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)

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":

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.

• LONG LIVE THE WORKERS, AND TOILERS OF THE WORLD!
• LONG LIVE MARX, ENGELS, LENIN AND STALIN!
• WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE - YOU HAVE ONLY YOUR CHAINS TO LOSE! MARCH 1996 THE EDITORIAL BOARD;

_________________________________________________________________

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:

a) Defence and a consistent and proud acknowledgement of Marxism-Leninism;
b) Defence and a consistent upright acknowledgement of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin=s thoughts and works.
c) Determined theoretical and practical struggle against revisionism and revisionists of Marxism-Leninism and its revolutionary political theory.
d) Upholding the Revolutionary road to Socialism; and not the so called "Peaceful Road".
e) Recognition of the necessity of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to first achieve, and then to maintain socialism; and then to advance towards communism till its complete establishment.
f) Full support of the right of nations to self- determination including secession.
g) Upholding and spreading the philosophy of dialectic and historical materialism and the revolutionary policy inside the working people=s movement; against the philosophy of idealism.
h) Abhorrence and complete rejection, and determined struggle against all forms of racism and sexism.

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:

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 :

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:

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:

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 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:

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:

AThe policy of uniting with, criticising and educating the national bourgeoisie.@
Mao Tse-tung: "On  the Correct Handling of Contradictions among  the People"; (February 1957), in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; Peking; 1977; p.386.

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:

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:

A the private traders and manufacturers were reshaped into socialist working people@.
Kim  Han Gil: "Modern History of Korea"; Pyongyang; 1979; p. 387.

AIn the first half of 1959 the cooperatives held 38%@.
"Socialist Transformation of Private Trade & Industry in Korea", Pyongyang; 1977' p.153.

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:

AWhen we won the war, Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type@.
Mao: "On the 10 Major  Relationships";  (April  1956), : 'Selected Works', Vol 5; Peking; 1977; p. 304.

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:

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:

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

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:

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 :

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:

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.

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 :

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:

This required not only a consistent fight against all forms and manifestations of nationalism of the dominant nations, especially the imperialist yoke on colonial and semi-colonial peoples and an unequivocal defence of all rights of oppressed nations, up to and including the right of secession. But it also required the waging of an ideological struggle against the nationalism of the oppressed nations and petty-bourgeois nationalism. The policy of national oppression, on the other hand, made it more difficult for the proletariat to preserve its class independence. Speaking of the adverse effects of the policy of national oppression, Stalin said:

That is why, Lenin and Stalin fought at the same time against those, who underestimated the importance of the national question and turned their back on the legitimate demands of oppressed nations in the name of socialist revolution. A case in point is Rosa Luxemburg, who in her overzealous struggle against Polish nationalism, took a Proudhonist stand, and rejected the right of Poland, then under Russian domination, to self-determination. In taking this stand, Luxemburg, objectively supported Great-Russian nationalism. In his polemic against Luxemburg, Lenin wrote:

Thus, the chief task remains : of establishing a joint front of workers of advanced capitalist countries and workers and peoples of semi-colonial and dependent countries against world imperialism, headed by US imperialism; this chief task retains its validity. The working classes of imperialist countries, are obliged to express and mobilize their consistent support of and solidarity with all anti-imperialist and democratic revolutionary struggles of the workers and peoples of semi-colonial and dependent countries, which due to the development of capitalism there, have a greater potential of passing uninterruptedly into socialist revolutions.

One last point: We believe that, the incompatibility of Marxism with nationalism should not induce communists to underestimate the influence of nationalism on the great masses of workers and toilers, especially in our day.

Price : $10.00 + post.

In addition the other two books by North Star Compass with further valuable materials - many never previously available in English - are still available :

1. ASecret Documents A A compilation of some materials from the archives of the NKVD-KGB, the archives of the CC CPSU(B): and the personal archives of J.V.Stalin. Price : $25.00 + post.

2. ANext To Stalin-Notes of A Bodyguard@; by A.T.Rybin. Price : $12.00 + post.

Send Cheques or money orders to :

North Star Compass;
280, Queen Street W,
Toronto Ontario Canada,
M5V 2A1.
Telephone : 416-977-5819 Fax : 416-593-0781

(EDITORIAL NOTE: PART OF THE LENIN TESTAMENT NOW ON WEB AT ALLIANCE WEB-SITE - addition for web version August 2000)

A REPLY TO COMRADE MONI GUHA, OF PROLETARIAN PATH, INDIA;
FROM ALLIANCE MARXIST-LENINIST (NORTH AMERICA).

AInternational Struggle Marxist Leninist@, recently received a fraternal criticism from comrade Moni Guha, and the organisation AProletarian Path@, whose struggles are in India. This organisation had the honour of being one of the first world wide, to challenge openly and reject the line of the infamous 20^th Party Congress of the CPSU. That being so, we are naturally very glad to discuss matters of joint interest with these comrades. It is important to ventilate the issues raised by Proletarian Path, since they touch on serious matters for all Marxist-Leninists. We take the liberty of openly printing both the fraternal criticism and an initial reply.

AInternational Struggle Marxist-Leninist@, had already decided before the receipt of this letter, to print Guha=s statement concerning the infamous 20^th Party Congress. But this statement is even more interesting for us now, given that Guha points out in his current letter to International Struggle Marxist-Leninist, that a central thrust of AProletarian Path@ has been the same central aim expressed by AInternational Struggle Marxist-Leninist@. Namely - the call for a clear and principled international debate.

Here we publish Guha=s letter, and a first reply made by one of the member organisations of the Editorial Board - AAlliance Marxist-Leninist (North America)@. The reply thus is only that of an individual organisation. The contents of both Guha=s letter and a reply by Alliance will be further discussed by the editorial board, prior to any joint statement. We expect that other member organisations of IS-ML will contribute their views on this question. We also of course welcome comments from our Marxist-Leninist readers.

Without any further ado, we print below the materials in this order :

First Moni Guha=s Introduction to the book A20^th Congress and Stalin@, published in July 1956 in Bengali;

Secondly: Moni Guha=s letter to the editorial board of IS-Ml dated 2.9.97.

Thirdly: the reply of Alliance, one member of the groups belonging to the editorial board.

ONE : INTRODUCTION TO BOOK
A20th CONGRESS AND STALIN@.

Reviewing Victor Hugo=s biography of Napoleon, Karl Marx wrote in the preface to his book, >The Eighteenth Brumaire=:

Victor Hugo was not a historical materialist. Hence in his review of great historical figures the analysis is centered on individuals. But Khrushchev Mikoyan & Co. are communists, and it is expected that they are historical materialists. However, in their evaluation of Stalin's role, they have emulated bourgeois idealists and adopted an individual-centric approach. In brief, the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU has abandoned the Marxist approach in its evaluation of Stalin.

Two basic questions of Marxism are closely linked up with the evaluation of Stalin by the CPSU.

Deviating from Leninist organisational principles, Stalin had taken recourse to bourgeois militarist despotism in the field of organisation and to subjectivism in thought and method of work-this is one side of the history of the past twenty years.

What is the other side of the past twenty years? In the past twenty years great successes have been achieved and life has advanced with gigantic strides. Among industrially advanced countries, the Soviet Union is now placed second in the world and first in Europe. Life has developed and advanced in all fields education, health, science, art and culture. In the political, social and economic life an exploitation free classless (in the sense of antagonistic classes-ed) society has been created. Socialism has been established and steps advanced towards communism. Eminent savants, Romain Rolland, Rabindra Nath Tagore, H.G.Wells, Bernard Shaw, Hewlett Johnson, Emil Ludwig, the Webbs etc. have been impressed by the unbelievable all-round progress of the Soviet Union. In the international domain, where the Soviet Union was like an island in the imperialist sea, the complete real basis for the emergence of a socialist world system has been laid.

Thus, over twenty long-years, on the one hand we have, in the main, a basically successful and unerring practical application of the political, social and economic principles of Marxism-Leninism and on the other hand, we have a basic and primary deviation from the Leninist principles of organisation, an effort to distort these principles and in place of democracy, democratic centralism and collective leadership in society and the party, despotism and the establishment of a reign of terror.

It is natural to ask how is this possible? Is not success in politics, society and the economy reflected also in organisational and social life? The logical corollary of political, social and economic progress is organisational democracy and the development of social consciousness. The logical corollary of political, social and economic reaction is organisational reaction, lack of individual initiative, apathy, the slow pace of dull, dreary mechanical routine. Such a society does not reverberate with the song of life. But we have heard the song of life in the Soviet Union. The question arises - the political organisational line of Marxism-Leninism is not a motley collection of discrete mutually exclusive independent phenomena which do not interact with or exclude one another; rather it is a union of all embracing, many sided integral ideology and practice. If so, then how is it possible that politics and the organisation and organisational principles - the means of successfully accomplishing that politics - could move in two opposite directions for twenty long years? The conservatism of organisational policy acts as a brake in political progress, similarly political conservatism also acts as a brake on organisational progress - it is in this contradiction that the organisation changes, there are changes made in its rules. In this way organisational policy comes into consonance with political progress and does not impede it. But where organisational policy and method of work impede political progress - there politics does not move forward, and the organisation also remains backward.

Thus in the Soviet Union, (to postulate that -ed) politics was advancing, and great successes were being achieved, but that at the same time, the organisation and organisational policies were falling behind, and that this was going on for twenty long years, in an era of great historical change - that seems quite impossible. Then are we to assume that society moves forward at its own speed and on its own volition? Are we to assume that Man has no active or passive role to play in this process, that society is governed by fate, that Man too is a puppet in the hands of fate? But Marxism denies this. In organisational policy, its activities, its form and character are reflected political identity, its form and character. And the form and character of the organisation and organisational policy are reflected in the form and character of the politics.

If this is Marxism, then obviously the Khrushchev-Mikoyan report is not. If so then either one maintains that socialism was not established in the Soviet Union, that no advance in any aspect of life was made there and that even today; the Soviet Union is a vast prison-house; or else, one maintains that the Khrushchev-Mikoyan report is wrong; and the Khrushchev-Mikoyan is not in accordance with Marxism, and it is inspired by ulterior political motives. Apart from this, the only other alternative is to consider Marxism wrong and the Krushchev-Mikoyan report as correct.

The second fundamental question linked up with the Khrushchev-Mikoyan report is the question of the role of the individual in the making of history.

Khrushchev-Mikoyan have said that after 1934, Stalin gradually concentrated all power in his hands and that he had no contact with the masses, the Party, the Central Committee or the Politburo. He never convened meetings of the Central Committee or Politburo, he took all the decisions himself and issued directions accordingly.

Negating the people, the party and everything else, giving no opportunity for criticism and evaluation, and basing himself only on his individual >independent= ideology, theory and methods of work, means the following :

If a single individual was able while the entire forces of world imperialism were ranged up against it; to raise a vast backward country to such heights of development, prosperity and power, if socialism can be achieved and society can advance towards communism based only on one man=s theory, if communism can become powerful in the international arena and imperialism defeated only on the basis of one man=s policies, methods of work and theory, then one must say that Marxism is false, historical materialism is false.

If so, then why is so much stress placed on collective leadership and democratic centralism and why are there proclamations against the >cult of the individual=? If by raising himself over the mass of the people and treating them as fodder for history a single authoritarian individual can create the bright history of socialism, then the best example of this is Stalin himself. Refuting all hairsplitting theoretical arguments, it would appear that Stalin has by his actions, negated historical materialism. If so, now we can say with the idealists, that the vast populace serves only as the raw material for history. The great individual is everything, the vast masses nothing.

Hence one has to say, that if the Khrushchev-Mikoyan report is true, then Marxism-Leninism is false, then historical materialism is false.

In Khrushchev's report there is fulsome praise of the unparalleled sacrifice and patriotism of the Soviet people in the achievement of the many successes of the Soviet Union; yet at the same time, Stalin has been held responsible for all the failures.

To gradually entrust the masses of the people with all political, social and economic responsibilities, and thus gradually to enable the existence of the state as a specialised institution for repression to become socially unnecessary - is a fundamental task of the intermediate stage of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The three chief pillars of the state are -the executive, the judiciary and the legislative. It is the fundamental duty of a socialist country in its intermediate stage to keep in check the permanent bureaucracy of these three wings; as well as to eliminate the standing army, the secret police, the intelligence department - all which do not play any creative role in production and are entirely dependent on the state. In place of the permanent bureaucracy, will be the representatives elected by the people, and the standing army will be replaced by the armed people, which latter will not be dependent on the state for sustenance.

It is only then, that people will be able to form their own independent opinion, and only then that the proper conditions will be created for them to express it. That is, the state cannot behave in a partisan manner towards them.

In the Soviet Union, over this long period, none of this could be accomplished. Amidst the imperialist encirclement and the ever present threat of attack, to protect socialism in one country, a well-trained vast standing army equipped with modern arms and weapons and fully dependent on the state was needed. In order that socialism in one country could advance rapidly, it was necessary for a vast and backward country, to not only catch up with other advanced capitalist countries, but also to surpass them. Consequently, excessive stress had to be laid on centralisation. Later for similar reasons, it became necessary to build and depend on a vast army of skilled, self-sacrificing, idealist (not in the philosophical sense), hard working, individuals devoted to the party in the state, in industry, in agriculture, in education and culture.

The presence of a standing army secret police and intelligence department which are fully dependent on the state and do not play any creative role in production, is a big barrier to the all-round democratic progress of society. The file-pushing bureaucracy, which has no contact with the life of the people or creative production, is also a barrier to all-round democratic progress. Thus in the Soviet Union, on the one hand, we have unprecedented development and progress in social and economic life, in education and culture and a classless (in the sense of antagonistic classes-ed) exploitation-free social system, but on the other hand, there was also the growth of an excessive centralisation and bureaucracy in the state and state machinery. It was this contradiction which was at the root of the national and social distortions in Soviet society. But one must bear in mind that the Soviet Union had no other alternative road to progress before it. If one visits a socialist country with a mind full of beautiful illusions, like Andre Gide, then one's dreams are bound to be shattered.

ln the analysis of the failures of the Soviet Union, it is not enough to say this. History is created, as the result of the mutual interaction of the mutually conflicting ideology and activity, of millions of people in society. Man is not merely an onlooker at history. He actively utilises his strength and capacity in the making of history. Until now, this has been the contribution of millions of people in the creation of history. This is an active contribution, but not a conscious one. That person or party is the leader, who recognising the basic trend in the fundamental motion and development of the real situation engendered by the mutual interaction of the mutually conflicting ideologies and activities of millions of people, consciously strives to advance society towards the achievement of its historical objectives (goals). This is the indelible role played by the individual in the making of history. Consequently, no leader or party can escape responsibility for failures and shortcomings, by invoking the supposed Ainevitable march of history@.

Leaders like Mikoyan tried to escape responsibility by propagating, that man learns only after the event has taken place. This may be true of millions of ordinary people, but here we have a question of philosophical knowledge. Every one can understand after the event has taken place. But the role of the leadership or the leader, lies in anticipating before hand the motion and development of the event or phenomena, and in struggling against the adverse motion and development; so that healthy and proper conditions can be created for the favourable motion and development. It is precisely here, that the need arises for leaders and a leadership, and it is to aid our understanding of this, that dialectical and historical materialism have been developed.

Hence, on the one hand, we have the progress of socialist society and on the other, a standing army, excessive centralism and bureaucracy in the executive and the legislative resulting necessarily in the failures and short-comings of the Soviet society, state and social life and a distorted development. The question arises: was Stalin as a leader sufficiently alert and watchful about these phenomena and did he strive to create favourable conditions for struggle against them? It is only up to this extent, and not more, that Stalin can be held responsible for the failures and shortcomings. In spite of all efforts made in the struggle, the development of Soviet society was bound to be distorted and one-sided to some extent, there is no point in concealing this truth. But the important question is how much effort was made in the struggle against the one-sidedness, and it is only here that the question of fixing responsibility arises.

If Khrushchev-Mikoyan and Co. had based themselves on the principles of historical materialism in their analysis of the failures and shortcomings of individual and state then they would not have denigrated Stalin and communism before the world. They would not have made individual-centric personal attacks. It is because of their individual-centric bourgeois analysis that they had to take recourse to falsehood and distortion of history.
But Marxism-Leninism is invincible. Historical materialism retains its validity-it is independent of the sweet will of individuals. History will affirm the laws of historical materialism and will surely vindicate Stalin and his contribution.

Reprinted From Moni Guha, AProletarian Path@, 25/1 Jyotish Roy Road, Calcutta -700 053., India.
Minor editing responsibility, ISML Print office.

And in speaking simply of revisionism, one can mix up the questioning of the principal theses of Marx and Engels, with those of Lenin, which were developed within the framework of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and of the building of the first socialist state - first with Lenin and then with Stalin.

There is an anti-Marxist Revisionism; and there is an anti-Leninist Revisionism. Some people want to save Marx ("Their Marx"), but are against Lenin. Others set up "Leninism as a continuation of Marxism" - and fire upon both of them, rejecting in general, the work and practical lessons of Marx and Engels. Yet others, at last openly come out with it, and affirm that Marx 'encloses' Stalin's "crimes". Even if all these different "schools" of Leninists are oppposed to each other - they are defintiely different schools - they all tend to go in the same direction, which is to perpetuate the capitalist mode of production. But Marxists-Leninists cannot be content with rejecting these revisionisms en bloc, because all these various revisionisms develop on different grounds and histories, and they are either more or less active in one country as opposed to another, and finally they are all formed by different multiple processes.

Anti-Marxist revisionism reflects the first period of revisionism. Anti-Leninist revisionism reflects the second period of revisionism. During this second period, superimposed upon the references against Lenin, are those that are anti-Stalin revisionisms. We can speak of these three species of revisionists as being still of current interest. We do not need to talk of those people who - after first having denounced Stalin, rejected Lenin and abandoned Marx - do not even qualify as being revisionists of Marxism-Leninism. These types, have aligned themselves completely with an open reformism, that was formed at the end of the 19th century, whose major representatives were Proudhon and Jaures. And yet a further degree of viciousness is reached by those who denounce communism in general, as the worst murderer in world-wide history.

Historically the Second World War generated those revisionists, that people now call "Modern Revisionists". Modern Revisionists, were exemplified for the first time by the American leader Earl Browder, then by Tito, and then finaJly by Khrushchev. This "Modern Revisionism", was fully characterized, and given shape, in 1956, at the 20th party Congress of the CPSU, by the denunciation of the role of Stalin during the construction of socialism in the USSR. And joined to this, was the denunciation of Stalin's role in the global construction of the Communist International.

This modern revisionism has a double aspect:
It concerns the construction of socialism, and it also claims to involve those communist parties who are not in power, in the "Peaceful road to socialism".

It is in this way that revisionisms, both old and new became dominant within what was designated the socialist camp. This hidden camp was actually projected to become a system, that was embedded within a perspective of a peaceful unprincipled co-existence, with capitalism.

This new stage determined a change in the character of revisionism. Actually until then, revisionism was able to develop in any one or another party, according to the class battles within those parties. From 1956 to 1960 the revisionist theses compelled a recognition of a general line of the international communist movement; during this same time revisionism was developing a "polycentric" line, as described by the Italian leader Togliatti. The purpose of this was not to fight the new revisionism, but to accelerate that process. And for sure, this new revisionism carried then and now, a double sided aspect.
Firstly it is concerned with the USSR herself and the CP's in power;
and Secondly when it commands the line given to those communist parties that are not in power and who are fighting under very different conditions with a framework of either illegality or illegality.

These antagonistic contradictions, did not touch only on the effects of the new revisionism but came to the roots, the very foundations of Marxism-Leninism. Actually the fight against imperialism is not in effect merely a token, one to be labeled "Marxism-Leninism", if one really manages to carry out a dividing cut - separating capitalism as a mode of production from its imperialist st age. Nor is it a token, if one substitutes one for the other, or if that struggle only pays attention to some of the effects of imperialism, to its foreign politics be it directly of a niilitary nature, or economic and ideological.

The fight against revisionisrn, in which we affirm our position, does not imply a unity of thought on the part of all those who claim to be anti-revisionists.

This was already obvious at the very moment as revisionism appeared. Our earlier reference to Lenin, Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg's struggles against Bernstein at the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 2Oth century shows in contrast to the popular "common-sense" sentiment, that the "enemy of my enemy" is not necessarily a friend. It was against Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg that Lenin forthrightly stood up. Yet even while doing this, simultaneously he acknowledged to Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg their great contributions to the denunciation of Bernstein. And just as all three (Lenin, Kautsky and Luxemburg) had an overall agreement upon Bernstein in their own epoch, similarly there was a concordance between the Party of Labour of Albania (PLA) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) after the 2Oth party Congress of the CPSU(B). The concordance at the same time mask certain antagonisms, but it did not suppress them, and the contradictions became aggravated to the point of the final rupture itself, between the PLA and the CPC.

And then a Communist party does not become revisionist in one day. Furthermore, in the case of a party that called itself "communist", and was generally recognised as such, it is necessary to analyse whether it truely was a Marxist-Leninist party. And this analysis must be based on criteria that may themselves, prove to be controversial. Anyhow, one may ask: recognised as "truely Marxist-Leninist" by whom? And it should never be forgotten that the life of the party is made up in class struggles, and that it builds itself passing through these struggles, confronting all the various and multiple deviations before it faces revisionism itself

Finally, by using the catch-all term "Revisionism" one risks an over-simplification. This would be to have in sight, only present aspects of policies, which to justi~ themselves, put away those principles which were recognised as just, until that time.

In each epoch, the revisionist currents first crystallize themselves around various theoreticians before they spring to life. These revisionist constructions have a body, or a corpus. But this body of work is not on all points, identical in one period as in another. Each body of revisionism cannot be ftilly reduced to the epoch in which it was born. They have a life which is transmitted from one period to the other, they may temporarily disappear, only to reappear in different contexts, either entirely or in part. Some of these revisionist theses are no longer quite the same today, as they are no longer driven by parties or organisations or leaders or theoreticians, who rely on the history of the international communist movement. The current day forms are quite indivisible from our open bourgeois enemies and feed the dominant ideology. The present outcome of this type of propaganda asserts the equivalence between communism and fascism and it criminalizes communism in general.

That is why the battle against revisionism in general - with respect to all its components - cannot be separated from the battle against the guard dogs of capitalism. This does not mean a separate battle, a battle on two fronts. It is only a single front, which is waged against both the internal enemies of Marxism and of Leninism, and the external enemies.

The fight against all these revisionisms - to be in reality more than just waving of a toy-rattle - implies the study of all of its' different incarnations, from Bernstein to Kautsky, from Kautsky to Rosa Luxemburg; from Browder to Tito and then to Khrushchev. In all these incarnations revisionism must be studied, whether it may have developed in the currents of ultra-leftism, like Trotskyism, Maoism, whether it became dominant in various parties that called themselves Marxist-Leninists; or whether it may have laid claim to the work of theoreticians like Gramsci etc. And this study should take into account the social bases and different periods in which these revisionisms developed, whether in the USSR in the People's Democracies, or in China etc.

Revisionism coexists alongside reformism, in order to identify itself progressively with the latter, whilst also trying to preserve its peculiarity, in order to survive as an independent political movement. These differences, however still do not touch the essentials - that is the acceptance or not of the capitalist mode of production. On this - revisionism agrees with reformism. In France, the Communist Party talks today of the "overtaking" or of "passing beyond" capitalism, not of destroying capitalism. At the same time the revisionists in France and elsewhere, agitate around the slogan of "We must make the rich pay". But in reality our real objective is to expropriate the capitalist class.

"Dialectical and Historical Materialism; Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Necessity of the Destruction of the Bourgeois State by Revolutionary Violence; the Historic Mission of the proletariat, the Right of the People Or Country to Self-Determination; Socialization (and not nationalisation) of the Means of Production; Collectivization of the Soil, Base and Superstructure, Forces of Production and Relation of Production, a Class 'of itself' and a Class 'for itself'; etc.

A formulaic approach, equally means not to take into account the period in which we are fighting today. To adopt such an approach will mean leaving the battlefield free for all those who carry on a permanent propaganda, on behalf of the bourgeoisie. Such an approach leaves the field free to all the different currents of reformists and revisionists, whose arguments are intertwined, because every party's particular themes plays its part in order to prove that capitalism cannot be bypassed, be it for good or evil and that one can only humanize it.

It is not that revised history which we must claim, but its contents, and its objective which is the same as ours. We also bear a heavy responsibility to those of the whole world who have previously struggled, a responsibility to shake the capitalist society and destroy it down to its' very foundations. The bourgeoisie is always ready to crush any threat to itself Today their tactics are to slander our history, and to dispossess us of our heritage and history. The bourgeoisie are ready to assassinate and kill all those who threaten them and refuse to accept their edicts and domination.

If we do not wish to become veterans of a war that capitalism pretends to have won once and for ever, and one can be veteran at any age - we must simultaneously claim this history, our history, and fight within this society. Within this society where all classes are so confused, and do not recognise themselves, do not want to know their own history, because of the bourgeois and revisionist ideology. And it is out of this history, that the formulae that we referred to are put forward, like so many scarecrows.

That is why the entire struggle against revisionism and the dominant bourgeois ideology implies the reappropriation of the principles which for us are the fbundations. This has to be done taking into account today's context, in order to fix the principles in reality, and thus to breath life into them In one word we must be understood. And it is also be means of concrete and detailed analysis of the principles that we will be able to undertake a principled struggle against revisionism (against revisionisms) and against bourgeois ideology, also concerning the revision of our own history.

Very concretely we must say that what we mean by our references from Marx and Engels, to Lenin, and Stalin, in the context of this time - the end of the 20th century. It is within the framework of today's international world situation of economics, politics, and ideology, that we have to give a base for our references, and to put forward our world conception.

Equally we must justify, not just by yesterday's standards, but by today's and tomorrow's, the validity of our formulae, which we serve up as the line of demarcation - but which too often are beyond any objective reality.

It is this work that allows us to establish the line of demarcation between the bourgeois, the reformists, the revisionists - and finally of those who aspire to be Marxist-Leninists. It is this work which will provide us the tools for action.

It is necessary to fight against the new world wide revisionism. But our conrrnon history since October 17th, has not followed a linear path in each of our countries. And all the various hitches and snags, not to mention the assassination attempts, upon Marxism, upon Leninism, have led to the present situation both on an international and a local setting. If it is necessary to lay out clearly all the intertwining strands, of all the major international theses of revisionism, then it is above all necessary to answer the questions we face today. This is necessary, in order to clearly understand the especial and particular aspects of the development of revisionism in our own countries. Of course, these aspects must be well understood in relation to the dominant revisionist theses. We have to sweep up in front of our own doors - ideologically speaking. Otherwise our practice risks being a blind one, and of nourished itself by ambiguities that will become brakes upon our political and economic battle.

It is clear that the cherishing and encouragement of this or that revisionism by the bourgeoisie, or indeed of the total assembled theses, will vary. It will vary and depend upon at any given movement, upon the needs of the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, struggles to face and overcome its' international and internal problems.

There are the "Great" revisionisms, one could say. We have cited some of them. But there are others that followed in their wake, which are in tow to the "Great" revisionisms Those in tow have justified their actions under the cover of the "Great" revisionist theses and political positions. From this point of view, the events of the last thirty years, have considerably shuffled the deck of cards, spreading a wide conflision. Since 1963 especially, tens of new parties and organisations have arisen. These have held as part of their 'mandate", a stated opposition against Khrushchev and the traditional parties around the Communist Party of France and the USSR. We must give up attacking and pointing out Khruschevism as an enemy, because this enemy is too easily visible. It does not assist us in the purpose of demarcation any longer.

Generally speaking, two poles, at different moments, and to differing degrees, have served to legitimise anti-revisionist initiatives : The Chinese Communist party, and the Party of Labor of Albania. Today these two parties equally, are the starting point of our history, not as living forces, but as actors in an ultimate and supreme struggle between revisionism (as represented by the Chinese) - and Marxism-Leninism (as represented by the Albanians). Each one of these actors were incarnated as a party in power.

As far as our own country of struggle, in France, it seems indispensable to us, to combine the study of the grand currents of revisionism with the analysis of the failures of both the Marxist-Leninists, and of those who since 1963, mask themselves as Marxist-Leninists and use '~Marxist-Leninist arguments", whether or not their respective organisation are now dead or not. It is obvious that this work must go beyond the borders of France, in so far as these organisations and parties have formed international contacts. And it is also indispensable to study the French Communist Party, identified since 1920 as a communist party.