On the basis of a comprehensive differentiation or classification of worldwide political forces it is possible to identify the specific features of revolutionary strategy in international political struggle. These features are (1) the main enemy, (2) the main force (3) middle forces, and (4) the main blow.
Marx and Engels showed that this question was decisive for strategy in international struggle. They regarded Russian tsarism as the bulwark of European reaction in the later half of the 19th century and the principal enemy of the European revolutionary movement. As a result they evaluated particular national movements in Europe in terms of whether they advanced or retarded the struggle against Russian tsarism and sought to mobilize all forces that could be united with to strike the main blow at this main enemy.
Today, the theory of three worlds shows that the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, are the main enemy of the world revolution and together are the chief bulwark of reaction.
There are two questions here: (1) first, how do we justify the distinction between the superpowers and other imperialisms, and (2) second, what does it mean for the USSR to be more dangerous?
First, the distinction between the great powers and the lesser or secondary imperialist powers is a basic characteristic of the imperialist era analyzed by Lenin in IMPERIALISM THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM. It is the striving of the greatest imperialist powers for hegemony and a redivision of the world that defines imperialism and the lesser or second rate powers are typically able to preserve their positions only because of friction among the great powers. At the time Lenin wrote IMPERIALISM, Belgium and Portugal were two examples of such lesser imperialist powers.
Also, in Lenin’s view, in order to deal blows at the principal enemy, it was necessary to distinguish between the secondary and lesser imperialist countries on the one hand and the imperialist powers which held sway over everything on the other. This is pointed out in a recent article in PEKING REVIEW on Lenin’s differentiation of the world into three parts following World War I.(PR#6,1978)
Today, the number of Great Powers who hold sway over everything and who are therefore the principal enemy of the people of the world has been reduced to two only, the US and the USSR. Only these two have the military and economic strength to struggle for exclusive world hegemony and to seek military control on a global scale. The military expenditures of each, for example, exceeds the total expenditures of the countries of Canada, Western Europe and Japan combined. The US military budget is over 10 times that of Britain.
Why do we say that of these two imperialist giants, it is the USSR, the newcomer, which is the more dangerous?
Four reasons are commonly given for this First, for the very reason that the USSR is a newcomer, it is the more dangerous. Because it is a newcomer it is the USSR which must enforce a redivision of imperialist spheres of influence – as Mao said, the US has vested interests to protect and the USSR seeks to expand.
Secondly, the USSR is economically weaker than the US – its GNP is only slightly over one half that of the US – and yet its military strength is unequalled. Conflict between imperialist powers ultimately must be resolved by force and it is the USSR that must rely on force and threats of force in its struggle for global hegemony. For that reason Soviet war policies pose a greater danger of war. Proof of this assessment is reflected in the offensive character of the Soviet military buildup in Europe. The USSR is necessarily in an offensive posture strategically.
Thirdly, the USSR is highly concentrated state monopoly capitalist economy governed under fascist dictatorship; it is geared to a war economy and militarization and more easily mobilized.
Fourth, the USSR can cloak itself in the mantle of socialism. Drawing on the prestige of the international proletariat, the October revolution and the party of Lenin and Stalin it can still manage to fool some people as to its character.
While the USSR is in an offensive posture strategically, the US is in a passive and defensive strategic position as compared with the USSR. Does this mean that the US no longer strives for hegemony or exclusive world domination? No, not at all. It means that the US strives first of all to protect vested interests and that it is overextended. Like a man trying to catch 10 fleas with 10 fingers, if it lunges out in one place, it is liable to lose its grip in another.
Does the fact that the USSR is the more dangerous mean that it alone is in fact the main enemy of the world1s people? Opportunists say that this is what the three world theory means and there are some defending the three world theory who say so. Some who defend it don’t say so, but their defense comes to the same thing.
This is wrong. Can anyone read the Chinese polemic in defense of the three world theory and not understand that both superpowers are the arch enemies of the worlds people? Those who want to be confused are confused by simple things. Identifying both superpowers as the main enemy does not mean that we fail to make use of contradictions between them. Using contradictions between them does not mean that we fail to grasp both as the main enemy.
An attack on the three worlds theory opposes this view of the relation of force between the two superpowers and instead calls both superpowers the same danger to the same degree and to the same extent. Our organization thought hard about this. But no matter how we considered the point, we always came up with the same result. To consider the two superpowers the same danger to the same degree and the same extent is simply not a Marxist-Leninist proposition. Not only does it reflect a failure to make a concrete analysis of changes which have taken place in recent years, in addition it is a fundamental departure from the dialectical method. As Mao points out in ON CONTRADICTION, nothing in the world develops evenly. The entire history of the imperialist era is characterized by unevenness, not evenness among imperialist powers. In particular, the history of two imperialist wars teaches us to pay close attention to the uneven development of the economic, political and military relationships between imperialist great powers.
The significance of this point is that differences in development among imperialist powers can only be resolved by force. To abandon the law of uneven development and instead to see the two superpowers as equal to the same degree and the same extent makes it impossible to trace concretely the development of those factors which must sooner or later give rise to imperialist war.
The second feature of strategy is the main force or revolutionary struggle. Just as doubts and qualifications of the USSR as the more dangerous superpower all come down to belittling the significance of the restoration of capitalism, questions raised regarding the third world as the main force unavoidably belittle the tremendous contribution of the struggle of the oppressed nations to proletarian revolution.
We hear arguments for example that the third world cannot be the main force because the proletariat and its party are not in the lead of the national movements of third world countries. Marxist-Leninists also know, however, that unless there has been a new democratic revolution or a socialist revolution, political independence does not change the underlying character of imperialist oppression and domination of the oppressed nations of the third world. Therefore, it does not bring an end to the struggle against oppression for national independence and liberation. What has changed is the character and arena of struggle. Among other things state power held by independent third world countries means military power which can be marshalled against aggression. Individually the armies of any third world country may be comparatively insignificant, but collectively they represent a force to be reckoned with in international political struggle.
The conquest of state power also means an end to direct colonialism and broader arenas of joint political and economic struggle to safeguard state sovereignty and protect natural resources and promote national economic development. The UN has become one forum for the common struggle of third world countries against superpower hegemonism. Raw material cartels which are a means to control products produced by third world countries are another.
Overall, when we consider the struggles of the oppressed nations and countries of the third world from China in 1949 to Korea, the Suez, Algeria, Cuba and Latin America, Indochina, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique to the struggles raging today against imperialism, hegemonism and colonialism in Africa and the Middle East, it is undeniable that these countries and peoples are the cutting edge in international class struggle. What characterizes these regions as a whole is that the people are the most oppressed and most exploited by imperialism and social imperialism. Therefore, regardless of the regime in power, the countries and peoples of the third world are led, independent of anyone’s will, into a protracted struggle against hegemonism. This also is a law of imperialism. Thus the Chinese comrades point out:
When we look at a question, we must first grasp its essence and its main aspect and see the actual results as shown by the general balance sheet.... Judging from their deeds and general orientation in international political struggle over the last 3 0 years or so, the oppressed nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America are revolutionary and progressive as far as their essence and main aspect are concerned. (PR#45,1977,p.28)
This bears out the point made by Lenin in his address to the Second Ail-Russian Congress of the Communist Organizations of the Peoples of the East:
The socialist revolution will not be solely, or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their bourgeoisie–no, it will be a struggle of all imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international imperialism. (PR#6, 1978)
Ultimately for the final defeat of international imperialism and social imperialism, there must be revolution in the heartlands of imperialism and social imperialism. But a revolutionary situation does not exist in these countries now. It is not pessimism to recognize that fact. The task of the proletariat in Europe, the Soviet Union and North America is to accumulate revolutionary strength. The more that the people and countries of the third world play their role as the main force in the struggle against imperialism and hegemonism, the more impetus there will be given to the development of the revolutionary movement in the advanced capitalist countries.
In speaking to the question of middle forces, Chairman Mao said in 1970: “We should win over these countries, such as Britain, France and West Germany.” But a number of revolutionary purists don’t like that. These second world countries are imperialist countries, and therefore, Mao’s theory of the three worlds is opportunist, according to this super “revolutionary” reasoning, because it calls for an alliance between the oppressed masses of the third world and imperialist powers who exploit them. It calls not only for peaceful coexistence between the oppressor and the oppressed, but for alliance.
We don’t accept this reasoning of our pseudo-leftists. We think that second world countries can be allied with to a certain extent in international struggle because they too are subject to superpower bullying and control.
Fundamentally the question is no different than Mao calling upon his peasant army to make alliances with landlords and certain diehard reactionary forces in order to kick out Japanese imperialism. First you kick out the Japanese, which were the main enemy, then you deal with the Kuomintang. And just as the Kuomintang can be allied with to an extent in the struggle against the Japanese invaders, so too the liberation of China from Japanese imperialism facilitates the struggle against the Kuomintang.
The countries of the second world are not the main enemy of the countries and peoples of the third world in international class struggle today. Is the struggle of US imperialism with Canada, for example, primarily a struggle to redivide the world and for competing imperialist spheres of influence? That can happen, but for Canada, the primary aspect of the relationship is much more a struggle to safeguard national independence and security against encroachment, bullying, and aggression by the US.
A point which seems to underlie the confusion here is whether one imperialist country can be bullied by another. Of course there can be no doubt on this point. As Lenin pointed out in IMPERIALISM, THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM, imperialism seeks to annex industrial as well as agrarian regions – a fact well understood by US imperialism when it promoted the Marshall Plan development in Europe following World War II. Today, US imperialism takes more than 30% of its profits world-wide from its investments in Europe.
In their own political interests, therefore, political forces of the Second World are led to seek unity with the countries and peoples of the united front against superpower hegemonism.
If countries of the second world enter into relationships on a footing of equality with countries of the third world, it is not out of bourgeois humanitarianism. What is at play is hardnosed, material self-interest. The countries of Europe and Japan, for example, totally lack the numerous rare, non-ferrous metals essential to modern industry. Japan imports 82.9% of its copper, 100% of its aluminum, 100% of its nickel, 90% of its iron, 85.9% of its coal, 99.7% of its oil, 73.6% of its natural gas, 100% of its uranium, and so on. This puts them in the position of a cook, the Chinese like to say, trying to make dinner without rice. In other words the industrial foundations of Japan and other second world countries depend on the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America with their rich reserves of raw materials. However, they can no longer obtain these resources by direct colonialism, and efforts at neo-colonial domination are frequently overriden by the superpowers. As a result, these countries are often left little choice but to deal with third world countries on a footing of equality.
Those who negate the role of the second world in the struggle against superpower hegemonism also argue that since these countries are imperialist countries, there is no basis to call for national independence under any circumstances. This, the argument runs, would amount to a call for defense of the fatherland condemned by Lenin during the First World War.
But Lenin never foreclosed the possibility of a national war even in imperialist countries if these countries were subject to aggression, invasion and annexation. The correctness of this position was decisively proven in the Second World War where Nazi fascism overran a number of the smaller imperialist countries of Europe and most of France as well. Of course communists supported the struggle for national independence in this war under those conditions even in imperialist countries. In similar conditions to attack the leading role the proletariat is capable of playing today in the struggle for national independence against superpower encroachment in favor of national passivity and submission would be a betrayal of the revolution under the cover of revolutionary phrasemongering. As we have pointed out in the past, the revolutionary role of the proletariat in the united front is guaranteed by its independence, not its isolation.
Ultimately different appraisals of the role of the second world come down to a difference in judgment concerning the reality of imperialist war. The Chinese comrades warn that “large scale aggression, enslavement and slaughter by a superpower in Europe are not only possible and probable, but they are inevitable. Under these circumstances national wars of resistance to invasion and annexation are progressive and revolutionary”.(PR#45, 1977,p.32)
We have stressed that differentiation of main and middle forces in international political struggle reflects an objective alignment of political forces. That is, it does not depend on the intentions but on the actual motion of social forces in these countries and regions of the world. Compared with the early 1960’s, for example, many third world leaders realize that they can establish a measure of independence from imperialist control through unity and cooperation with other third world countries. Political forces in the second world also recognize that they too have a struggle for national survival to fight against superpower encroachment and that they can strengthen their struggle to safeguard state sovereignty and independence by developing their unity with other second world countries and with third world countries in resistance to superpower hegemonism.
According to Stalin, the central question of revolutionary strategy is to determine the direction of the main blow. This question is obviously decisively determined by identifying the main enemy. You cannot have one thing as the main enemy and then direct your main blow at another.
Mobilizing the main and middle forces of international political struggle to strike the main blow at the chief enemy of the revolution is another way of talking about the united front. That also is an important point. You cannot have a united front against superpower hegemonism, for example, and then direct your main blow against something else. As the Chinese comrades have written in their recent series answering questions on the three world polemic, “The revolutionary policy of forming the broadest united front, whatever its content, is to strike at the main enemy.” (PR#4, 1978) Or in another place, they write: The revolutionary front “is an alliance formed under certain historical conditions by the party of the proletariat with the other revolutionary classes and all the forces that can be united for the purpose of opposing the main enemy”. (PR#7, 1978)
The USSR is called the “primary target” of the struggle against hegemonism. Is this consistent with our position on the direction of the main blow? Should we direct the main blow, as some argue, against Soviet social imperialism only?
No. As we have pointed out, determining the direction of the main blow involves mobilizing all revolutionary forces against the chief enemy. There can be no difference between the main blow of the proletariat and its allies on the one hand and the united front on the other. If the USSR were alone the chief enemy of international class struggle and the strategy of the world’s people called for a united front against the USSR, then it would be correct to direct the main blow against the USSR.
But there can be no doubt that the focus of world struggle must be against the hegemonism and war policies of both superpowers who are together the arch enemy of international struggle.
For the USSR to be the primary target of the struggle against hegemonism refers primarily to unevenness between the two superpowers, to the difference in their strategic situation, and to the fact that at this time the USSR is the more dangerous. In mobilizing the people of the world against both superpowers, these factors must be taken into account.
But plainly both superpowers are guilty of violating the sovereign rights of the countries of the world, both are guilty of interference with the affairs of other peoples, and both are guilty of bullying and control. We must therefore oppose these hegemonic efforts of both superpowers.
It is true that it is the USSR which requires a new redivision of the world and which must adopt an offensive strategy based on force and threats of force in its striving for global hegemony. Therefore we can expect the USSR to be particularly aggressive in stepping up its efforts at interference and control.
But dealing with each instance of encroachment and interference of the USSR is nothing but an application of the policy of opposing the encroachment and aggression of either superpower. We can use a river example again.
If we must dam two rivers both of which flood a valley floor then we do not do the job by directing our main efforts against only one current. One stream may be younger, more swift and more erratic in its course, and require special attention, but either can destroy the countryside.
So too today. To mobilize the world’s people internationally mainly against the hegemonism and war policies of the USSR does not build the united front against the hegemonism of both superpowers. For a party of the US proletariat to do so amounts to social chauvinism – that is, as Lenin says, the defense of the privileges, advantages, robbery and violence of one’s own imperialist bourgeoisie.
Revolutionary forces must be mobilized in a united front against the main enemy. Both superpowers are the main enemy and we can relax our vigilance against neither.