rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Fri Oct 4 08:49:00 MDT 1996
>This view of Rolf Martens, effectively celebrating the hanging of
>Najibullah, flows from a theory of the Three Worlds, promulagated in
>the PRC during Chairman Mao's time. According to this theory,
>the First World (western countries) was imperialist whereas the
>Second world (Soviet Union) was social imperialist (imperialism
>disguised as socialism) and the two jointly exploited and oppressed
>the Third World.
Not one figure correct there, Sid!
First of all, you don't have to adhere to any particular "theory"
to be against aggressions, such as the one of Soviet social-imperialism
against Afghanistan. You don't even have to know the Soviet Union
was social-imperialist. You only have to be in favour of the most
elementary international democracy and in favour of peace to
comdemn such an atrocity.
Secondly, Mao Zedong's analysis did NOT point at "the Western
world" as the first one! NOR at the Soviet Union as the second!
It pointed at the two superpowers of that time, the USA and
the Soviet Union, as the First World. It pointed out that
US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism were the main
protagonists of reaction in the world.
It pointed at certain countries who had come to occupy an
intermediate position in the world, such as the small and
medium-sized ones in Europe, and also Japan, Australia,
Canada etc, as making up a Second World. Some of these
countries themselves were imperialist, but they were likewise
subjected, in various degrees, to superpower domination and
control, and thus in certain respects were in a similar
position to the countries of the Third World (in the
exploitation of which they still did participate).
Though the first and second worlds were equally
>responsible for imperialism, the second-world social imperialism was,
>in an sense, more dangerous (due to the masquerade) and had to be combatted
>by all necessary means.
NOT due to any masquerade, but due to clear facts. Soviet social-
imperialism in the mid-'70:s *was* the most dangerous source of war.
This led the PRC to support some tyrannical
>right-wing regimes like Pakistan (ruled by Gen. Yahya Khan), Iran, UNITA
>(led by Jonas Savimbi), and if I am not mistaken, even tacit support
>for South Africa, since the opposition ANC was receiving aid from the
You are mistaken on South Africa. Its racist regime was always squarely
condemned and atacked by Mao's China. That regime together with the
Israely zionists and the Chiang clique on Taiwan formed a particular
little group of international outcasts.
Mao Zedong advocated the *unity* of the third world. The really
most reactionary regimes, according to his correct analysis,
were those of the Soviet Union and the United States. Countries
like Pakistan had common interests with the other Third
World countries, while the regimes in many such countries were
also more or less of an oppressive nature, in relation to the
people there. What Mao Zedong did was *not* in support of such
oppression. He utilized all positive factors against the *main*
enemies of the proletariat and the oppressed peoples. That's the
point of such *united fronts* as he and other proletarian leaders
have always advocated.
>The culmination of this policy led to the famous scene of Chairman
>Mao shaking hands with Nixon while bombs were falling in Vietnam.
Yes. And this handshake was a very good thing too. Was it perhaps
in support of the US aggression in Vietnam? No. Mao Zedong made
a tactical unity with some of the US imperialist forces against
Soviet social-imperialism, which had even then started to emerge
as the most dangerous source of war internationally, and which was
supported in this by another US imperialist faction.
Chinese protests against the US aggression in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodja
continued during that entire time, and very strong protests they
were. China continued to supply the Vietnamese etc peoples with
arms against that aggression.
Your *distortion* of the significance of Mao's handshake stems from
the Soviet social-imperialism and their US imperialist aiders
>difficult to determine who were the actual actors behind the Three
>Worlds doctrine (Deng and his co-horts?), maybe the Nixon handshake
>was a result of a genuine fear of China of an imminent Soviet
>attack, possibly nuclear.
No, no, one more. All know it was Mao Zedong's correct analysis,
and Mao Zedong's brilliantly correct and extremely successful
proletarian internationalist foreign policy.
And China very clearly pointed out tat that time that the
Soviet social-imperialist were making a feint to the East while
attacking in the West. The warned about the great danger of
social-imperialist aggression IN EUROPE, not against their
own country at that time. Again, THIS FACT has been completely
suppressed by the social-imperialists and their US imperialist
friend (the other faction than that which Nixon represented).
This incident, which signified the supercession
>of nationalism over internationalism,
Quite on the contrary! It *was* precisely an instance of
real proletarian internationalism. As I wrote, the main danger
was not to China at all, at that time. It was against us here
has been seized upon by Troskyists
>and other 'ultra-left' factions as a great betrayal of the international
>proletariat effectively allowing them to dismiss the entire Chinese
>(essentially peasant) revolution (e.g., Hugh Rodwell, Bob Malecki).
Yes, you could say that, but you're blowing in that same horn
For some information on what China did say, in 1973-74-75 and
during most of 1976, see earlier postings of mine, for instance
one with Deng Xiaoping's speech (one by the later No. 1 traitor,
then, but with *Mao's* analysis) on 10.04.1974 and one with documents
>from the 10th Congress of the CPC, in 1973 (Report by Zhou Enlai).
The first of these:
UNITE! Info #11en: China on three worlds, 1974 [Posted: 27.05.96],
in two parts. It was posted to newsgroups and also to this list,
as was the second one:
UNITE! Info #13en: CPC 10th Congress 1973, I. [Sent: 10.07.96],
in four parts.
To save you and perhaps other people some trouble, I'll quote
a few passages from them.
First, from Deng's speech (as then, still, the representative of
*socialist* China and a mouthpiece, if you will, of Mao Zedong):
[From the speech:]
As a result of the emergence of social-imperialism, the socialist
camp which existed for a time after World War II is no longer in
existence. Owing to the law of the uneven development of
capitalism, the Western imperialist bloc, too, is disintegrating.
Judging from the changes in international relations, the world
today actually consists of three parts, or three worlds, that are
both interconnected and in contradiction to one another. The
United States and the Soviet Union make up the First World.
The developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and
other regions make up the Third World. The developed
countries between the two make up the Second World.
The two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union,
are vainly seeking world hegemony. Each in its own way attempts
to bring the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin
America under its control and, at the same time, to bully the
developed countries that are not their match in strength.
The two superpowers are the biggest international exploiters and
oppressors of today. They are the source of a new world war.
They both possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. They carry
on a keenly contested arms race, station massive forces abroad
and set up military bases everywhere, threatening the
independence and security of all nations. They both keep
subjecting other countries to their control, subversion, interference
and aggression. They both exploit other countries economically,
plundering their wealth and grabbing their resources.
In bullying others, the superpower which flaunts the label of
socialism is especially vicious. It has dispatched its armed forces
to occupy its "ally" Czechoslovakia and instigated the war to
dismember Pakistan. It does not honour its words and is
perfidious; it is self-seeking and unscrupulous.
The case of the developed countries in between the superpowers
and the developing countries is a complicated one. Some of them
still retain colonialist relations of one form or another with Third
World countries, and a country like Portugal even continues with
its barbarous colonial rule. An end must be put to this state of
At the same time, all these developed countries are in varying
degrees controlled, threatened or bullied by one superpower or
the other. Some of them have in fact been reduced by a
superpower to the position of dependencies under the signboard
of its so-called "family". In varying degrees, all these countries
have the desire of shaking off superpower enslavement or
control and safeguarding their national independence and the
integrity of their sovereignty.
The numerous developing countries have long suffered from
colonialist and imperialist oppression and expoitation. They have
won political independence, yet all of them still face the historic
task of clearing out the remnant forces of colonialism, developing
the national economy and consolidating national independence.
The contention between the superpowers extends over the entire
globe. Strategically, Europe is the focus of their contention,
where they are in constant tense confrontation. They are
intensifying thir rivalry in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the
Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Every day, they
talk about disarmament but are actually engaged in arms
expansion. Every day, they talk about "detente" but are actually
creating tension. Wherever they contend, turbulence occurs.
[So far, Deng Xiaoping 10.04.1974]
[From CPC 10th Congress, Aug 1973, Zhou Enlai's report:]
Lenin said that *"an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry
between several Great Powers in the striving for hegemony."*
Today, it is mainly the two nuclear superpowers - the U.S. and
the U.S.S.R. - that are contending for hegemony. While hawking
disarmament, they are actually expanding their armaments every
day. Their purpose is to contend for world hegemony. They
contend as well as collude with each other. Their collusion serves
the purpose of more intensified contention. Contention is
absolute and protracted, whereas collusion is relative and
The declaration of this year as the "year of Europe" and the
convocation of the European Security Conference indicate that
strategically the key point of their contention is Europe. The
West always wants to urge the Soviet revisionists eastward to
divert the peril towards China, and it would be fine so long as all
is quiet in the West.
China is an attractive piece of meat coveted by all. But this piece
of meat is very tough, and for years no one has been able to bite
into it. It is even more difficult now that Lin Piao the "super-spy"
At present, the Soviet revisionists are "making a feint to the east
while attacking in the west," and stepping up their contention in
Europe and their expansion in the Mediterranean, the Indian
Ocean and every place their hands can reach.
The U.S.-Soviet contention for hegemony is the cause of world
intranquility. It cannot be covered up by any false appearances
they create and is already perceived by an increasing number of
people and countries. It has met with strong resistance from the
Third World and has caused resentment on the part of Japan
and West European countries.
Beset with troubles internally and externally, the two hegemonic
powers - the U.S. and the U.S.S.R - find the going tougher and
tougher. As the verse goes, "Flowers fall off, do what one may,"
they are in a sorry plight indeed. This has been further proved by
the U.S.-Soviet talks last June and the subsequent course of
*"The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the
making of world history."* The ambitions of the two hegemonic
powers - the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. - are one thing, but whether
they can achieve them is quite another. They want to devour
China, but find it too tough even to bite. Europe and Japan are
also hard to bite, not to speak of the vast Third World.
U.S. imperialism started to go downhill after its defeat in the war
of aggression against Korea. It has openly admitted that it is
increasingly on the decline; it could not but pull out of Viet Nam.
Over the last two decades, the Soviet revisionist ruling clique,
>from Khrushchov to Brexhnev, has made a socialist country
degenerate into a social-imperialist country. Internally, it has
restored capitalism, enforced a fascist dictatorship and
enslaved the people of all nationalities, thus deepening the
political and economic contradictions as well as contradictions
Externally, it has invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia,
massed its troops along the Chinese border, sent troops into
the People's Republic of Mongolia, supported the traitorous
Lon Nol clique, suppressed the Polish workers' rebellion,
intervened in Egypt, causing the expulsion of Soviet experts,
dismembered Pakistan and carried out subversive avtivities
in many Asian and African countries.
This series of facts has profoundly exposed its ugly fearures as
the new Czar and its reactionary nature, namely, *"socialism
in words, imperialism in deeds."* The more evil and foul things
it does, the sooner the time will come when Soviet revisionism
will be relegated to the historical museum by the people of the
Soviet Union and the rest of the world.
[So far, Zhou Enlai, Aug 1973)
And on its way to that museum, we can now clearly see
that Soviet revisionism is can't we?
But those who *defend* its decades-long aggression against
Afghanistan, what should be done with *their* ideology,
their total falsification of Marxism?
I think - drive it ino the sea, put it in the same museum.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism