The “Second World” has been defined as the lesser imperialist powers of Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the revisionist-imperialist nations of Eastern Europe. Citing the distinction in strength between these nations and the two superpowers, the “three world” theorists call upon the “Second” and “Third” worlds to unite against the “First World.” Certain proponents of this theory are now advocating the expansion of this “united front” to include one-half of the “First World”–U.S. imperialism.
To conceal their own betrayal of the class struggle, the “three world” advocates accuse the Party of Labor of Albania of collapsing all distinction between the two superpowers and the lesser imperialist powers. Thus they promote the “three world” concept as a great “theory of differentiation.” Lenin and Stalin, too, distinguished between the “Great Powers,” the lesser imperialist powers, and the dependent nations. Yet, they did not speak of three worlds, but of two, locked in irreconcilable conflict: the “old” world of the imperialist nations and the pro-imperialist forces in the dependent nations and the “new” world of Soviet Russia, the proletarian revolutionary movements in the West and the national liberation movements in the East.
In theory and in practice, the Party of Labor of Albania has consistently opposed both superpowers as the main enemies of the revolutionary proletariat and its allies, the national liberation movements. Yes, the PLA does not support the inter-imperialist rivalry of the European bourgeoisies against the two superpowers. It firmly rejects the view that the interests of the European proletariat and its own bourgeoisie coincide in the struggle against the U.S. and the Soviet Union. In the article, “Socialist Revolution–the Only Road of Social Advance,” Zija Xholi writes:
The bourgeoisies of the various countries (of Europe) are linked in one way or another with this or that superpower...The struggle against its own bourgeoisie and the struggle against the threat from the superpowers do not constitute two different problems, but two aspects of the same problem, which only the revolution of the proletariat and its state power can solve once and for all.[1]
“Monopoly,” as Lenin wrote, is the “briefest possible definition of imperialism.”[2] Monopolistic associations, however, are not restricted to the home market. The home market, as Lenin emphasized, is necessarily bound up with the foreign market. Imperialism is thus characterized by various types of associations, cartels, etc. of a multi-national nature. It is the interests of these international economic alliances, referred to by Lenin as the “super monopolies,”[3] which determine relations between nation-states.
The “three world” theory, on the other hand, presumes the existence in the “Second World” of a national bourgeoisie independent of foreign capital. Thus it denies the nature of imperialism and the strength of the financial bonds which link the various European imperialisms with the two superpowers as well as with each other. Analyzing the inter-imperialist rivalry of the two superpowers and the European bourgeoisies, the Joint Declaration of the five communist parties of Europe (Communist Party of Germany (M-L), Communist Party of Spain (M-L), Communist Party of Greece (M-L), Communist Party of Italy (M-L), and the Portuguese Communist Party (Reconstructed)) states:
Here we are speaking of contradictions within the ranks of the enemies of the revolution and socialism, because these capitalist and imperialist states are not allies of the peoples in struggle against the two superpowers. In reality, despite the more or less abrasive contradictions that exist between them and the superpowers, these capitalist and imperialist states are integrated to this or that degree and in this or that form into the system of military alliances and blocs of the superpowers.[4]
Today, through their instruments of military and economic integration: NATO, the Common Market, the Warsaw Pact, and COMECON, the U.S. and Soviet Union continue to maintain domination over their respective spheres of influence in Europe. As the Zeri i Popullit editorial states: “The countries of the so-called ’Second World’ are the main economic and military support of the aggressive and expansionist alliances of the two superpowers.”[5]
In the Middle East, Zaire, South Africa, Asia, etc. the “Second World” allies of the United States have supported its policies. The CP (M-L)’s advocacy of “European unity” against “superpower hegemony” is actually a cover for its class collaboration with our own bourgeoisie. In an article in Class Struggle, theoretical journal of the CP (M-L), Eileen Klehr speaks of “developing forms of political and economic unity among the European countries” and the establishment of “independent economic relations with the third world on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.”[6]
It is, indeed, ironic that Klehr’s main example of the growing trend of “European unity,” is the European Economic Community. The EEC, historically the target of the European proletariat, is infamous as an imperialist instrument of exploitation in Latin America, Asia, and Africa – especially in the former colonies of the European powers. Lenin, in his famous article, “Backward Europe and Advanced Asia,”[7] contrasted the proletariat, as the “sole advanced” class in Europe, with the “entire European bourgeoisie” which was lending support to reaction in Asia. Yet, for the CP (M-L), the imperialist exploitation of the dependent nations by the European bourgeoisies is a form of co-operation!
The CP (M-L)’s characterization of the EEC as an instrument of “European unity” directed against both superpowers is also a complete distortion of reality. Of course, the Soviet Union has consistently opposed the existence of the EEC. Recently, for example, the Soviet bourgeoisie denounced Spain’s application for entry into the Common Market. The U.S., however, has been the main force responsible for its formation. Restricted to NATO members, the Common Market has served as the reactionary economic underpinning of this aggressive military alliance.
The historical roots of the present-day Common Market are to be found in the concept of a “United States of Europe” denounced by Lenin as early as 1915. A “United States of Europe,” declared Lenin, is either “impossible” or “reactionary.” It is impossible as it is “tantamount to an agreement on the partition of colonies. Under capitalism, however, no other basis and no other principle of division are possible except force. A multi-millionaire cannot share the “national income” of a capitalist country with anyone otherwise than in proportion to the capital invested.”[8] Lenin, however, did not deny the possibility of temporary alliances among imperialist powers. These, he said, would be of a reactionary character:
Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states...In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists...but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole denotes economic stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e. under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organization of reaction to retard America’s more rapid development...[9]
The documents, statements, and treaties concerning European unification which have been produced since 1915 contain the same bourgeois illusions and reactionary imperialist aims as those so clearly denounced by Lenin. The “European Federal Union” is one such example to which the roots of the present EEC can be traced. France, in 1929, proposed the Union as a “formula of European co-operation” which would act in conjunction with the League of Nations to “ensure world peace.” Stalin denounced the plan, declaring its real intentions to be the formation of an “anti-Soviet front.”[10] Due to inter-imperialist rivalry, the union was never formed.
The bourgeoisies of the various European nations were, however, compelled to seek a “joint solution” to the economic and political crises which erupted in post World War II Europe. Resolutions passed at the 1947 Montreux Conference of the European Union of Federalists reveal the desperation of the European bourgeoisie. The “general policy” resolution of the union declared:
The interdependence of nations has become such that it is no longer possible to confine political, economic, and social realities within national and state frontiers...There is only one solution: a union of peoples within an effective federation. In Europe above all this is a prime necessity; Europe which is sunk in poverty, torn by national and international struggles, and which threatens to become a powder barrel which a single spark will suffice to set alight...[11]
Prime Minister Winston Churchill, too, sounded a similar alarm: ...“I must give you a warning. Time may be short. At present there is a breathing space. The cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped: but the dangers have not stopped. If we are to form the United States of Europe or whatever name or form it may take, we must begin now...”[12]
The formation of a “United States of Europe” was precisely the underlying aim of the 1947 European Recovery Program, commonly known as the “Marshall Plan.”[13] In 1949, the Economic Cooperation Act (which authorized the Marshall Plan) was amended in order to include in the act’s preamble the statement that it was “the policy of the United States to encourage the unification of Europe.”[14] The U.S. considered the Marshall Plan to be only of temporary duration; the fate of Europe rested on the development of permanent changes in the relations between the West European nations. In conjunction with the administration of the Marshall Plan, the U.S. advocated the establishment of a number of supranational European organizations which would restrict the national sovereignty of each European nation to realize their “common interests.” These “common interests,” shared by the U.S., included economically rehabilitating Western Europe as a capitalist fortress against the Soviet Union, undermining the East European people’s democracies, and preventing the outbreak of revolutionary struggle in Europe.
U.S. plans for European post-war reconstruction viewed NATO and the economic integration of Europe as being inseparably linked. President Truman asserted that the U.S. required a “strong Europe” to share the “burden of collective security.” This position was expressed in the slogan: “No security without reconstruction; no reconstruction without security.” The economic and military integration of Western Europe, which became the foundation of the U.S./West European “Atlantic Alliance,” was accomplished through the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community,[15] the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market, and NATO.[16]
A document written to explain the “theory” of the Marshall Plan reveals the importance attached by the U.S. to European economic unification. Its authors declared: “The basic disparity in Western Europe today is the fact that the particular size of the unit necessary for its continued, successful existence in the medium of world economy is larger than the actual size of the existing political units.”[17]
This “disparity,” was, of course, the product of the basic and insoluble contradiction in the capitalist mode of production between the private appropriation and social creation of wealth. Speaking of the crisis facing the imperialist system in 1927, Stalin wrote, “Capitalism could solve this crisis if it could increase the wages of the workers several fold, if it could considerably improve the material conditions of the peasantry, if it could thereby considerably increase the purchasing power of the vast masses of the working people and enlarge the capacity of the home market. But if it did that, capitalism would not be capitalism.”[18]
Employing typical bourgeois logic, however, the architects of the Marshall Plan viewed the solution to the “market problem” as the removal of restrictive national trade barriers. They thus proposed:
...The formation of a single pervasive and highly competitive domestic market in Western Europe of sufficient size and scope to support mass production for mass consumption. This requires the elimination of barriers to the free movement of goods, persons, and ultimately capital...[19]
The creation of the Common Market in 1958 established just such a permanent free trading area in Western Europe. The Charter of the Common Market or “Treaty of Rome” also provided a mechanism by which the European bourgeoisies could act in a common front against “their” proletariat. An American bourgeois scholar described the virtues of the Common Market as follows:
..social policies are also to be co-ordinated, particularly in respect to readaptation schemes, mobility of labour, industrial insurance, conditions of employment, social security and the setting up of a European Social Fund...The Common Market will ensure that workers, capital and services are free to move within the Community by the end of the transitional period...[20]
The Common Market was clearly intended as a class weapon to preserve the foundations of bourgeois rule in Europe intact.
No less important was the establishment by the Common Market nations of special funds which enabled its members to expand their imperialist tentacles into the “underdeveloped regions of Europe” and the “overseas territories.”[21] The Common Market was, in fact, the principle means by which the former European colonial powers established neo-colonial domination over the colonies which had achieved independence in the 1950’s. The preamble to the Treaty of Rome states as one of the purposes of the Common Market, “to confirm the solidarity which links Europe to the overseas countries” and to “ensure their development and prosperity.” “Solidarity,” “development,” and “prosperity,” of course, are only euphemisms for European imperialist plunder!
The Common Market and other organizations of European unification have today realized the aims of the “United States of Europe” slogan proclaimed in 1915: the “joint suppression of socialism” and the “joint protection of colonial booty.” Who are the chief beneficiaries of the Common Market? Within this grouping, each imperialist nation is, of course, attempting to place the burden of the current economic crisis on the other. Each nation is able to do so, as Lenin said, “in proportion to capital – in proportion to strength.” The Common Market serves, most of all, the interests of the largest monopolistic interests in Europe – including the multinational corporations of our own bourgeoisie.
Analyzing the Common Market from the class standpoint, the Joint Declaration of European parties states:
The monopoly bourgeoisie of the countries of Western Europe claims that the EEC is a means to increase the joint prosperity of the West European peoples and for the independence of Western Europe in the face of the superpowers. In reality- the European Common Market is an instrument of the monopolies to suppress and exploit the peoples of Western Europe and the other peoples of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Although U.S. imperialism is not formally a member of the EEC, it plays a dominant role in it. It is a dangerous illusion, if not a fraud, to claim that the European Common Market represents a force against the two superpowers or serves the interests of the peoples. The European Common Market is a tool of the West European imperialists and U.S. imperialism to suppress and exploit the peoples, oppose the revolution and socialism.[22]
Today, even certain proponents of the “three world” theory openly concede that the aim of West European competition with the U.S. is to establish a more equal imperialist partnership!
The CP (M-L), claiming the emergence of “new conditions,” denies the historical continuity of the counter-revolutionary nature of the EEC.
What are these “new conditions?” According to the CP (M-L), they consist foremost in the disintegration of the Soviet and U.S. imperialist blocs. To even speak of the existence of such blocs today, asserts the CP (M-L), is to deny the law of uneven development.
In her Class Struggle article, Klehr states, “But the imperialists, far from being solidly or permanently organized into ’blocs,’ find that their alliances are wracked by internal contradictions and contradictions among each other.”[23] As evidence to support this conclusion, Klehr cites the “definite tendency among the West European bourgeoisies to appease and capitulate to the Russians.”[24] Yet, she does not level the same charge of “appeasement” against the East European nations for expanding economic relations with the U.S.[25] The CP (M-L) unequivocally denounces COMECON as an imperialist instrument of the Soviet Union while, at the same time, supporting the Common Market as a positive “anti-hegemonic” force. And, while condemning the Cuban role in Angola as having been masterminded by the Soviet Union, the CP (M-L) remains uncritical of West European intervention in Zaire!
The CP (M-L)’s double standard in applying the law of unequal development also extends to the question of European unification. If, as the CP (M-L) claims, uneven development and inter-imperialist blocs are mutually exclusive, how does the CP (M-L) explain its proposed “anti-hegemonic” bloc of West European nations? Do not these nations also display uneven development? Are not they, too, “wracked by inter-imperialist rivalry?” Today, the proletariat of the lesser imperialist powers are exploited not only by their own bourgeoisie and the two superpowers but also by a multitude of European imperialisms. The present situation in West Berlin, especially, stands as living proof of the bankruptcy of the theory that we must support the “unity” of the “Second World” against superpower hegemony? Need we remind our advocates of the “three world” theory that this city is occupied not only by the military troops of our own bourgeoisie but by those of French and British imperialism as well.
European “unity” must necessarily consist of the domination of the weakest imperialisms by their more powerful competitors. This is especially true for such countries as Portugal, Spain, and Italy which form the weakest links in the European imperialist chain. It is precisely in these weakest links where the greatest possibility exists for the proletariat to breach the imperialist front through a victorious proletarian revolution. This, as Stalin, wrote, is one of the chief political lessons to be drawn from the law of unequal capitalist development![26]
By supporting the “anti-hegemonism” of the West European governments, the advocates of the “three world” theory claim to be “exploiting contradictions” to the advantage of the revolutionary forces. In actual fact, however, they are choosing sides in inter-imperialist rivalry. Thus they betray one of the fundamental principles of Leninism. The world proletariat, as Lenin argued throughout World War I, does not have a stake in the outcome of imperialist rivalry in conditions of war or peace. As the Zeri i Popullit editorial states:
It is anti-Marxist to Identify the contradictions between various Imperialist powers and the two superpowers with the struggle of the working masses and peoples against imperialism, for its destruction... to preach unity with the allegedly weaker imperialisms to oppose the stronger, to side with the bourgeoisie of the country to oppose that that of another, under the pretext of exploiting contradictions.[27]
“Anti-hegemonism” conceals the inter-imperialist character of the competition between the “Second World” countries and the two superpowers. The aim of the lesser imperialist powers’ opposition to the United States and Soviet Union is but the re-distribution of power within the imperialist system. Such a re-distribution can only be accomplished through the greater and more efficient exploitation of their own proletariat and the dependent nations.
Towards this end, the West Germany government is in the process of instituting a series of “anti-terrorist” laws aimed against communist and trade union organisations. A protest against such legislation was reported by The Call.[28] The Call article condemned the “new preparations for large-scale anti-communist repression.” The adherents of the “Second World” concept apparently see no connection between such repression and the “anti-hegemonism” of the revanchist West German government. It is precisely the brutal suppression of its own proletariat which is a key element in the ascendancy of German imperialism world-wide.
Not only in Germany, but in all of Europe today, the various bourgeois governments are employing all sorts of extra-legal measures and austerity programs to tighten their hold on the European proletariat and gain a more competitive position on the world market. Such measures, of course, also serve to protect the investments of our own bourgeoisie. In Italy and Portugal, for example, the austerity programs and various “social pacts” have been prescribed as terms for government loans by the International Monetary Fund – tool of U.S. finance capital.
Under the guise of “anti-hegemonism,” the “three world” theory actually calls upon the European proletariat to abandon the class struggle – to unite with its own bourgeoisie and U.S. imperialism.
As Marxists, we must, as Enver Hoxha has said, “strike without respite” against all world reaction. The RCP and CP (M-L) position that support for the “anti-hegemonic” moves of the European bourgeoisies will delay the outbreak of war is entirely illusory.[29] it is true that the Soviet Union and the U.S. are, today, the main instigators of a third world war. The source of imperialist war, however, does not reside merely in the rivalry between the two superpowers, but in all the insoluble contradictions of the imperialist system.
All of the imperialist powers are “moribund, parasitic, and decadent.”[30] Each are locked into the present crisis with no visible means of escape. All have a stake in the outcome of the next world conflagration. In Lenin’s lifetime, too, there existed five “Great Powers” and a number of “lesser imperialist powers.” Yet, in opposition to social-chauvinists of all types, Lenin declared that in an imperialist war, “every bourgeoisie (even that of a small country) becomes a participant in the plunder.” As the heroic Party of Labor of Albania has stated, the responsibility of Marxist-Leninists today, in the face of the growing war danger, is to “fight against the superpowers which are preparing the war” and to “fight against the local monopoly bourgeoisie which supports this war.”[31]
It is class struggle and not class collaboration with the European bourgeoisies which will heighten the contradictions among the various imperialist powers, widen the splits within their ranks, and forestall the threat of war. We must, therefore, oppose all unification moves undertaken by the European bourgeoisie. To the reactionary “fraternity” of the European bourgeoisie, communists must, as Engels wrote, oppose the “fraternity of the proletariat” world wide. Such is the meaning of proletarian internationalism. Today, as in 1848, the “spectre of communism” is haunting Europe. Only with the firmest rejection of the “three world” theory will it be possible for the European proletariat to transform this “spectre” into a living reality.
[1] Zija Xholi, “Socialist Revolution – The Only Road of Social Progress,” Albania Today, No. 5 (1977), p. 19.
[2] Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Collected Works, Vol. 22, Sec. VII, Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism, p. 266.
[3] Ibid, Sec. V, Division of the World Among Capitalist Associations, p. 246.
[4] Joint Declaration, pp. 9-10. The declaration was originally published in the October, 1977, issue of Vanguardia Obrera (Worker’s Vanguard), central organ of the Communist Party of Spain (M-L). It was reprinted in the November 7, 1977, issue of Zeri i Popullit. Copies in pamphlet form will be available from Albania Report in the near future.
[5] “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” p. 21.
[6] Eileen Klehr, “Whitewashing Enemies and Slandering Friends,” Class Struggle, Spring, 1977, #7, p. 34.
[7] Lenin, “Advanced Asia and Backward Europe,” Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 99.
[8] Lenin, “Slogan for a United States of Europe,” Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 341. (See also, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Chap. VIII, Vol. 22, pp. 280-281).
[9] Ibid, p. 341
[10] Stalin, “Political Report of the Central Committee to the 16th Congress of the C.P.S.U. (B), June 27, 1930, Works, Vol. 13, p. 263.
[11] Andrew and Frances Boyd, Western Union, “European Union of Federalists: Resolutions of the Montreux Conference,” August, 1947, Appendix F, p. 141.
[12] Ibid. “Mr. Churchill’s Zurich Speech on a United States of Europe,” Appendix B, P. 112.
[13] The Marshall Plan was originally offered to the Soviet Unio the people’s democracies, and China. When these countries rejected participation in the plan, the U.S., Great Britain, and France retailiated by instituting an economic blockade against them. In Western Europe, where the Marshall Plan was implemented, demonstrations and political strikes were held in opposition to it.
[14] As early as December, 1945, an article in Collier’s Magazine placed President Truman on record as supporting the formation of a “United States of Europe.
[15] The European Coal and Steel Community was to act as a supranational cartel. Under the Schuman Plan, it became a “high authority” with the right to shut down marginal plants, direct investment to the most profitable industries and allocate markets.
[16] The Brussels Treaty of March 17, 1948, was the forerunner of NATO, signed on April 4, 1940. The signatory powers (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) described their agreement as a “treaty for collaboration in economic, social, and cultural matters and for collective self-defense.” A portion of Article 7 of the treaty, for example, stipulates: ”At the request of any of the High Contracting Parties, the Council (Consultative Council of members) shall be immediately convened in order to permit the High Contracting Parties to consult with regard to any situation which may arise, with regard to the attitude to be adopted and the steps to be taken in case of a renewal in Germany of an aggressive policy; or with regard to any situation constituting a danger to economic stability.” For full text of the treaty, see “The Brussels Treaty,” Western Union, Appendix E.
[17] “The Problems of Western Europe’s Competitive Position in the World Economy and its Remedy, “July 19, 1949, quoted by Max Beloff, United States and the Unity of Europe, 1962, p. 40.
[18] Stalin, “The International Situation and the Defense of the U.S.S.R.,” Sec. IV, “The Threat of War and the Defense of the U.S.S.R.,” August 1, 1927, Works, Vol. 10, p. 52.
[19] Beloff, United States and the Unity of Europe, p. 39.
[20] Juncher, The Struggle to Unite Europe. Chapter X, “The Rome Treaties,” 1958, p. 144.
[21] The joint concern of all the European imperialist nations with the fate of their “overseas territories” was clearly underlined in British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevln’s 1948 “Western Union” speech: “I would emphasize that I am not concerned only with Europe as a geographical conception. Europe has extended its influence throughout the world, and we have to look farther afield. In the first place, we turn our eyes to Africa, France, Belgium and Portugal, and equally to all overseas territories, especially of South-East Asia, with which the Dutch are closely concerned. The organization of Western Europe must be economically supported. That involves the closest possible collaboration with the Commonwealth and with overseas territories, not only British, but French, Dutch, Belgian, and Portuguese.” See Western Union, Appendix C, p. 125.
[22] Joint Declaration, pp. 10-11.
[23] Klehr, “Whitewashing Friends and Slandering Enemies,” p. 34.
[24] Ibid, p. 34.
[25] Recently, for example, Romania purchased a third interest in a Buchanan County, Virginia Coal Mine. Controlling shares in the mine are held by Occidental Petroleum Company which has been involved in large-scale trade with the Soviet Union. Asked why a “socialist government” would undertake such an action, Ion Patan, Foreign Minister of Romania answered, “It was a good investment.” Occidental and the Romanian government are also negotiating the possibility of forming a joint mining company in a dependent nation, such as Columbia. These transactions, which clearly expose the imperialist nature of Romania, have yet to receive any coverage in The Call.
[26] Stalin, “Reply to the Discussion,” December 13, Sec. 2, The Question of the Victory of Socialism in Individual Capitalist Countries, On The Opposition, p. 615.
[27] “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution,” p. 20.
[28] “20,000 Protest German Anti-Communist Laws,” The Call, October 24, 1977, p. 9.
[29] “On the Three Worlds and the International Situation.” Revolution, July, 1977, p. 19.
[30] “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” Chapter VIII, “Parasitism and Decay of Capitalism,” pp. 276-285.
[31] A. Tomorri, “The PL of Albania on the Problems of War and Peace,” Albania Today, No. 3 (1977), p. 25.