboring masses of different nations. History tells us that the only way to abolish national inequality, the only way to establish a regime of fraternal co-operation between the laboring masses of the oppressed and non-oppressed nations, is to abolish capitalism and establish the Soviet system."
Stalin: Report on the Immediate Tasks of the Party in the National Question",
Works; Volume 5. Right from the beginning, Lenin and Stalin attributed great importance to the national question. They waged a consistent and uncompromising struggle against all forms of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalism. They also developed the teachings of Marx and Engels on the national question, and adapted it to the conditions of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. They formulated the programme and policy of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (later the Russian Communist Party/Bolsheviks) on the national and the colonial question. In this way they armed the proletariat and its advanced vanguard the world over in its fight against imperialism and capitalism, which have been and are the root cause of national oppression and all reaction. Just like Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin strived to educate the working class and its class-conscious vanguard in the spirit of consistent democracy, and urged them to oppose all forms and manifestations of repression and persecution targeting any class or stratum. Only in this manner, could the working class and its vanguard avoid being an impotent appendage of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, gain the confidence and respect of toiling and exploited masses and of all progressive forces.

Only in this manner, could the working class and its vanguard establish their hegemony in the revolution and raise themselves to a position of leadership over the toiling masses. Therefore, the working class and its vanguard had to be resolute advocates and supporters of the rights of oppressed nations, including their right to secession. They were and are, especially obliged to support the national liberation struggles of colonial and semi-colonial peoples against imperialism, which is and was the main source of all reaction and its local allies. Lenin was very unequivocal in his condemnation of so-called socialists, who in the name of the Adefence of the fatherland@, not only did not oppose imperialist wars, annexations and oppression of colonial peoples by their Aown@ bourgeoisie, but actually approved and supported them. In his APreliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Question@, Lenin said:

  AThe age-old oppression of colonial and weak nationalities by the imperialist powers has not only filled the working masses of the oppressed countries with animosity towards the oppressor nations, but has also aroused distrust in these nations in general, even in their proletariat. The despicable betrayal of socialism by the majority of the official leaders of this proletariat in 1914-19, when >defence of country= was used as a social chauvinist cloak to conceal the defence of the >right= of their own bourgeoisie to oppress the colonies and fleece financially dependent countries, was certain to enhance this perfectly legitimate distrust." Theses, Resolutions and Manifestoes of the First Four Congresses of the Third International, pp. 80-81. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind, that they never considered the struggle against national discrimination, oppression and inequality as an end in itself. They viewed it as part of the working classes= struggle for socialism and communism, who had to be freed from the ideological and political yoke of bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, if it was to accomplish its historical task of bringing an end to capitalism. It is obvious that a working class which does not fight consistently against the national oppression practiced by its Aown@ bourgeoisie, only strengthens its own chains. As Marx said : A