First Published: The People’s Tribune, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 1973.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
From its inception, the Communist League has held closely to the conception that the future Communist Party of the USNA would be built from the unity of a number of the various Marxist-Leninist organizations.
To facilitate this unity we have always welcomed and encouraged polemics within the movement. We believe that it is only through frank and honest struggle that such unity can be achieved. From this point of view, we welcome the editorial published in The Call (the political paper of the October League (Marxist-Leninist), Vol. 1, No. 4).
In their “criticism” of the Communist League they do not take a position of Marxism-Leninism or draw at all on the historical experience of the international Communist movement. None the less, they afford us the opportunity of further clarifying our views.
We do not like the lies that they are spreading that the CL is a Trotskyite organization. We do not like their tactic of traveling throughout the South spreading the lie that our Comrades and friends who are struggling in the Negro Nation are police agents. We fully understand the aim of this slander – to isolate these revolutionaries, and identify them to the Ku Klux Klan. The leadership of the October League should understand that we will hold them fully responsible for any acts of violence against our friends and comrades in the South that result from these slanders.
We have our style of fighting – to print what our adversary prints for the whole world to see, and then polemicize against it. The OL(ML) has chosen a style of fighting that includes slander, lies, and taking quotes out of context. We will, in the coming issues, document every one of these lies.
As regards this absurd charge of ’Trotskyism’ – space does not allow us to deal with it in this issue. In the following issue we will concretely prove that in actual practice the OL(ML) has and does bloc with the Trotskyites and the CPUSA in their attempt to isolate the Communist League.
The charge of ’purist’ hardly fits the Communist League. We proudly pioneered in the struggle to isolate the Trotskyites while our detractors were welcoming them as Left revisionists. We proudly were the first ones in 1968 to raise the slogan to build a Multi-National Marxist-Leninist Communist Party while our detractors were accusing us of anti-Negro practices in refusing to follow the Negro national minority militants who they had chauvinistically designated as “the vanguard of the revolution.” We called for the unity of the working class while our “New Left” allies were assisting the imperialists by peddling the line of a white working class and a black working class. It is indeed strange that the very groupings that accuse us of straying from Marxism on the concreteness of the Negro question should now raise the charge of ’purism.’
Proceeding from an examination of concrete reality, some eight months ago the Communist League indicated that the most active aspects of the imperialist contradictions were beginning to shift and the struggle between the imperialist countries was becoming more intense. This statement – accepted by all today – was met by a howl from the total of the “New Left.” It is true that the program of the Communist League has evolved in the struggle to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism. The OL(ML) fails to differentiate between the struggle for science and ’purism.’ Lenin teaches that science and scientific truth are not dogmas but “the approximately true reflections of objective processes; reflections that are bound to be corrected and perfected by every new development of science.”[1]
This scientific outlook necessarily entails the struggle against the subjectivists and the ideologists.
The Communist League, true to the teachings of Lenin was constructing a theoretically developed political organism, uniting the revolutionaries of all nationalities, while our detractors were denying membership in their organizations to the Negro and Mexican national minority revolutionaries. (They were told to join La Raza Party or the Black Panthers.) But this ploy was old hat to us – the old chauvinist slogan of “Let’s you and him fight.” It was primarily due to the principled struggle of the Communist League that today the entire Left is compelled to speak in terms of a multi-national Party.
To be a member of the Communist League is to uphold the doctrine of Marx and Lenin. There is a difference between defending the doctrine and being a doctrinaire. Our adversaries are free to take their choice, for within Marxism there is no third alternative.
There have been such gross distortions concerning our position on the so called ’third world,’ that we briefly restate our position.
What is the origin of the concept of the third world? Its origin lies exactly in the effort to separate the billions of slaves of imperialism from the path of socialist revolution. It is to that end that Sukarno, then President of Indonesia said,
The British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, divides mankind at present into two groups, following two different groups, following two different philosophies. One group has faith in the Declaration of Independence of Thomas Jefferson, while the other group believes in the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx...
I do not agree with Bertrand Russell when he said that humanity only consists of these two groups. There is a third group, which numbers more than a billion, maybe even more than one and a half billion people – namely, the people who live under the flags of nationalism in Asia and Africa.[2]
There is nothing new in ’third’ alternatives. Each time the people are faced with two explicit choices, the dominant grouping attempts to maintain their domination by offering a ’third’ choice that is nothing but the old oppression in a new veil. By the early 1960’s the ’third world’ concept had ceased to be a tendency associated with neocolonialism, but had become an important trend. In his important book, “The Third World,” Mario Rossi describes this Third World. “It is not a world waiting to choose which side to join because it has already chosen to be itself.”[3] Further, Rossi is a bit more clear, “The Third World comprises peoples and countries in a stage of transition from dependence to an independence still short of accomplished fact.”[4]
As early as 1965, C.L. Sulzberger, the influential foreign affairs expert for the New York Times, spelled out U.S. imperialist foreign policy as regards this “Third World.” “The third world is the underdeveloped world, the poor world, the nonaligned neutralist world with its odd political forms such as guided democracy, Arab socialism, positive neutralism, active coexistence, scientific socialism.”[5]
Towards the end of the book, Sulzberger sums up the position of the U.S., “Whether we like it or not, the fate of the Third World is a particular responsibility of the United States. The Third World was precipitated into existence as the consequence of historical trends encouraged by an American President in what I have called the Wilsonian Revolution, the Revolution of Self-Determination... Ours is a trading nation dependent on the stability of distant areas for needed raw materials and on the prosperity of distant areas as a market for our ever increasing production...”[6]
And if there are any lingering doubts as to the imperialist guises and needs of the ’third world,’ Sulzberger goes on, “Ideologically, we cannot hope to feel secure against Communism’s dynamic thrust unless we can keep it out of the Third World and prevent it from encompassing a majority of the earth’s population. And, strategically, we will be cut off from our commercial inlets and outlets, expelled from emergency bases and driven back into the isolationism from which we recently emerged unless we can begin to help solve the problems of the underdeveloped nations.”[7]
As early as 1940, Mao Tse-tung, recognizing the tendency that was developing amongst the bourgeoisie of the colonial and semi-colonial world wrote, “In the international situation of today, the ’heroes’ in the colonies and semi-colonies must either stand on the side of the imperialist front and become part of the force of world counter-revolution or stand on the side of the anti-imperialist front and become part of the force of world revolution. They must stand either on this side or the other, for there is no third choice.”[8]
Further, Enver Hoxha stated, “Traitors to Marxism-Leninism, agents of imperialism and intriguers like Josif Broz Tito, try in a thousand ways, by hatching up diabolic schemes like the creation of a third force, to mislead these people and the newly-set up states, to detach them from their natural allies, to hitch them up to U.S. imperialism. We should exert all our efforts to defeat the schemes of these lackeys of imperialism.”[9]
A further and more comprehensive treatment of this question will have to wait until later issues of the People’s Tribune. However, we want to make it clear that there is abundant evidence as to the beginning of the concept of the ’third world’ and its imperialist implications today.
There is, however, another subject that we have to address ourselves to. That subject is the question of the international front of struggle against USNA imperialism. Only an idiot would pretend that the international front of struggle against the main enemy of mankind is a political maneuver of this year or is anything but part of the treasury of Marxism. In 1937 Dimitroff it stated, “The experience of many years has gone to prove that the fascist instigators of war are not to be held back by persuasion or arguments. There is only one effective means of curbing them, and that is the united and unbroken struggle of the masses of the people against fascism in the different countries and on an international scale. Only united action of the international proletariat rallying around Itself all sections of the workers, all progressive and democratic elements, all genuine supporters of peace, can succeed in curbing the impudently brazen fascists and putting an end to their robber plans once and for all.”[10] This Marxist-Leninist statement is fully applicable to the changing situation today.
Every single contradiction between the lesser capitalist states, the Socialist camp, the colonial and semi-colonial masses, and the world working class movement on the one hand and the imperialist aggressions of the USNA and the USSR must be exploited to the utmost. This is precisely the tactic that was used to isolate and overthrow the fascists in World War II. We, however, are experienced enough to know that if inside the general world united front against imperialism, there is not a sharp and constant struggle to defend the workers against these lesser capitalists, if we do not defend the colonial masses against all capitalist aggression and exploitation, if we do not carry out our world historic tasks as proletarian revolutionaries, then political action with alien elements is impossible. Further, we would be nothing more than the coach dogs in the struggle of the various imperialists to gain or maintain their markets.
It should be obvious to anyone that the international front against imperialism is bound to be based in these three elements: 1) The Socialist camp, 2) The international working class movement, 3) The national liberation movement. However, the “New Left” should understand that these three elements are not independent forces. It is the hegemony of the working class in each element that ties it together into a reality. It is the leading role of the Communist Parties that makes that hegemony possible. The only goal is “the overthrowal of the landlords and the bourgeoisie.”[11] Take out the working class and you have nothing—take out the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Parties and groupings and you have nothing. This is one of the reasons for the Communist League*s concentration on the central task of building a Communist Party.
We would like to point out that the difference between the possibilities and the realities of a United Front against imperialism is the existence of a Marxist-Leninist Communist Party – especially in the USNA. All Marxist-Leninists agree on the decisive role of the Party and of building the Party.
Why, then, does the October League slander the Communist League stating that we oppose the United Front. The facts are that it is the October League that screams for unity in the abstract and opposes it concretely as they are doing by their rumor-mongering, slanders and lies against the upcoming Conference of North American Marxists.
The Communist League is one of the forces that is organizing for the Conference. We are giving this Conference our full support because we believe that the time has come for Marxist-Leninists to concretely present their views to one another and to struggle in a principled way for unity. We believe that the fascist danger in the USNA is a grave one and the only possibility of defeating fascism lies in such unity. The October League, the Revolutionary Union and all groupings who claim the mantel of Marxism-Leninism have been and are urged to present their views at the Conference. Only through such an airing of views is it possible to save our class and our country from the danger of fascist reaction.
Let us address ourselves to this stone that the October League (M-L) has raised. The OL (M-L) claims that the Communist League says that the Allende government in Chile is “worse than Fascist” because it “lulls the masses to sleep.” Lenin teaches that truth is concrete. There is but one spokesman for the Communist League and that is the People’s Tribune, and that sort of formulation has never appeared in our press. Hitler taught that the big lie is easier to believe than the little one. We would suggest that since Marxism is a theoretical movement we should deal with theory and the interpretation of experience rather than perform as school children – “You did so say it”; “I didn’t.” What is the position of the Communist League as far as the Allende Government is concerned?
First of all, the total of the colonial world, including South and Central America, is undergoing a profoundly deep and broad revolution. Every country in South America is in the grip of this social struggle which is a basis of and a result of the deepening of the general crisis of world capitalism. Marxists do not look upon a revolution as a single act or even a phase. A revolution is an epochal motion. The anti-imperialist revolution in South and Central America has always and will continue to receive the unqualified support of the Communist League. We support the Cuban revolution, the Brazilian revolution, the Venezualian revolution and the Chilian revolution, but we have reservations concerning the tactics of the National Communist Parties involved in these revolutions. And since we are an integral part of the world Marxist movement, we have every duty and right to voice and prove such criticisms.
It is interesting to note that the October League (ML) likes to talk about the Allende government as if it is anything but the organ of administration in Chile. They avoid the unpleasant subject of the state because it is here that history and the experience of the proletarian revolution is clear.
What does history teach us? The Indonesian government under Sukarno was somewhat like the Chilian government in as much as the national petty bourgeoisie had won political power from the hands of the Anglo-Dutch imperialists and Indonesia became a semi-colony. We refer to it as a semi-colony because it appears to stand half way between direct colonialism and freedom. However, it is in motion – either the revolution in permanence being crowned with the dictatorship of the proletariat, or backsliding into neo-colonialism. The idea that the Party of the working class should tie itself to such petty bourgeois regimes is anti-communism. The Kerensky government in Russia was the most democratic regime in the world. That did not prevent Lenin from attacking and overthrowing it the moment it showed a tendency to backslide. The gaining of national political power from the imperialists is the limits of the modern petty bourgeois democratic revolution. The petty bourgeoisie attempts to halt the revolution at that stage.
“Typical of this epoch is not only the two main groups of countries: those owning colonies, and colonies, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, officially, are politically independent, but in fact are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence—the semi colony.”[12] This status was also true for Ghana, and for a number of other countries where sharp struggle had resulted in the development of a petty bourgeois anti-imperialist government. The facts are obvious whether in Arbenz’s Guatemala, Goulart’s Brazil, Lumumba’s Congo or Sukarno’s Indonesia. These facts further prove Lenin’s thesis that the goals of the democratic revolution can only be won through a workers and peasants government, i.e., a revolution led by the working class.
Without such a revolution, the real organs of state power, the army, the police, the prison system and the indispensable extra-legal groupings remain intact. Throughout the colonial and semi-colonial world it is precisely the Army and police forces that form the base for the overthrow of the petty bourgeois anti-imperialist governments. Our position is that it is the revisionists’ distortion of the Marxist-Leninist theory of the state that led to the overthrowal and slaughter of the progressives in Indonesia, Brazil, Cambodia etc. We have and we will continue to criticize the CPUSA, the CPSU and the Communist Party of Chile on this subject. What is the position of Lenin?
“But what is lost sight of or glossed over is this: if the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, if it is a power standing above society and “increasingly” alienating itself from it,’ then it is obvious that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this ’alienation.’ As we shall see later, Marx very definitely drew this theoretically self-evident conclusion as a result of a concrete historical analysis of the tasks of the revolution.”[13] What is the position of the Communist Party of Chile?
At the illegal 10th Party Congress (1956) we care fully and self-critically studied the records of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and set ourselves as an immediate political perspective the task of establishing closer links with the masses and steadily carrying forward the revolution.” “Our country”, said Party General Secretary Galo Gonzalez, “gives examples suggesting the possibility of changing the present regime by peaceful, parliamentary means, through elections or other ways.... A mass movement would impart a democratic content to these methods and ways. The 10th Party Congress set the course for a Democratic Front of National Liberation. The program adopted by it stressed the role of the working class in the revolutionary process. It described the Chilean revolution as anti-oligarchic, anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist, formulated policy towards the Party’s allies and inferred the possibility of a course which, based on widespread mass struggle, would obviate civil war in winning political power. Thus the Party evolved a political platform while carrying on an ideological struggle and ridding its ranks of splitters, of Right and “Left”-wing opportunists, and advancing with firm steps to its chosen goals.[14] (Just to be clear on who these “left”-wing opportunists are, Texier names them as the Trotskyites, Maoists, and anarchists.)[15]
It is clear that it is the hand of the traitor Khrushchev that charted the revisionist path of the Communist Party of Chile.
Since the question of state power is the fundamental question in any revolution, it seems that the contradiction is clear. Either dismantle the real organs of the state – the Army, the police, etc. or face being overthrown by them. We will abide by the historical experience of the proletarian revolution. There is not one single instance of this peaceful transition to socialism. Any look at a map will show why we do not support the Communist Party of Chile in this projection. Chile is surrounded by militant fascist enemies, powerful enemies who are waiting for the chance to strike the blow from the outside. Isn’t the sad experience of Bolivia enough to convince anyone of this fact?
Internally matters are not good. The crisis in the countryside as a part of the counter revolutionary process has flooded Santiago with hungry peasants. The reactionary landlords are raising private armies should they lose the March elections. It is an accepted fact that the organizations of the small shopkeepers – which support the extreme right – are growing. Chile is heading into a political crisis. It is at this moment that Castro speaks of ’peaceful transition’. The USSR and the Communist Party of Chile are all co-operating in ideologically and politically disarming the population. These are just a few of the many dangerous facts of the situation in Chile. We are performing our internationalist duty by presenting these facts.
What game is the October League (ML) playing when experience in South America and throughout the semi-colonial world show that a revolutionary upsurge of the workers and peasants under the hegemony of the petty bourgeoisie is the formula for counterrevolution? Under these objective circumstances the only possible path for the semi-colonies – including Chile – is the most detailed preparation for a mass and violent transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. In opposition to the October League stands the tactical program theoretically stated by Marx and confirmed by every successful socialist revolution. These tactics were summed up in Marx’s famous “Address to the Communist League”.
With a view to checking the power and the growth of big capital the democratic party demands a reform of the laws of inheritance and legacies, likewise the transfer of the public services and as many Industrial undertakings as possible to the State and municipal authorities. As to the working man – well, they should remain wage workers; for whom, however, the democratic party would procure higher wages, better labour conditions, and a secure existence. The democrats hope to achieve that partly through State and municipal management and through welfare institutions. In short, they hope to bribe the working class into quiescence, and thus to weaken their revolutionary spirit by momentary concessions and comforts.
The democratic demands can never satisfy the party of the proletariat. While the democratic petty bourgeoisie would like to bring the revolution to a close as soon1 as their demands are more or less complied with, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent, to keep it going until all the ruling and possessing classes are deprived of power, the governmental machinery occupied by the proletariat, and the organization of the working classes of all lands is so far advanced that all rivalry and competition among themselves has ceased; until the more important forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians. With us it is not a matter of reforming private property, but of abolishing it; not of hushing up the class antagonism, but of abolishing the classes; not of ameliorating the existing society, but of establishing a new one. There is doubt’ that, with the further development of the revolution, the petty bourgeois democracy may for a time become the most influential party in Germany.
The question is, therefore, what should be the attitude of the proletariat, and particularly of the League, towards it:
1) During the continuation of the present conditions in which the petty bourgeois democracy if also oppressed?
2) In the ensuing revolutionary struggles which would give them momentary ascendancy?
3) After those struggles, during the time of their ascendancy over the defeated classes and the proletariat?
1) At the present moment when the democratic petty bourgeoisie are everywhere oppressed, they lecture the proletariat, exhorting it to effect a unification and conciliation; they would like to join hands and form one great opposition party, embracing within its folds all shades of democracy. That is, they would like to entangle the proletariat in a party organization in which the general social democratic phrases predominate, behind which the particular proletarian demands should not, for the sake of peace and concord, be brought forward. Such a unification would be to the exclusive benefit of the petty bourgeois democracy and to the injury of the proletariat. The organized working class would lose its hard-won independence and would become again a mere appendage of the official bourgeois democracy. Such a unification must be resolutely opposed.
Instead of allowing themselves to form the chorus of the bourgeois democracy, the working men, and particularly the League, must strive to establish next to the official democracy, an independent, a secret as well as legal organization of the working class party, and to make each community the centre and nucleus of working-class societies in which the attitude and the interests of the proletariat should be discussed independently of bourgeois influences. How little the bourgeois democrats care for an alliance in which the proletarians should be regarded as co-partners with equal rights and equal standing is shown by the attitude of the Breslau democrats, who in their organ the Oder-Zeitung are attacking those working men who are independently organized, and whom they nick-name socialists, subjecting them to severe persecutions. The gist of the matter is this: In case of an attack on a common adversary no special union is necessary; in the fight with such an enemy the interests of both parties, the middle-class democrats and the working-class party, coincide for the moment, and both parties will carry it on by a temporary understanding. This was so in the past, and will be so in the future. It is a matter of course that in the future sanguinary conflicts, as in all previous ones, the working men by their courage, resolution, and self-sacrifice will form the main force in the attainment of victory. As hitherto, so in the coming struggle, the petty bourgeoisie as a whole will maintain an attitude of delay, irresolution, and inactivity as long as possible, in order that, as soon as victory is assured, they may arrogate it to themselves and call upon the workers to remain quiet, return to work, avoid so-called excesses, and thus to shut off the workers from the fruits of victory. It is not in the power of the workers to prevent the petty bourgeois democrats from doing that; but it is within their power to render their ascendancy over the armed proletariat difficult, and to dictate to them such terms as shall make the rule of the bourgeois democracy carry within itself from the beginning the germ of dissolution, and its ultimate substitution by the rule of the proletariat considerably facilitated.
The workers above all during the conflict and immediately afterwards, must try as much as ever possible to counteract all bourgeois attempts at appeasement, and compel the democrats to carry out their present terrorist phrases. They must act in such a manner that the revolutionary excitement does not subside immediately after the victory. On the contrary, they must endeavour to maintain it as long as possible. Far from opposing so-called excesses and making examples of hated individuals or public buildings to which hateful memories are attached by sacrificing them to popular revenge, such deeds must not only be tolerated, but their direction must be taken at hand. During the fight and afterwards the workers must seize every opportunity to present their own demands beside those of the bourgeois democrats. They must demand guarantees for the workers as soon as the democrats propose to take over the reins of government. If necessary, these guarantees must be exacted, and generally to see to it that the new rulers should bind themselves to every possible concession and promise, which is the surest way to compromise them. The workers must not be swept off their feet by the general elation and enthusiasm for the new order of things which usually follow upon street battles; they must quench all ardour by a cool and dispassionate conception of the new conditions, and must manifest open distrust of the new Government. Beside the official Government they must set up a revolutionary workers’ Government, either in the form of local executives and communal councils, or workers’ clubs or workers’ committees, so that the bourgeois democratic Governments not only immediately lose all backing among the workers, but from the commencement find themselves under the supervision and threats of-authorities, behind whom stands the entire mass of the working class. In short, from the first moment of victory we must no longer direct our distrust against our former allies, against the party who are now about to exploit the common victory for their own ends only.
2) In order that this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat. The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition must be carried out at once; we must prevent the revival of the did bourgeois militia, which has always been directed against the workers. Where the latter measure cannot be carried out, the workers must try to organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff, to put themselves under the order, not of the Government, but of the revolutionary authorities set up by the workers. Where workers are employed in State service they must arm and organize in special corps, with chiefs chosen by themselves, or form part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext must they give up their arms and equipment, and any attempt at disarmament must be forcibly resisted. Destruction of the influence of bourgeois democracy over the workers, immediate independent and armed organization of the workers, and the exaction of the most irksome and compromising terms from the bourgeois democracy, whose triumph is for the moment unavoidable – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League has to keep in eye during and after the coming upheaval.
3) As soon as the new Government is established they will commence to fight the workers. In order to be able effectively to oppose the petty bourgeois democracy, it is in the first place necessary that the workers should be independently organized in clubs, which should soon be centralized. The central authority, after the overthrow of the existing Governments, will at their earliest opportunity transfer its headquarters…., immediately call together a congress, and make the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under an Executive Committee, who will have their headquarters in the centre of the movement. The rapid organization, or at least the establishment of a provincial union of the workers* clubs, is one of the most important points in our considerations for invigorating and developing the Workers’ Party. The next result of the overthrow of the existing Government will be the election of a national representation. The proletariat must see to it first that no worker shall be deprived of his suffrage by the trickery of the local authorities or Government commissioners; secondly, that beside the bourgeois democratic candidates there shall be put up everywhere working-class candidates, who, as far as possible, shall be members of the League, and for whose success all must work with every possible means. Even in constituencies where there is no prospect of our candidate being elected, the workers must nevertheless put up candidates in order to maintain their independence, to steel their forces, and to bring their revolutionary attitude and party views before the public. They must not allow themselves to be diverted from this work by the stock argument that to split the vote of the democrats means assisting the reactionary parties. All such talk is but calculated to cheat the proletariat. The advance which the Proletarian Party will make through its independent political attitude is infinitely more important than the disadvantage of having a few more reactionaries in the national representation. The victorious party could, if they liked, even prevent the reactionary party having any success at all, if they only used their newly won power with sufficient energy.[16]
[1] Adoratsky, Dialectical Materialism, Int. Pub., 1934, p. 68.
[2] Speech by Sukarno, Oct. 31, 1958. Reprinted in Sigmund, Jr. Paul, The Ideologies of Developing Nations, Praeger, NY, 57.
[3] Rossi, Mario, The Third World, Funk and Wagnalls Co., Inc. New York, 1963, p. 3.
[4] Ibid., p. 4.
[5] Sulzberger, C.L, Unfinished Revolution: America and the Third World, New York Times Book, Atheneum, New York, p. 4.
[6] Ibid., p. 6.
[7] Ibid., p. 274.
[8] Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, “On New Democracy,” Int. Pub., New York, 1955, p. 125.
[9] The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism, The ’Nairn Frasheri,’ Publishing House, Tirana, 1972, p. 15.
[10] Dimitroff, Georgi, The United Front, Int. Pub., New York, 1938, p. 227.
[11] Lenin, Draft Thesis on the National and Colonial Question.
[12] Lenin. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capi’talism, Int. Pub., New York, 1939, p. 85
[13] Lenin, State and Revolution, FLPP, p. 9.
[14] Texier, Jorge, “Petty Bourgeois Revolutionism in Chile,” Political Affairs. Oct. 1972, p. 55. Reprinted from World Marxist Review, Feb. 1972.
[15] Ibid. p. 49.
[16] Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I., “Address to the Communist League,” Int. Pub., New York, 1946, pp. 63-69.