1984-2014 Anniversary of the Declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (1984) - Part 3

DECLARATION OF THE

REVOLUTIONARY INTERNATIONALIST

MOVEMENT

Adopted by the delegates and observers at the Second International
Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations which
formed the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement

______________________

Part 3

- Tasks in the Colonial, Semi (or Neo) Colonial Countries

- The Imperialist Countries

- For the Ideological, Political and Organisational Unity of Marxist-Leninists 

______________________

Tasks in the Colonial, Semi (or Neo) Colonial Countries

The colonial (or neo-colonial) countries subjugated by imperialism have constituted the main arena of the worldwide struggle of the proletariat in the period since World War H and up until the present day. In this period a great deal of experience has been achieved in waging revolutionary struggle, including revolutionary warfare. Imperialism has been handed extremely serious defeats and the proletariat has won imposing victories including the establishment of socialist countries. At the same time the communist movement has obtained bitter experience where the revolutionary masses in these countries have waged heroic struggles, including wars of national liberation, which have not led to the establishment of political power by the proletariat and its allies but where the fruits of the victories of the people have been picked by new exploiters usually in league with one or another imperialist power(s). All of this shows that the international communist movement has a very important task to critically sum up the several decades of experience in waging revolution in these kinds of countries.

The point of reference for elaborating revolutionary strategy and tactics in the colonial, semi (or neo) colonial countries remains the theory developed by Mao Tsetung in the long years of revolutionary warfare in China.

The target of the revolution in countries of this kind is foreign imperialism and the comprador-bureaucrat bourgeoisie and feudals, which are classes closely linked to and dependent on imperialism. In these countries the revolution will pass through two stages: a first, new democratic revolution which leads directly to the second, socialist revolution.

The character, target and tasks of the first stage of the revolution enables and requires the proletariat to form a broad united front of all classes and strata that can be won to support the new democratic programme. It must do so, however, on the basis of developing and strengthening the independent forces of the proletariat, including in the appropriate conditions its own armed forces and establishing the hegemony of the proletariat among the other sections of the revolutionary masses, especially the poor peasants. The cornerstone of this alliance is the worker-peasant alliance and the carrying out of the agrarian revolution (i.e. the struggle against semi-feudal exploitation in the countryside and/or the fulfilment of the slogan “land to the tiller”) occupies a central part of the new democratic programme.

In these countries the exploitation of the proletariat and the masses is severe, the outrages

of imperialist domination constant, and the ruling classes usually exercise their

dictatorship nakedly and brutally and even when they utilise the bourgeois-democratic or

parliamentary form their dictatorship is only very thinly veiled. This situation leads to

frequent revolutionary struggles on the part of the proletariat, the peasants and other

sections of the masses which often take the form of armed struggle. For all these reasons,

including the lopsided and distorted development in these countries which often makes it

difficult for the reactionary classes to maintain stable rule and to consolidate their power

throughout the state, it is often the case that the revolution takes the form of protracted

revolutionary warfare in which the revolutionary forces are able to establish base areas of

one type or another in the countryside and carry out the basic strategy of surrounding the

city by the countryside.

The key to carrying out a new democratic revolution is the independent role of the proletariat and its ability, through its Marxist-Leninist party, to establish its hegemony in the revolutionary struggle. Experience has shown again and again that even when a section of the national bourgeoisie joins the revolutionary movement, it will not and cannot lead a new democratic revolution, to say nothing of carrying this revolution through to completion. Similarly, history demonstrates the bankruptcy of an “anti- imperialist front” (or similar “revolutionary front”) which is not led by a Marxist-Leninist party, even when such a front or forces within it adopt a “Marxist” (actually pseudo- Marxist) colouration. While such revolutionary formations have led heroic struggles and even delivered powerful blows to the imperialists they have been proven to be ideologically and organisationally incapable of resisting imperialist and bourgeois influences. Even where such forces have seized power they have been incapable of carrying through a thoroughgoing revolutionary transformation of society and end up, sooner or later, being overthrown by the imperialists or themselves becoming a new reactionary ruling power in league with imperialists.

In conditions when the ruling classes exercise their brutal or fascist dictatorship, the communist party can utilise the contradictions this gives rise to in favour of the new democratic revolution and engage in temporary agreements or alliances with other class forces. However, this can only be carried out successfully if the party maintains its leadership, utilising such alliances within the overall and principal task of carrying the revolution to completion without making a strategic stage out of the struggle against dictatorship since the content of the anti-fascist struggle is nothing other than the content of the new democratic revolution.

The Marxist-Leninist party must arm the proletariat and the revolutionary masses not only with an understanding of the immediate task of carrying through the new democratic revolution and the role and conflicting interests of different class forces, friend and foe alike, but also of the need to prepare the transition to the socialist revolution and of the ultimate goal of worldwide communism.

For Marxist-Leninists it is a principle that the party must lead revolutionary warfare in such a way that it is a genuine war of the masses. The Marxist-Leninists must strive, even in the difficult circumstances of waging warfare, to carry out widespread political education and to raise the theoretical and ideological level of the masses. For this it is necessary to maintain and develop a regular communist press as well as to carry the revolution into the cultural sphere.

The main deviation in the recent period in the colonial, semi (or neo) colonial countries has been and remains the tendency to deny or negate this basic orientation for the revolutionary movement in these types of countries: the negation of the leading role of the proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist party; the rejection or opportunist perversion of people’s war; the abandonment of building a united front, based upon the worker-peasant alliance and under the leadership of the proletariat.

This revisionist deviation has taken on in the past both a “left” and an openly right-wing form. The modern revisionists preached, especially in the past, the “peaceful transition to socialism” and promoted the leadership of the bourgeoisie in the national liberation struggle. However this openly capitulationist, right-wing revisionism always corresponded with, and has become increasingly intermingled with, a kind of “left” armed revisionism, promoted at times by the Cuban leadership and others, which separated the armed struggle from the masses and preached a line of combining revolutionary stages into one single “socialist” revolution, which in fact meant appealing to the workers on the narrowest of bases and negating the necessity of the working class to lead the peasantry and others in thoroughly eliminating imperialism and the backward and distorted economic and social relations that foreign capital thrives on and reinforces. Today this form of revisionism is one of the major planks of the social-imperialist attempt to penetrate and control national liberation struggles.

In order for the revolutionary movement in the colonial, semi (or neo) colonial countries to develop in a correct direction it is necessary for the Marxist-Leninists to continue to step up the struggle against the revisionists in all their forms and to uphold the work of Mao Tsetung as an indispensable theoretical basis for further analysing the concrete conditions in different countries of this type and developing the appropriate political line. At the same time it is necessary to take note of other, secondary, deviations that have appeared amongst the genuine revolutionary forces who have strived to carry out a revolutionary line in the colonial and dependent countries. First of all it must be noted that the countries comprising the oppressed nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America are not a monolithic bloc and have considerable differences in relation to their class composition, the form of imperialist domination and their position vis a vis the world situation as a whole. Tendencies to fail to carry out a thorough and scientific study of these problems, to mechanically copy the previous experience of the international proletariat or to fail to take notice of changes in the international situation and in particular countries can only harm the cause of the revolution and weaken the Marxist- Leninist forces.

In the l960s and early l970s Marxist-Leninist forces in a great many countries, under the influence of the Cultural Revolution in China and as part of the general worldwide revolutionary upsurge, joined with sections of the masses in waging armed revolutionary warfare. In a number of countries the Marxist-Leninist forces were able to rally considerable sections of the population to the revolutionary banner and maintain the Marxist-Leninist party and armed forces of the masses despite the savage counter- revolutionary repression. It was inevitable that these early attempts at building new, Marxist-Leninist parties and the launching of armed struggle would be marked by a certain primitiveness and that ideological and political weaknesses would manifest themselves, and it is, of course, not surprising that the imperialists and revisionists would seize upon these errors and weaknesses to condemn the revolutionaries as “ultra-leftists” or worse. Nevertheless these experiences must, in general, be upheld as an important part of the legacy of the Marxist-Leninist movement which helped lay the basis for further advances.

In the oppressed countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America a continuous revolutionary situation generally exists. But it is important to understand this correctly: the revolutionary situation does not follow a straight line; it has its ebbs and flows. The communist parties should keep this dynamic in mind. They should not fall into one-sidedness in the form of asserting that the commencement and the final victory of people’s war depends totally on the subjective factor (the communist), a view often associated with “Lin Piaoism”. Although at all times some form of armed struggle is generally both desirable and necessary to carry out the tasks of class struggle in these countries, during certain periods armed struggle may be the principal form of struggle and at other times it may not be.

When the revolutionary situation is ebbing, the communist parties should determine appropriate tactics and not fall into rash and impatient advances. In such situations, political and organisational preparations necessary to carry out protracted people’s war should by no means be neglected and forms of struggle and organisation suitable for the concrete conditions should be determined in order to hasten the development of the revolution while awaiting favourable conditions for further advance. It is necessary to combat any erroneous view which would postpone the commencement of armed struggle or the utilisation of any form of armed struggle until conditions become favourable for revolutionary warfare throughout the country. This view negates the uneven development of revolution and revolutionary situations in these countries, in opposition to Mao’s statement, “A single spark can start a prairie fire.” It is also important to note that the overall international situation has an influence on the revolution in a particular country; not taking this into account leaves the Marxist-Leninists unprepared to seize the opportunity when the revolutionary process is hastened by the developments on the world scale.

Today as the danger of a new imperialist war is rapidly developing, the Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations in the neo-colonial countries are also confronted with the urgent task of devoting attention to the struggle against imperialist war. Communists must take into account the possibility that many of these countries may be dragged into the imperialist war according to the position these countries have in relation to the different imperialist blocs. Communist parties must consider the various concrete situations that might arise in the midst of such an imperialist war and develop their thinking in relation to these situations. Given the objective conditions in these countries the masses are generally less aware of the danger and consequences of an imperialist war and the Marxist-Leninists must educate them. In the event of an imperialist war the most important task of the Marxist-Leninists is to utilise the favourable opportunities thrown up by such a war to intensify the revolutionary struggle and turn the imperialist war into a revolutionary war against imperialism and reaction.

The Joint Communiqué of Autumn 1980 pointed out:

There is an undeniable tendency for imperialism to introduce significant elements

of capitalist relations in the countries it dominates. In certain dependent countries

capitalist development has gone so far that it is not correct to characterize them as

semifeudal. It is better to call them predominantly capitalist even while important

elements or remnants of feudal or semi-feudal production relations and their

reflection in the superstructure may still exist.

In such countries a concrete analysis must be made of these conditions and

appropriate conclusions concerning the path, tasks, character and alignment of

class forces must be drawn. In all events, foreign imperialism remains a target of

the revolution.

The analysis of the implications of the increased introduction of capitalist relations in the countries dominated by imperialism, as well as the specific case of those oppressed countries which can correctly be termed “predominantly capitalist,” remains an important task for the international movement. Nevertheless some important conclusions can be drawn today.

The view that the combination of formal political independence and the introduction of widespread capitalist relations has eliminated the need for a new democratic revolution in most or many of the former direct colonies is wrong and dangerous. This view, promoted by various Trotskyites, social-democrats and petit-bourgeois critics of revolutionary Marxism, holds that there is no qualitative distinction between imperialism and those nations oppressed by it, thus eliminating at a single stroke one of the most important features of the imperialist epoch.

In fact imperialism continues to be a fetter on the productive forces in the countries it exploits. The capitalist “development” which it undeniably introduces to greater or lesser degrees does not lead to an articulated, national market and a “classical” capitalist economic system but to an extremely lopsided development dependent on and in the interests of foreign capital.

Even in the predominantly capitalist oppressed countries foreign imperialism along with its domestic props remain the principal target of the revolution in its first stage. While the path of the revolution in these countries will often be considerably different than those in which semi-feudal relations prevail, it is still necessary, in general, for the revolution to pass through a democratic, anti-imperialist stage before the socialist revolution can be

begun.

The relative weight of the cities in relation to the countryside, both politically and militarily, is an extremely important question that is posed by the increased capitalist development of some oppressed countries. In some of these countries it is correct to begin the armed struggle by launching insurrections in the city and not to follow the model of surrounding the cities by the countryside. Moreover, even in countries where the path of revolution is that of surrounding the city by the countryside, situations in which a mass upheaval leads to uprisings and insurrections in the cities can occur and the party should be prepared to utilise such situations within its overall strategy. However in both these situations, the party’s ability to mobilise the peasants to take part in the revolution under proletarian leadership is critical to its success.

Due to the establishment of a central state structure prior to the process of capitalist development, semi (or neo) colonial countries, in the main, have multi-national social formations within them, in a large number of cases these states have been created by the imperialists themselves. Furthermore, the borders of these states have been determined as a consequence of imperialist occupations and machinations. Thus it is generally the case that within the state borders of countries oppressed by imperialism, oppressed nations, national inequality and ruthless national oppression exist. In our era, the national question has ceased to be an internal question of single countries and has become subordinate to the general question of the world proletarian revolution, hence its thoroughgoing resolution has become directly dependent on the struggle against imperialism. Within this context Marxist-Leninists should uphold the right of self-determination of oppressed nations in the multinational semi-colonial states.

Thus it can be said that the Marxist-Leninists in the colonial and neo-colonial countries confront a double task on the ideological and political front. They must, on the one hand, continue to defend and uphold the basic teachings of Mao concerning the character and path of the revolution in those types of countries, as well as defending and building upon the revolutionary attempts that (to paraphrase Lenin) accompanied the “mad years” of the 1960s. At the same time, the revolutionary communists must apply the critical Marxist spirit to analysing both past experience as well as the current situation and developments that affect the course of the revolution in these countries.

The Imperialist Countries

As the Joint Communiqué pointed out, in the imperialist countries “the October Revolution remains the basic point of reference for Marxist-Leninist strategy and tactics.” It is necessary to reaffirm and deepen this point because the basic Leninist principles regarding the preparation for and waging of the proletarian revolution in the imperialist countries have long been buried under an avalanche of revisionist distortion.

Lenin correctly stressed the need for communists to develop an all-round political movement of the workers capable, when conditions ripen, of leading the revolutionary forces in society in an insurrection aimed against the reactionary state power. He correctly pointed out that such a revolutionary movement could not grow spontaneously out of the day-to-day economic struggles of the workers and that, further, these struggles were not the most important arena of revolutionary work. He argued that the revolutionaries must “divert” the spontaneous movement of the masses away from a narrow struggle over the conditions and sale of labour power. In order to do this it is necessary to bring political consciousness to the workers from “outside” their immediate experience, above all through political exposure and analysis of all the major events in society in every sphere: political, cultural, scientific, etc. Only in this way could a class conscious sector of the proletariat be formed - conscious of its revolutionary tasks and of the nature and role of all the other class forces in society.

Lenin emphasized too that as crucial as agitation and propaganda are, they are not enough. Only through class struggle, especially political and revolutionary struggle, could the masses fully develop their revolutionary consciousness and fighting capacity. In this way, and together with the all-round work of the communists, the masses learn through their own experience and are educated in the furnace of class struggle.

Far from preaching the “monolithic unity of the working class,” Lenin demonstrated that imperialism inevitably leads to a “shift in class relations,” to a split in the working class in the imperialist countries between the oppressed and exploited proletariat and an upper section of the workers benefiting from and in league with the imperialist bourgeoisie. Lenin was also the vigorous opponent of all those who, in one form or another, sought to identify the interests of the proletariat with that of “its own” imperialist bourgeoisie. He vigorously fought for a line of revolutionary defeatism in relation to imperialist war and consistently upheld the banner of proletarian internationalism in opposition to the tattered “national flag” of the bourgeoisie.

Lenin also analysed that the possibility for making revolution in the capitalist countries was linked to the development of revolutionary situations which appear infrequently in these countries but which concentrate the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. He analysed the error of the Second International of banking everything on the gradual and peaceful accumulation of socialist influence among the masses and argued instead that the task of communists in relatively ‘peaceful” times was to prepare for the exceptional moments in history when revolutionary transformations in these types of countries are possible and when the activities of the revolutionaries mark the society and the world for “decades to come.”

Despite the clarity of Lenin on these subjects, and their centrality to the overall body of scientific socialist theory, the Leninists have quite often chosen to ignore it. Early in the history of the Third International, in certain Communist Parties, erroneous conceptions of “mass parties” in nor1-revolutior1ary situations and economist deviations appeared. These tendencies grew in strength and became articles of faith in the communist movement, along with other wrong and extremely dangerous tendencies to champion bourgeois national interests in the imperialist countries.

Unfortunately, the rupture with modern revisionism during the 1960s was notably incomplete especially regarding the strategy and tactics of communists in the imperialist countries. While the “peaceful road” was rejected and criticised and the need for an eventual armed uprising propagated, little effort was given to summing up the historical roots of revisionism in the communist movement in the capitalist countries and, in general, the Marxist-Leninist forces adopted a course of work based more upon the negative experiences of some of the Communist Parties during the 1930s than on the “October Road” forged under Lenin’s leadership.

In most imperialist countries during this period, a significant section of new-born revolutionary forces took wrong turns into policies of adventurism or left sectarianism. But especially as time wore on, the new Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations generally adopted a line of making the centre of their work concentrating on the day-to- day struggles of the workers and battling with the revisionists and bourgeois trade union officials for the leadership of these struggles. This worship of the “average worker” and the preoccupation with the economic struggle led to little in terms of actually winning workers to a revolutionary position and to the Marxist-Leninist parties but did unfortunately have a corrosive effect on the Marxist-Leninist parties themselves and on their members. The economist line dominating the Marxist-Leninist movement in these countries stood in sharp contrast to the very revolutionary principles on which it was founded. The young militants who made up the bulk of these parties joined them because they wanted to contribute to the worldwide revolutionary process, because they wanted to struggle for communism. The desire to spread the revolutionary movement of the 1960s to the proletariat and to merge with the workers, inspired to no small degree by the experience of the revolutionary youth in the Cultural Revolution, was a powerful and correct revolutionary sentiment which, however, became stifled and distorted under the influence of economism. As the worldwide revolutionary upsurge receded, the Marxist- Leninist parties and organisations tended to move further and further to the right in an effort to obtain a mass following on a nor1-revolutior1ary basis. The members of these organisations saw less and less connection with the preparation for revolution and the tasks they were actually pursuing. The results of this were distortion, demoralisation and the strengthening of opportunism.

All of this was further compounded by confusion among the Marxist-Leninists regarding the “national tasks” (or more precisely, the lack of them) in the imperialist countries. As was pointed out, the polemics of the Chinese Communist Party contained serious errors in this regard, errors which were incorporated by the Marxist-Leninist movement. The correct, internationalist desire to fight against US imperialism (correctly singled out as the main bastion of world reaction at that time) increasingly mingled with a promotion of the national interests of the imperialist states insofar as they came into contradiction with the US and (especially from the early 1970s on) with the Soviet Union. Increasingly wrong positions were taken by a great many Marxist-Leninist parties concerning world affairs, positions which went against internationalism and objectively aligned the positions of these parties on these issues with imperialist war preparations and counter-revolutionary suppression. As pointed out earlier, some Marxist-Leninist parties in the imperialist countries had already adopted a thoroughly social-chauvinist line even before the coup d’état in China in 1976.

These two serious and related errors, economism and social-chauvinism (including the embryonic revisionist “Three Worlds Theory”), were the main subjective factors that contributed to the virtual collapse in Europe of the Marxist-Leninist movement following the coup d’état in China. The communists in the advanced capitalist countries must give great emphasis to the struggle against the influence of these deviations in building and strengthening genuine Marxist-Leninist parties.

As the Marxist-Leninist movement floundered in most of the advanced capitalist countries some sections of the revolutionary youth attempted to find a “new ideology” and a different path. The attraction of anarchism and other forms of petit-bourgeois radicalism for significant sections of the revolutionary youth reflected a desire to bring about revolutionary change. Nevertheless these forces are incapable of playing a fully revolutionary role insofar as they lack the only thoroughly revolutionary ideology, Marxism. In some countries small numbers of people have turned to terrorism, an ideology and political line which does not rely on the revolutionary masses and has no correct perspective of a revolutionary overthrow of imperialism. While these terrorist movements like to appear very “revolutionary,” they have also incorporated, more often than not, a whole series of revisionist and reformist deviations such as “the liberation struggle” in imperialist countries, the defence of the imperialist Soviet Union, and so forth. These movements share with economism the fundamental failure to grasp the centrality of raising the political consciousness of the masses and leading them in political struggle, as preparation for revolution.

While the “excavating” of basic Leninist principles is the starting point for the elaboration of a revolutionary line in the imperialist countries, it is still only a beginning. The imperialist countries of today differ in important respects from turn-of-the-century Russia and other imperialist countries at that time and a great deal of experience (positive and negative) in trying to build a revolutionary movement in these countries has been accumulated since the October Revolution.

The process of imperialist development has led to a number of important changes in these countries - including the virtual elimination of a peasantry in some of them, the rapid growth of new sections of the petit bourgeoisie, and so forth. The most important development, however, is the greatly increased parasitism of the imperialist states based on the plunder of the oppressed nations, and a further polarisation of the working class that goes along with it.

There is in the imperialist countries a large, well entrenched and influential labour aristocracy which benefits from imperialism and willingly serves its interests. Imperialism sharpens the contradiction between these workers and a significant strata of the working class [including its industrial reserve army - the unemployed) who are impoverished and who desire and are inclined to fight for a radical change. In the principal Western imperialist states this lower section of the working class is composed in no small measure of immigrant workers from the dominated countries as well as, in some cases, national minorities and oppressed nations from within t he imperialist states themselves. It is this lower section of the working class that is the most important element of the social base of the party of the proletariat in the imperialist countries.

In between these two sections of the workers there is a large number, sometimes even a majority, of workers who, while not benefitting from imperialism in the manner of the labour aristocracy, have been greatly influenced by a long period of relative prosperity and who are not, in ordinary times, in a revolutionary mood. The fight for the allegiance of the broad masses of these workers as they are propelled into motion by deepening crisis and especially as a revolutionary situation develops, will be an important element in the struggle between the revolutionary, class conscious proletarians led by the Marxist- Leninist party and the reactionary labour aristocracy and its political expressions. While not neglecting to carry out work among the bourgeoisified sections of the working class the Marxist-Leninist party in the imperialist countries should principally base its work on the most potentially revolutionary sections of the workers.

It is not possible to build the revolutionary movement and lead it to victory without paying attention to the battles for daily existence of the working class and masses of other strata. While the party must not direct its own or the messes’ attention mainly to such struggle nor foster the dissipation of its own and the masses) forces and energies on them, neither can the party fail to do work in relation to them. Leading economic struggles is not the same thing as economism. The proletarian party should take these struggles, especially those with the potential to go beyond conventional bounds, seriously into account. This means conducting work in relation to these struggles in such a way as to facilitate the moving of the masses to revolutionary positions, especially as the conditions for revolution ripen.

The Marxist-Leninist party must strive to carry out Lenin’s call to turn the factories into fortresses of communism. This is not only an important political question for the preparation of the revolution but also has important implications for the armed insurrection of the proletariat.

Unless the Marxist-Leninist parties in the imperialist countries strike deep roots among the revolutionary masses through evolving and implementing a revolutionary mass line, then efforts to utilise revolutionary situations will be seriously weakened. In all this the tactics and style of work developed by the Bolshevik Party and summed up by Lenin still remain the basic guideline. However, in order to develop a revolutionary mass line and style of work, Marxist-Leninists in the imperialist countries must put aside conventional wisdom about ‘proper” forms of struggle and organisation and all such dogmas, analyse the specific characteristics of contemporary imperialism and the nature of struggles being waged by the masses and seek out favourable new grounds for revolutionary practice and develop new forms of struggle and mass organisations.

As Lenin so vividly expressed it, the communist ideal “should not be a trade union secretary, but a tribune of the people.”

The Marxist-Leninist party, while principally basing itself on the most potentially revolutionary sections of the proletariat, must strive to carry out revolutionary work among other sections of the population including elements of the petit bourgeoisie. Another factor potentially very favourable to the proletarian revolution in more than a few of the imperialist countries is the existence of oppressed nations and national minorities within the bellies of these beasts. Often, as noted above, large numbers of proletarians from these nationalities form an important part of a single, multi-national proletariat there. But, in addition to this, there is also a broader national question involved, encompassing other classes and strata of these oppressed nationalities. Such situations have often given rise to sharp national struggles within these imperialist states, and if they are properly handled by the proletarian parties there, which should support such struggles and uphold the right of self-determination where applicable, these struggles can play a significant role in the struggle to overthrow imperialist states. In the countries of Eastern Europe Marxist-Leninists face the task of formulating correct strategy and tactics for the socialist revolution, taking into account the domination of Soviet social-imperialism and the concrete tasks it poses without minimising or overlooking the central task of overthrowing the state power of their own bureaucratic bourgeoisie.

The current developments toward world war and both the dangers and revolutionary opportunities that presents require that the Marxist-Leninist parties in the imperialist countries place great importance on the question of world war and revolution. The Marxist-Leninist party must expose imperialist war preparations and especially the interests and manoeuvres of its “own” imperialist ruling class. It must demonstrate to the masses that such a war flows from the very nature of capitalist exploitation and is a continuation of imperialist economics and politics, and that only the advance of the world revolution can stop the war in preparation and attack its source. The communists must constantly struggle against every effort to identify the interests of the proletariat with those of the imperialist bourgeoisie and must train the class conscious proletariat and others to see through the bloody imperialist nature of the national flag.

The communists must build support among the masses for the anti-imperialist struggle of

the oppressed peoples and nations, even where such struggles are not led by Marxist-

Leninists. The party must consistently and concretely train the proletariat in

internationalism.

The increased danger of world war is now being felt sharply by the masses in the imperialist countries and communists must pay great attention to the mass movements against war preparations and to addressing the questions posed by these movements. The Marxist-Leninist party must support the revolutionary elements in these movements and strive to win them to its ranks. The party must unite with the anti-war sentiments of the masses while at the same time combating illusions that a “peace movement” can stop the imperialist war and especially the national chauvinist views that seek to avoid the devastation of war for one imperialist nation or another at the expense of the rest of the world.

While uniting with the masses in struggle against imperialist war preparations the Marxist-Leninist party should not put forward or support demands for “nuclear free zones”, illusory notions of abolishing imperialist blocs and so forth in the imperialist countries. Even in the lesser, non-nuclear states the communists must constantly stress to the masses that imperialism breeds world war, that all imperialist ruling classes are implicated in preparing this crime against humanity, and that the only real solution lies in revolution and not in illusory, and ultimately reactionary, efforts towards “neutrality. “ The Marxist-Leninist party must prepare itself and the revolutionary proletariat so that if revolution is not able to prevent the world war it is in the best position to take advantage of the weakness of the imperialists, to build on the inevitable widespread hatred of war and direct it against the imperialists themselves and strive to turn the imperialist war into a civil war. The revolutionary defeatist position must be adopted by the Marxist-Leninists in all the imperialist countries. In the imperialist countries the communist press plays a particularly important role in the preparation of the proletarian revolution. The press must be built as the collective propagandist, agitator and organiser of the party.

The Marxist-Leninists in the advanced capitalist countries face the task of continuing to combat the pernicious influence of revisionism and reformism in their ranks. The key to doing this remains the fight for principles developed by Lenin in the course of preparing and leading the October Revolution. At the same time the Marxist-Leninists must sum up past experience, fight against dogmatism, be firm in principle and flexible in tactics, and undertake a scientific study of the developments in the imperialist countries over the last several decades and the further development of revolutionary strategy that flow from them.

For the Ideological, Political and Organisational Unity of Marxist-Leninists

The communist movement is, and can only be, an international movement. Indeed the very launching of scientific socialism, the Communist Manifesto, declared “Workers of  all countries, unite!” With the success of the October Revolution, the formation of the Communist International and the subsequent spreading of Marxism-Leninism to every corner of the globe, the international unity of the working class took on an even more profound meaning.

Today, in the midst of profound crisis in the ranks of Marxist-Leninists, the need for international unity and the need for a new international organisation are urgently felt. In building up its own organisation on a global level, the international proletariat has accumulated both positive and negative experience. The concept of world party and the resultant over-centralisation of the Comintern should be evaluated so that appropriate lessons from that period can be drawn as well as from the positive achievements of the First, Second and Third Internationals. It also is necessary to evaluate the overreaction of the Communist Party of China to the negative aspects of the Comintern that led them to refuse to play the necessary leading role in building up the organisational unity of the Marxist-Leninist forces at the international level.

At the present juncture of world history, the international proletariat has to take up the challenge of forming its own organisation, an International of a new type based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, assimilating the valuable experience of the past. And this goal must be boldly proclaimed before the international proletariat and the oppressed of the world with the same revolutionary daring of our predecessors from the Communards of Paris to the proletarian rebels of Shanghai who dared to storm heaven and resolved to do the “impossible” - build a communist world.

The process of forming such an organisation will, in all likelihood, be a protracted one. The most crucial task the Marxist-Leninists face, in this respect, is to evolve a general line and a correct and viable organisational form, conforming to the complex reality of the present-day world and the challenges it poses.

The function of such a new International will be to continue and deepen the summation of experiences, develop the general line on which it is founded, and serve as an overall guiding political centre. These tasks necessitate a form of democratic centralism based on the ideological and political unity of Marxist-Leninists. But it cannot be of the same nature as the functioning of a party in a single state, since the components of such an international organisation will be different parties having equality of right and responsibility of leading the revolution in each country in the sense of each party’s share in the preparations and acceleration of the world revolution.

Considering the level of ideological and political unity and maturity achieved by the Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations at the Second Conference, they must take the following preliminary steps in the direction of fulfilling the higher tasks mentioned above:

1. l. An international journal must be developed as a vital tool in reconstructing the international communist movement. It must be at once both an organ of analysis and political commentary as well as a forum for debating the questions of the international movement. It must be translated into as many languages as possible, vigorously distributed in the ranks of the Marxist-Leninist parties and among other revolutionary forces. The Marxist-Leninist parties must correspond regularly with the journal and contribute articles and criticism.
2. Helping the formation of new Marxist-Leninist panics and the strengthening of existing ones is the common task of the international communist movement. The ways and means must be found for the international movement as a whole to assist Marxist-Leninists in different countries in carrying out this crucial task.
3. Joint and coordinated campaigns should be conducted by the Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations The First of May activities should be carried out under unified slogans.
4. The different Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations should carry out the political line and decisions adopted by the International Conferences and agreed to by these panics, even while continuing to carry out principled struggle over differences.
5. All Marxist-Leninist parties and organisations should, within the measure of their capacity, contribute financially and practically to the tasks involved in furthering the unity of the communists.
6. An interim committee - an embryonic political centre must be set up to lead the overall process of furthering the ideological, political and organisational unity of communists, including the preparation of a draft proposal for a general line for the communist movement.

**************************************

The constitution of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, based on the higher level of ideological and political unity of Marxist-Leninists achieved through principled struggle, represents an extremely important step for the international communist movement. But the need to race to catch up with the objective developments in the world is still apparent. The revolutionary struggle of the masses of the people in all countries is crying out for genuine revolutionary leadership. The genuine Marxist-Leninist forces, in individual countries and on a world scale, have the responsibility to provide such leadership even as they continue to struggle to solidify and raise the level of their unity. In this way the correct ideological and political line will bring forward new soldiers and will become an ever more powerful material force in the world. The words of the Communist MzmQ’esz0 ring out all the more clearly today: “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

 March 1984