The MLOC boasts that “Unite! has led the way in this country in opposing such revisionist theories as ’detente’ and the theory of ’three worlds’,...”[57] Here we see graphically the unprincipled and vacillating nature of the MLOC’s “opposition” to the theory of “three worlds”. On the one hand, the MLOC boasts about playing a leading role in helping the open social-chauvinists create war hysteria under the hoax of repudiating “detente”: below we shall go into the significance of how MLOC opposes “detente” and, in the process, even conjures up the social-chauvinist bogey of U.S. appeasement in Western Europe. On the other hand, the MLOC claims in the very same sentence that it is playing a leading role in opposing revisionism such as the theory of “three worlds”, that it is the bravest of the brave, the wisest of the wise, or, as it puts it elsewhere, that it is “pioneering in the defense of Marxism-Leninism”.[58] This one sentence typifies the MLOC’s whole policy – conciliation of the Pentagon-socialists while trying to steal the banner of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists.
Can an organization (more properly: sect) which conciliates social-chauvinism and tries to disrupt and split the ranks of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists be a consistent opponent of the theory of “three worlds”, to say nothing of “leading the way” in this regard? We have seen that the MLOC denies the very existence of the struggle against social-chauvinism. We have seen that the MLOC goes to the revealing extreme of even addressing its “Open Letter”, its appeal for unity in a new “Party”, to the most die-hard “three worlders”, such as even Klonsky’s “CP(M-L)”. We have seen that MLOC’s Holy of Holies, the “Draft Party Program”, this alleged “qualitative development of the subjective factors for revolution in the U.S.” and “important contribution to the world revolution”[59], does not even mention social-chauvinism, to say nothing of denouncing it, and only mentions the theory of “three worlds” in passing. We have seen that the MLOC in fact bases itself on a whole series of opportunist theories of the neo-revisionists, on the whole opportunist arsenal that led the neo-revisionist gentlemen into the swamp of “three worlds-ism”. And we have seen that, far from having “led the way”, until late 1977 the MLOC did not even verbally oppose the theory of “three worlds” or the key social-chauvinist thesis of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism” (and that it soon stopped denouncing this latter thesis by name) – in fact, the MLOC supported these theories until the resolute work of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists in fighting social-chauvinism was already bearing fruit and opposition to the theory of “three worlds” had already obtained a very high prestige. And now we shall see that the MLOC’s “opposition” to the theory of “three worlds” in itself remains a very shallow sort of opposition, that the MLOC is still vacillating on a number of fundamental questions. This vacillation in itself offers a striking illustration of the bankruptcy of the MLOC’s “Klonskyism without the three worlds theory”.
Let us begin with the MLOC’s leadership in “opposing such revisionist theories as ’detente’...” According to the most recent issue of the MLOC’s theoretical journal, Class Against Class: “’Detente’, the so-called Eurocommunists and the theorists of the ’three worlds’ all seek to distort and tear the heart out of the basic teachings of Marxism-Leninism. They parade themselves as the heirs of Marx and Lenin...”[60] Thus it follows that the MLOC places “detente” on a par with Eurocommunism, the theory of “three worlds”, etc. The MLOC claims that during its First Congress “Particular attention was directed towards the present day importance of combating the anti-Leninist theory of ’three worlds’, as well as ’detente’, Eurocommunism and other varieties of opportunism and modern revisionism.” (emphasis added,[61]) In fact, the MLOC goes so far along the path of replacing criticism of revisionism with criticism of “detente”, that in the MLOC’s much vaunted “Draft Party Program” the modern Browderite and Khrushchovite revisionism of the CPUSA is characterized as the “line of ’detente’”. The “Draft Party Program” states: “In the U.S. the main representative of modern revisionism is the CPUSA with its line of ’detente’.”[62] This elevation of “detente” to the main characterization of a distinct “line” or “variety” of revisionism is a crude fraud designed to prettify social-chauvinist war hysteria under the banner of opposing ’detente’. Let us see first what “detente” is, then what Marxist-Leninist criticism of the propaganda of “detente” consists of and how MLOC’s one-sided appraisal of “detente” is in fact conciliation with the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists.
The propaganda outcries of the two superpowers about “detente” are a fraud behind which the superpowers mask their frenzied war-mongering. The COUSML has consistently stressed that imperialist pacifism is a tool for frenzied but slightly concealed war-mongering. Comrade Enver Hoxha pointed out that nature of the big propaganda campaign of the two superpowers in his Report to the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania. There he stated:
Never before has the world been subjected to such a campaign of propaganda and diplomatic subversion as this the imperialists and the social-imperialists are engaged in at present, which is intended to prettify the hegemonic and expansionistic policy of the superpowers, to justify their aggressions and to conceal their war preparations. Both in the East and in the West, the imperialist and social-imperialist leading circles claim that mankind is living in a period of ’reduced tension’, that the ’cold war’ and the confrontation threatening a clash between the superpowers has given way to ’detente’, peaceful coexistence, ’international harmony’, ’general security’, etc., that the dangers have passed and the clouds of war and disaster have been dispersed. By means of these high-flown slogans, the superpowers, the international bourgeoisie and reaction, are trying to dupe the peoples, to weaken their resistance and to establish their imperialist control and domination.
The People’s Republic of Albania does not accept and publicly exposes the so-called theory about the need to preserve the ’balance between the superpowers’ as a condition or a basis to avoid war and defend peace. It rejects the imperialist concepts on the preservation of the ’spheres of influence’ allegedly as factors of stability and security, the concepts of ’limited sovereignty’ and the ’interdependent world’, of ’bi-polarization ’, the policy of blackmail, etc. These so-called ’theories and doctrines’ invented in Moscow and Washington, are meant to create a capitulationist opinion that no state or nation can live outside the domination and tutelage of one or the other superpower. (emphasis as in the original,[63])
Thus “detente” is not a current of revisionism on the same par with the theory of “three worlds” or Eurocommunism. The song and dance about “detente” is part of Khrushchovite revisionism, a smokescreen to hide the revisionist dirty work, but is not equivalent to the whole nature of revisionism. The outcry about “detente” is part of the big campaign of “propaganda and diplomatic diversion” of both the U. S. imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists. This campaign, this smokescreen reeking of gunpowder, includes both blackmail and terror as well as imperialist pacifist theories and talk of “detente”, “reduced tension”, “international harmony”, etc., with which the superpowers intend to lull the people to sleep and to present their imperialist domination over “spheres of influence” and their unprecedented war preparations as alleged tools to preserve peace and quiet. It is very interesting how Comrade Enver Hoxha lays great stress on denouncing the “balance between the superpowers”, the imperialist concepts about preserving spheres of influence, and the policy of blackmail – thus putting his finger precisely on the treacheries committed in common by the imperialists, social-chauvinists and revisionists. The Marxist-Leninist criticism of “detente” does not reduce to shedding tears over how war is inevitable and peace is just a revisionist illusion – on the contrary, the Marxist-Leninists lay stress on opposing anything that is “meant to create a capitulationist opinion that no state or nation can live outside the domination and tutelage of one or the other superpower”; the Marxist-Leninists regard revolution and the struggle of the peoples as the main thing.
The imperialists, too, have their own way of criticizing “detente” as part of their big campaign of propaganda and diplomatic diversion. The imperialist propaganda includes not just imperialist pacifism, but also open straight-forward saber-rattling and the constant promotion of a psychosis of fear and war. Certain imperialist spokesmen – including both the Reaganites and those volunteer advisors to the State Departments of the Western Imperialists, the “three worlders” – constantly make a big show of cursing “detente” in order to spread war psychosis. These imperialist gentlemen wax enthusiastic about open imperialist plunder via fire and sword by pretending that the equally imperialist spokesmen of “detente” are allegedly weak-kneed “appeasers”. Comrade Enver Hoxha described this war psychosis vividly in a speech in 1974:
Everyone waits in anguish. Where will they strike next? The world is full of noise and rumors spread by agents provocateurs, sold-out scribblers, parlor and club diplomats, all of them people in the service of the two superpowers who try to fish in troubled waters through blackmail and intimidation. ’Tomorrow’, they say, ’it will be Yugoslavia’s turn. What will happen after Tito? Yugoslavia will be annexed either to the Soviet or the American sphere of influence; Rumania will be gobbled up by the Soviets; Albania will not go unscathed. Which side will Greece take now that it withdrew from NATO”, etc., etc.
All these rumors express the wishes and plans of the two superpowers; they are not only a psychological campaign to demoralize the people of those countries, but also a real military preparation to weaken their resistance and drown them afterwards in blood.
The psychosis of fear and war is fostered by the two superpowers. This psychosis of threat is used to proclaim the two umbrellas, one Soviet, the other American, as the sole way of salvation. According to them, there is no other choice, if you want to be saved. ... Over all this psychosis of blackmail, intimidation and terror hovers a thick smoke of meetings, contacts, talks, bilateral and multilateral commissions.[64]
Why does the MLOC one-sidedly single out “detente” from this whole “big campaign of propaganda and diplomatic diversion”, from the imperialist pacifism and the saber-rattling intimidation and blackmail, from the theories of “balance of power”, “spheres of influence” and capitulation? Why does it absurdly go to the extent of even declaring “detente” a trend of revisionism, even the characteristic feature of the line of the CPUSA ? This is because the MLOC is still conciliating the Pentagon-socialists, still laying the ideological grounds for Klonskyite social-chauvinism! Everyone knows that the Pentagon-socialists, the adherents of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism”, are doing their best to create a real war psychosis in order to intimidate the proletariat and divert it from the path of revolution. The social-chauvinists tremble in their boots at the sight of the imperialist war machines, and they crawl under the U.S. imperialist nuclear umbrella for protection. They whisper fearfully: “How can such-and-such a country in Europe make revolution with 500,000 Soviet troops on its border? Thank God for NATO and the American military occupation of Western Europe!” They cast meaningful glances at each other and ask how can one make revolution in the U. S., when this is just what the Soviets want in order to eliminate their rival? They regard revolution as an abstract, pacifist slogan, when what is really needed is more B-l bombers, more Trident submarines, more neutron bombs. To give their class treason and rabid jingo-ism an “anti-revisionist” coloration, the social-chauvinists pick up the Reaganite-style criticism of “detente”. The social-chauvinists counterpose “detente” not to revolution, but to “realism”. And what is this ultimate “realism”? As Klonsky himself puts it: “As long as the two superpowers continue to contend for world domination, one must defeat the other or be defeated by the other.”[65] Therefore, choose sides! The social-chauvinists denounce the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists who stand against both superpowers, for revolution against war, as revisionist believers in “equilibrium” or “detente”.
The MLOC’s conciliation of the social-chauvinists goes so far that it even takes to conjuring up the social-chauvinist bogey of appeasement under the pretext of criticizing “detente”. The MLOC even goes so far as to describe the flimsy propaganda outcries about “detente” as the real motivating force of U. S. foreign policy in Europe. Thus the issue of Unite! for Feb. 1, 1978 stated that “The U.S. stance on Europe flows directly from the policy of ’detente’.”[66] The same article describes U.S. policy as “as policy of ’nibble, but don’t take too much’ (that is, the Soviet Union should nibble, etc. – ed.).” This is the straight-forward Klonskyite hysteria about “appeasement”, only the MLOC shyly labels it “detente”. In order to cover up its treachery, the MLOC then goes on with a whole series of contradictory phrases. For example, the MLOC states: “’Detente’ is a policy of collaboration and contention among the two most aggressive superpowers the world has ever known. For that very reason, ’detente’ is an illusion.” Now, just try and make heads or tails of that! On one hand, “detente” is defined as “a policy of collusion and contention” among the two superpowers; on the other hand, “for that very reason”, “detente” is an illusion. What is MLOC saying, that the collusion and contention between the superpowers is an illusion? According to MLOC, U.S. foreign policy in Europe “flows directly from the policy of ’detente’.” Perhaps U. S. foreign policy too is an illusion? The whole point of these nonsensical contradictions is for the MLOC to create confusion, to hide the social-chauvinist catchwords under a cover of militant-sounding phrases. The OL too prettifies its talk about “appeasement” in the same way, with phrases like: “The appeasement policy, advocated by the leading circles of U. S. imperialism, is the way the U. S. imperialists have chosen to best contend with social-imperialism.”[67] The MLOC not only conciliates OL’s social-chauvinist theories, but it even copies OL’s sophistical method.
The MLOC’s “criticism” of “detente” is therefore consistent in a general way both with the theory of “three worlds” and with the social-chauvinist bogey of “appeasement”. This is not an accident, nor is it a slip of the pen on the part of the MLOC. The MLOC is rather embarrassed about opposing the key social-chauvinist thesis of “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism” and would prefer to focus attention on “detente”. True, the MLOC made a few polemical jabs at the theory of “directing the main blow at the Soviet social-imperialists” in late 1977, but since then the MLOC prefers to downplay this question and the MLOC refuses to denounce this theory by name in its major documents. Thus it left out any reference to this social-chauvinist thesis in both the “Draft Party Program” and the “Political Report” to the First Congress of the MLOC. In the pamphlet “Revolution Will Surely Triumph”[68], recently republished by the MLOC with much fanfare, the MLOC also remains silent on the question of the “main blow”. Each time the pamphlet denounces allying with one superpower against the other superpower, it is very careful to add the qualifying phrase “under present conditions” or “at the present time”. (See pages 31, 35, 40-41 and, in a somewhat different context, p. 25) A most interesting thing is that the MLOC talks against “considering a temporary alliance” (pp. 40-41) or “proposing an alliance” (p.31) with the U.S. imperialists and thus denies the fact that an alliance already exists between the Klonskyite “three worlders” and U.S. imperialism, an alliance that was brought out into the open and made public back in August 1976 with Klonsky’s thesis about “directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism”. In this way, the MLOC presents a flabby, conciliatory attitude towards the Klonskyites, who are presented as having “once opposed revisionism consistently and stood for revolution” (p. 13) but who today are merely making some serious opportunist errors. So “under present conditions” the MLOC consents to phrase-monger a little against the “CP(M-L)”, but under tomorrow’s conditions it may change its mind. And, “under present conditions” in the U.S., to restrict oneself to denouncing in general terms allying with one superpower against another, while remaining silent on the already existing alliance, an alliance being consummated openly before everyone’s eyes, is to render real aid to the social-chauvinists. It is to imitate the hypocritical methods of the social-chauvinists themselves, who become the “left” wing of the State Department while simultaneously thundering that “We will hit both appeasement of the Soviet Union as well as reliance on U.S. imperialism or either superpower.”[69]
Now let us examine more closely the MLOC’s analysis of the situation in Europe. The MLOC is very proud of its stand concerning Europe, so let us see what it is so proud of, in the article on Europe quoted above, the MLOC writes:
While in Europe, Carter’s message was clear. We (Carter and the West European imperialists – ed.) need each other, but we don’t need you that much.... NATO remains an instrument of war. But Carter does not view NATO as an instrument for the defense of Europe. The difference is not small. Viewing NATO primarily as a buffer against the U.S.S.R., the U.S. is willing to let Soviet tanks roll across the borders of Western Europe. The U.S. is banking on its ability to counter-attack, launching a full-scale war. From Carter’s point of view, NATO forces are not intended to hold a firm line at the border. This is a policy of ’nibble, but don’t take too much’.
.... Fearful of ever increasing inflation and unemployment, they (the “European bourgeoisie” – ed.) do not want to increase military spending up to the levels needed to adequately re-arm. NATO allies want the U.S. to bear the burden. The U. S. is unwilling.
The U. S. stance on Europe flows directly from the policy of ’detente’.[70]
What a gem!
In this passage, the MLOC’s vacillations on the theory of “three worlds” reach a high point (or a low point, if you please). One wonders whether one is reading The Call or Unite! or perhaps U.S. News and World Report. These are the typical military speculations of the scribblers, dressed up as “Marxism” and even opposition to “three worlds”.
To begin with, here we have the Western European imperialists arming themselves to the teeth to suppress the European working class and intervene in the oppressed nations, described as not wanting to “adequately re-arm”. This is not a slip of the pen, either. In an earlier article in November 1977, the MLOC wrote: “As a NATO ally, Belgium has recently been a sharp critic of the weakness of the alliance (NATO – ed.), in particular NATO’s failure to rearm adequately enough to repulse a Soviet attack.”[71] Klonsky couldn’t have put it better himself. Here are the poor little “Second World” imperialists, not “adequately re-armed” to resist Soviet aggression. Perhaps the MLOC will condescend to tell us what they consider “adequate” armaments for imperialist gangsters and butchers? Perhaps the MLOC will tell us if the U. S. imperialists are “adequately re-armed”, or does this concept only apply to the “Second World”?
The next point is that Garter’s policy is denounced as not “defense of Europe” because... Carter only views NATO as a “buffer against the U.S.S.R.” The MLOC claims that “the difference is not small” and the MLOC raises the specter of “Soviet tanks roll(ing) across the borders of Western Europe.” For the MLOC, the crucial point is that “From Carter’s point of view, NATO forces are not intended to hold a firm line at the border.” Thus, according to MLOC’s logic, NATO would indeed be “an instrument for the defense of Europe” and not just a “buffer against the U.S.S.R.” – if the U.S. were strong enough to have NATO troops “hold a firm line at the border”. The MLOC denounces Carter’s policy not because the U.S. is an imperialist superpower, not because the U.S. imperialists are presently military occupiers of Western Europe, but only because the U.S. imperialists aren’t sufficiently arming Western Europe to “adequately” defend against the Soviet threat. Marxist class analysis is replaced by panic at the thought of Soviet tanks “rolling over” everything – while it is taken for granted that U.S. tanks should continue their “rolling” over Western Europe. As a matter of fact, this whole song and dance about the difference between a “buffer” and a “defense” is sheer nonsense. For the information of the social-chauvinists, conciliators and vacillators, U.S. imperialism does indeed “view” NATO as ̶designed for the defense of Europe”, only it is of course for the defense of U.S. imperialist interests in Europe, for U.S. imperialist occupation of Western Europe, subversion, infiltration and invasion of Eastern Europe, for the suppression of socialism in Europe and for rivalry with the Soviet social-imperialists. The question of the class content of a war, and of the inter-imperialist character of the threatened world war between the two superpowers, is not determined by whether “a firm line at the border” is held, who strikes first in the war, or on whose territory the war is fought. The U.S. imperialists, like the Soviet social-imperialists, are fighting for world hegemony, independent of the particular military tactics used on particular battle fronts.
Thus MLOC’s denunciation of Carter’s policy as not being “defense of Europe” turns into a Klonskyite argument about “appeasement”. According to the MLOC’s military strategists, the U.S. imperialists do not intend to “hold a firm line at the border”, but instead the “U.S. is banking on its ability to counter-attack, launching a full-scale war.” This bloodthirsty policy of total war is, strangely enough, labelled by the MLOC as the policy of “nibble, but don’t nibble too much”. Can anyone make heads or tails of that? The U.S., according to MLOC’s own military speculations, is saying “nibble – and we’ll blow your head off in a full-scale counter-attack”. So the MLOC labels this “detente”, a policy of letting the Soviet aggressors “nibble” at Western Europe. There is only one logic behind this – the MLOC is dangling the fear of “appeasement” before the mind of the reader, but is afraid to say so openly and consistently. And so the MLOC squirms around and continually contradicts itself. The MLOC says “W, X, Y” knowing that nine out of ten readers will add “and Z”. Thus the MLOC replaces class analysis with the most vulgar bourgeois-democratic illusions about the defense of borders. It propagates the war psychosis: “Who will attack next?’ “Where will the Soviet tanks roll?” The MLOC proudly repeats these military speculations in a major supplement to the Feb. 15, 1978 issue of Unite! entitled “The Alignment of Class Forces in 1977”. There the MLOC publishes a map showing the Russians “rolling over” the Northern part of Western Europe, while the U.S. imperialists stage a two-pronged attack into Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia. The caption could read straight from The Call: “Arrows project where the U.S.S.R. is likely to strike at Western Europe from the north. U. S. has positioned itself, not to fend off the U.S.S.R. but (to – ed.) launch its own aggressive attack from the south.” Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that this caption is correct about the superpowers’ military plans. The map does not show the U.S. refusing to “fend off” the Soviet attack, and still less does it show the U.S. letting the Soviet Union “nibble”. What it shows is the U.S. preparing to out-flank the Soviet forces, strike into Eastern Europe, and, if the tactics work out, clobber the Soviet social-imperialists but good, while both superpowers merrily slaughter millions upon millions of workers, peasants and oppressed masses in their quest for world hegemony and their contest to see whose military tactics are superior. Even from the strictly military point of view, the MLOC’s talk about the U.S. not “fend(ing) off” the Soviet attack is sheer nonsense. In war, a counterattack is often the best means to “fend off” the enemy. Instead of directly standing in front of the enemy’s main drive, one may encircle or outflank the enemy, a maneuver which when successful can be quite devastating. The whole point of the constant military speculations of the social-chauvinists and conciliators is, however, not to chart the threatened war, but to heighten the war psychosis, distract interest from the class content of the threatened military conflict, and demagogically prettify U. S. imperialism and NATO by implying that defense of “a firm line at the border” is not imperialism.
Finally, the nonsense of saying that this U.S. policy in Europe “flows directly from” “detente” should be obvious. What a nice “detente” indeed: U.S. tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia and East Germany! The U.S. policy “flows from” imperialist aggression, while “detente” is part of the campaign of “propaganda and diplomatic diversion”.
Thus, instead of writing off the polemics against social-chauvinism of 1976 and 1977 as “of little value”[72], the MLOC would have done better to study these polemics. The MLOC is vacillating on a number of points that were precisely at the center of these polemics. We would suggest that the MLOC pitch in and put some sweat into the struggle against the theory of “three worlds” and against social-chauvinism rather than continuing to arrogantly write off the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists as “counter-revolutionaries” and “chauvinists”. Behind the comical posturings of the MLOC about “leading the way”, we find that the MLOC has taken up only those aspects of the criticism of the theory of “three worlds” that had already gained great prestige and currency among honest elements of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement, while still preserving various catchwords and formulations designed to leave open loopholes for future reconciliation with the social-chauvinists. Perhaps the MLOC will, under the pressure of the work of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, drop a few more of its opportunist formulations and carry-overs from the social-chauvinists – whether that happens depends on a number of factors, such as how the wind blows. But what remains certain is: as long as the MLOC remains a conciliator of the social-chauvinists and disrupter of the ranks of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, its “opposition” to revisionism and opportunism is bound to remain an “opposition” of the most shallow and vacillating sort.
[57] Unite!, February 15, 1978, “Unite! for Still Greater Victories!”, p. 6, col. 2.
[58] Weisberg, Political Report, p. 34.
[59] See (20).
[60] Class Against Class, January, 1978, #10, “On the Publication of Class Against Class”, the page prior to p. 1.
[61] Class Against Class, January, 1978, #10, “On the First Congress of the MLOC”, p. 3.
[62] MLOC’s Draft Party Program, p. 38.
[63] Enver Hoxha, Report to the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania. Ch. V, ”The International Situation and the Foreign Policy of the PRA”, p. 182, English Language edition.
[64] Enver Hoxha, “Our Policy Is An Open Policy, the Policy of Proletarian Principles (Speech Delivered at the Meeting with the Electors of the Tirana Number 209 Precinct, October 3, 1974). See The Workers’ Advocate, December 15, 1974, p. 15, col. 2, or Selected Writings of the Great Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha, 1971-77, compiled by the Norman Bethune Institute, Toronto, 1978, pp. 426-7.
[65] Klonsky, Political Report, p. 44.
[66] Unite!, February 1, 1978, “Carter Exploits Inter-Imperialist Contradictions”, p. 3, col. 2-3.
[67] The Call, May 2, 1977.
[68] See (41).
[69] Klonsky, Political Report, p. 41.
[70] See (66).
[71] Unite!, November, 1977, “Carter Plans Tour...to Strengthen Imperialist Ties”. This major article starts on the front page. The quoted excerpt is on p. 11, col. 2.
[72] See (24).