Tribute to Immortal contribution of Comrade Harbhajan Sohi

harbhajan sohi

Without doubt late Comrade Harbhajan Sohi or HBS  was one of the finest theoreticians in the history of the Communist Movement and amongst the greatest leaders and protagonists of the massline.No Comrade contributed so much to shape the massline of Tarimela Nagi Reddy as Harbhajan Sohi or HBS.With the meticulous skill of an architect he shimmered its flame as a communist revolutionary leader in Punjab and as a national level leader.

HBS played the pioneering role in refuting the revisionist ‘three worlds theory’ propounded by the CCP led by Deng Xiaoping. Revealing the grammar of an English professor and the methodology of a Scientist he wrote many a document in his lifetime defending the essence of Mao thought. He was the first comrade to initiate the struggle within the Unity Centre of Communist revolutionaries of India itself against supporting the revisionist line of Deng Xiaoping led CCP, which was then upheld by DV Rao.His revolt against the International line of DV Rao was one of the most defining events in the path of constructing the proletarian revolutionary mass line, No theoretician after Chairman Mao so dialectically assessed the continuity of Mao thought with Marxism-Leninism, or gave Mao thought such an accurate definition as HBS. HBS played a major role in confronting rightist and leftist deviations throughout his political career like an oarsman rowing a boat facing varying currents on his journey HBS is most relevant today when counter revolutionary winds are blowing against the Communist revolutionary or Maoist camp worldwide. Trotskyism, Revisionism, neo-maoism or post modernism still exert a pernicious influence on genuine movements .All undermine the cutting edge of the Leninist or Maoist party .

In the name of ‘Maoism” a trend advocated by Joshua Moufawad Paul advocates that Maoism is a rupture from Leninism and that of a mass party. Another trend propagates that it is ‘Maoism’ that is principal and that it. It evaluates Gonzalo thought to be universal, as well as militarization of the party and concept of protracted peoples war.Indian C.P.I.(Maoist) leaders like Ajith or Murali although true revolutionaries still undervalue Leninism and soft pedal with post modernism by undermining the vanguard role of the Leninist party. Till his last breadth with the sharpness of a sword HBS defended Mao’s contribution as an integral part of Leninism and Leninist party concept.

Revisionists exist world over who reject Chairman Mao’s struggle against Kruschevite revisionism .All of them give a new definition to Maoism than the CCP declared in 1966.Trotskyites still blow their trumpet of anti-stalinism playing the role saboteurs to the revolution. Professor G.N Saibaba who has now been framed by the safrron rulers,admired Comrade Sohi’s boulder like defence of Leninism till his last breadth.

Sadly HBS perished before the task of re-organization of the party was crystallized on basis of massline or in accurately refuting the ecclectic theories propounded within the Maoist camp. He could have played an important role in ideologically confronting the un-marxist evaluation of Brahmanical fascism made by the C.P.I (Maoist) as well as trends supporting identity politics and undermining leadership of the party as vanguard. On Polemics Chairman Joma Sison is similar to HBS in terms of evaluation of contribution of Mao and Leninism. Both strongly opposed the formation of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement as well as attributing tendency of personality cut to comrades like Mao and Stalin. With Hindutva fascism reaching a crescendo there are strong currents within the revolutionary camp seeking opportunist alliances with bourgeois forces .His guidance would have acted as a pivot in channelizing the anti-fascist movement on the basis of mass line. His polemic ingenuity could have dialectically analyzed how to balance the anti-caste movement with revolutionary class struggle. Comrade HBS could have made a much better analysis than any comrade on how China has turned into a genuine imperialist country and on how inter-imperialist contradictions could be used.

HBS received his revolutionary baptism within the CPM itself within which he waged a revolt as a member of the S.F.I. He joined the All India Co-ordination Commitee of Communist revolutionaries of India and the C.P.I.(M.L.) before rejecting the left adventurist line to separate the Ferozepur-Bathinda commitee and form the Punjab Coordination Commitee in 1974.His leadership of PCRC was instrumental in shaping the movement of the Punjab Students Union and the Naujwan Bharat Sabha in 1974 in the Mukti Sangram rally.

In 1974 the Punjab Co-ordination Committee published a document why they demarcated themselves from Charu Mazumdar’s CPI (ML):

  1. Since the socio-economic conditions differ and political consciousness varies from place to place, the revolutionary movements have to pass through various stages, and different tactics would have to be used at various places.
  2. To ignore open and legal struggles is left adventurism. These will contribute to the development of armed struggle.
  3. Annihilation of class enemies leads to the emergence of feelings of hero worship and retards revolutionary initiative.
  4. To ignore partial and economic struggles is dogmatism. The working class will have to pass through various phases of struggle.
  5. Mass organisations will have to be formed such as peasant, worker and student organisations.
  6. Although the rural areas are the main areas of struggle the movement cannot exclude the mass organisations in urban areas.
  7. Individual annihilations do not comprise people’s war. The CPI (ML) is too simplistic about it.
  8. The CPI (ML) ignores the fact that the People’s democratic revolution will occur under the leadership of the proletariat, particularly the industrial working class.

In 1974 this trend not only re-organised the Punjab Students Union but revived the Naujavan Bharat Sabha, a revolutionary organization founded in the days of anti-colonial martyr Bhagat Singh.

In 1974 the famous Moga Sangram (Struggle) rally was led and in 1979 a massive 10,000 strong rally was led state-wide against the murder of Punjab Students Union leader Prithipal Sing Randhawa.

The weakening of the Secular democratic movement led to the emergence of Sikh communal politics.

HBS laid the grounding of the true mass line election tactic of ‘active political campaign’ as against that of slogan of Boycott or tactics of participation in parliament. In 1973 in journal ‘Mukti Sangram ‘ with the reasoning of a research scholar explained why both tactics of participation and boycott were inappropriate .The fragmented nature of the Communist party was the reason why Sohi felt that immediate preparations could not be made for armed struggle or thus propagate ‘boycott’ of election or of using parliamentary tactics. In the view of HBS the Communist Revolutionary movement was passing through a political organizational crisis with party ranks dispersed and the Communist party having no unified existence.

In Sohi’s view participation in election served three purposes. Firstly as part of a struggle for establishment of bourgeois democracy in the form of democratic struggle for civil liberties. Secondly as a platform for taking political struggle to the masses. Thirdly, under unfavourable conditions, as a tactic to bide time and evade counter revolutionary approach to the enemy. Citing the example of Chile and Laos he highlighted where the enemy could also form a coalition govt. with the revolutionaries to erode the independent armed force of the revolutionaries and re-group the reactionaries. There was no proper liaison or sufficient development of the proletarian party to adopt tactics of electoral participation. Tooth and nail Sohi opposed the combining of tactic of participation and boycott on the grounds that such practice derails revolutionary movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

To give slogan of election boycott revolutionary movement must be on the ascendancy and when alternative form of struggle or revolutionary power is created and when the futility of the parliamentary system is exposed completely. In practice the tactics of active political campaign imbibed by HBS were a major success in the election campaigns in Punjab, undertaken under the guidance of the Communist Party Re-Organization Centre of India (Marxist-Leninist).Today several revolutionary groups succumbing to the trap of becoming part of the parliamentary system, through participation. On the other hand often the Maoist slogan of ‘Boycott ‘without a proper revolutionary alternative entails indirect support to ruling class parties or candidates.

No Comrade after Nagi Reddy’s death revealed as much mastery over the correct relationship of a party with a mass Organization which was reflected in the massline practice of the movement of the Punjab Students Union and the Naujwan Bharat Sabha. In the 1970’s.Sohi’s political guidance played a major role in mass organizations demarcating from party politics within them. It was only in 1976 that his organization merged into the Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries led by Tarimela Nagi Reddy. Twice in the course of his political career he was arrested and after the second time skipped out on bail and remained underground since. In 1979 HBS revolted against the DV Rao line upholding 3 worlds theory and split the organization.

In 1980 he wrote 2 of the finest pieces ever by a Communist writer on the revolutionary Contribution of Chairman Mao and the revisionist or social imperialist nature of the Deng Xiaoping led CCP in China. One was in March on ‘Holding the invincible banner of Mao Tse Tung Thought.’ The other was in October on “Significance of combating the Opportunism of the Deng-Hua brand.’‘In the 1st document in great detail he elaborated the distinctive contributions of Chairman Mao and how Mao had taken Leninism to its highest peak in the Cultural revolution taking democracy to scale never reached before. With crystal clarity he expounded how Mao Tse Tung critically absorbed the first experience of the proletariat of building Socialism in USSR and the loss of proletarian state power there, and drew illuminating conclusions for steering the development of socialist revolution in China. With the precision of a surgeon he summarized the massline practice of Maoist China. In the second article the essence of Dengist revisionism was struck at the very backbone summing the counter-revolutionary practice of the CCP after 1978 in terms of eradicating all the roots planted by Chairman Mao.

In 1982 he published his document ‘In defence of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought and the General line of International Communist movement.’ No political work published in the entire world at that time so dialectically or analytically rendered the sheer fallacy or anti-people nature of the three world’s theory or defended Leninism as propounded in the Great Debate. With the intensity of a sword piercing flesh it exposed how Deng Xiaoping’s policies were a manifestation of all revisionism that existed before This document attacked the Dengist theory of three worlds at its very backbone and Enver Hoxha’s 2 world’s theory. It also made a scathing criticism on the anti-marxist character of Trotskyism. It narrated how Trotskyism tried to revise the Leninist thesis on national and colonial questions from a ‘let’ opportunist position.

With great insight the 1982 document summarized the contradictions and weakness of the world capitalist system with continuous ebb and flow after 1973 and how the glorious victories of people’s wars in Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea hit American imperialism in its very belly. It narrated how Dengist China advocated capitulation to USA and wipe out the memories of the steps initiated to combat modern revisionism .While condemning Soviet Social Imperialism it camouflaged its retreat from revolutionary fighting positions and counter-revolutionary goals of making China a regional hegemonistic power. It gave a great historical overview of the First World War and Second World War periods of the nature of imperialism of the former colonies and the evolution of neocolonialism or semi-colonies. In detail it portrayed the similarities of Lenin’s positions with Mao .It highlighted how Lenin by   analysing the international situation in the framework of imperialism’s economic relations and the position of different nations in this relationship, always kept in mind the position and role of different class forces and drew conclusions and chalked out  political tasks of International Communist movement with that perception. Vivid examples were narrated of Lenin’s policies in relationship with other European nations and to colonies and how as a result of World War 1 the victorious powers were given a complete licence towards hegemony over defeated Germany. It touched upon how Lenin’s observations were proved correct in the course of the First World War with a series of national liberation movements in the colonies at and proletarian revolutions in Hungary, Bulgaria and Germany. Rarely has any work on international line display such mastery of Leninist grammar. The significance of the Great Debate was highlighted like a red lamp shimmering at its crescendo.HBS effectively countered the deviations of the RCP-America and the Mass line group in India for their criticism of Stalin and upholding left adventurism. The document narrated how the loss of Socialist states as centres of parallel political power and reliable bases of world proletarian revolution especially that of Socialist China, constituted a major setback for the International Communist Movement and revolutionary forces worldwide.

The document also hit Enver Hoxha’s two world’s theory at its very backbone. The aspects of how he clung to certain limitations of earlier Marxist-Leninist understanding of the complex reality and problems of socialist society were exposed. It elaborated how Hoxa refused to imbibe lessons from the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat and building of Socialism in Russia and China. The economist approach was highlighted where Soviet Social Imperialism is highlighted as a victim of imperialist domination, which got entangled in the hegemonic claws of US Imperialism. It summed up that by rejecting the new democratic stage of revolution in third world they not only undermine the anti-feudal movement but dilute the anti imperialist task by obliterating the class distinction between the phenomenon of imperialist colonialist oppression in these countries and the factor in domination in relations between the relatively weaker and mightier countries. It explained how for the two wordlists there existed only quantitative difference between the third world countries on one hand and the developed capitalist countries on the other hand. The aspect of how they considered the national bourgeoisie to be at best only a tactical ally and not a strategic ally of the proletariat in a national democratic revolution. The defective military line of two wordlists was also portrayed describing how they rejected path of protracted people’s war and wish to emulate the Bolshevik experience of insurrection in the cities.

HBS tooth and nail combated the formation of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement in 1984 exposing its anti-Leninist content .In his view there was hardly sufficient development of proletarian parties worldwide to precipitate it and reflected why the Comintern dissolved in 1943.With incisive logic he summed up why even the CCP opposed forming a Communist International in the 1960’s.The eventual collapse or bankruptcy of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement proved Sohi correct. It was ironic that even forces like Maoist Communist Centre of India joined the R.I.M but came out of it after merging into the C.P.I.(Maoist)

In the period of Khalistani terrorism from early 1980’s he waged a major political crusade against Khalistani fundamentalism and state terrorism displaying mastery of massline in theory and practice. Tooth and nail he refuted all who soft-pedalled with Khalistani politics and wit the skill of a surgeon guided mass political resistance through combat forces.

In 1988 he played a great role in the merging of different revolutionary streams into the Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India .This group eventually merged with 3 other sections to form the Communist Party Re-Organization Centre of India (Marxist-Leninist) of which HBS was a major catalyst, being appointed as the general secretary in the Conference in 1995.He held this post for  a period of 14  years, relinquishing it shortly before his death in June 2009.

HBS acted as a pivot in garnering or knitting scattered party forces all over the country into a single organization applying dialectical Marxist-Leninist method .With great mastery he guided the secret and open work of the party and with great subtlety combated deviationist trends. Tooth and nail he confronted opportunist unity which was predominant trend in India.Even in an egg of Imperialism like Mumbai his ideological pulse could be felt within the Communist revolutionary camp .His greatest political influence was in steering the democratic revolutionary movement in Punjab and the Malkangiri Adivasi Movement in Orissa in galvanizing agrarian revolutionary movement. In trade union movement even if small in numbers his influence made a qualitative impact on creating Leninist practice within yellow unions enabling comrades to capture them in West Bengal. Marginal impact was also made in working class sphere in states like Maharashtra and Rajasthan.

HBS played a major role in confronting rightist and leftist deviations throughout his political career like an oarsman rowing a boat facing varying currents on his journey.When USSR was toppled in 1991 or East European countries in 1989 no comrade so acutely refuted the anti-Socialist propaganda with such  such sound analysis..

No Comrade had such a thorough grounding with respect to proletarian element in the Kashmir nationality struggle as HBS.He applauded the heroic revolutionary resistance of the Kashmiri people led by the Jammu and Kashmir National Liberation Front in giving armed counter resistance to the paramilitary forces and also for maintaining secular spirit inspite of religious impact on it. In his writing he reflected that it hit the very backbone of the ruling classes making them strong contenders to challenge the Indian state power. However he elaborate that demarcation had not been made by the Jammu and Kashmir national Liberation front from communal fascist outfits like Hizbul Mujahudin,There was hardly any class analysis of the political content of the independence of the proposed Kashmir state ,not touching upon aspect of national opression and underdevelopment of Kashmiri people nor on national self determination or Neo-colonialism. It also adopted non-proletarian approach by adopting support from reactionary bourgeois democratic countries of Eastern Europe .The Muslim fundamentalist forces vitiated the democratic character of the mass movement. There was a predominant trend in the 1990’s and even now upholding the Kashmiri movement as a revolutionary armed struggle by the erstwhile Party Unity and Peoples War groups and now the C.P.I.(Maoist)

In 1996 he wrote the CPRCI (ML) resolution on International line which revealed meticulous research applying Marxist-Leninist methodology .It summarized how contradictions were crystallizing at the International level.

Whatever his strong differences he was never openly critical of the C.P.I. (Maoist) or it’s erstwhile constituents. With great vigour he defended their revolutionary comittment and determination to build a peoples war. He guided party forces that even when confronted never to retaliate Maoist armed squads .With great balance he adressed other sections within the camp displaying no pre-mature rush to win them over.Inspite of having an open mind he practiced party secrecy at its upmost depth ,remaining underground till his last days.

He reflected humility throughout his life even giving appreciation to contingents of other revolutionary streams like in the movement in Mumbai in 1993 countering Hindutva fascism after Babri Masjid demolition. Even if refuting the left adventurist content of Charu Mazumdar ‘s line he upheld his contribution in being architect of revolutionary line of Naxalbari.With the deepest conviction he felt that the line of his organization was correct and that even after the erstwhile C.P.I.(M.L.)Peoples War Group squads enforced armed actions ,they acknowledged the correctness of the Nagi Reddy line.

He even had a poetic tilt writing illustrative poems and even had a good word to say about Boris Pasternak,who wrote Dr Zhivago.Even if very critical of Bollywood’s endorsement of imperialism he refrained from being too critical of the stars, attributing it to the film industry itself. It was his firm view that Bollywood never morally fulfilled the thirst of the broad masses.

No doubt Comrade HBS did have certain weaknesses. Principally he failed to and sufficient attention to building the protracted peoples War and in the name of party-re-organization virtually deferred agrarian revolutionary movement. He also failed to sufficiently consolidate an All-India party.Inspite of internet becoming such predominant phenomena he failed to take any initiative to publishing political struggles and documents of the party online. We have to give consideration even if we do not agree with the views of comrades like late Satnam on neglecting aspect of people’s war or even Basehwar Ram.

Neverthless comrades must bang every nail in the coffin to refute streams like the C.P.I.(Maoist) or C.P.I.(M.L.) Democracy who give HBS the tag of a rightist., or generating ‘economism.’Sadly a Punjabi journal Surkh Rekha launched a tirade against HBS alleging that he jammed the party.

Every component of the revolutionary camp paid a tribute to Comrade HBS emphasizing his role as a crusader in re-organizing the scattered party, combating ideological deviations and mastery over mass line.Punjabi journal Surkh Rekha paid a handsome tribute reflecting how at every stage in his political career he unflinchingly shimmered the spark of Leninism. Its editor Jaspal Jassi made one of the most emotional speeches when paying homage .In detail Sohi’s contribution to revolutionary massline was recounted. Revolutionary leaders and activists of various streams admired Sohi’s ability to organize and motivate the youth. Even the Punjab Unit of the C.P.I. (Maoist) gave a message praising Sohi’s defence of the essential line on new democratic revolution, new democratic politics, and in general direction against Socialist revolution and revolution of nationalities. Communist League of India of Ramnath praised his ideological struggle countering left terrorism, in contrast to other sections.

HBS played a major role in confronting rightist and leftist deviations throughout his political career like an oarsman rowing a boat facing varying currents on his journey. He firmly defended the view that all the Communist revolutionary groups were components of the party to be re-organized. With deep depth of analysis he defended the thesis of mode of production of India being semi-feudal and semi-colonial. His leadership played a big role in shaping mass line practice of party members within mass organizations His political direction with the sharpness of as word prevented the mixing of party and mass platforms. He gave crystallisation to the formation of a genuine mass-political forum and revolutionary class mass organisations of the landed peasantry and agricultural labourers. The organic functioning of peasant, landless labour and youth organizations in Punjab  owed a lot to the political guidance of line of HBS.Their method of mass organizing reflects Sohi’s understanding even today. Today the revolutionary mass character of the people’s movement in Punjab owes its origin to the grassroots work of Comrade HBS.It is reflected in the great mass political protests against Operation Green Hunt, black laws, arrest of urban intellectuals, State repression in Kashmir and against NRC-NPR in recent times

A memorial trust should be designed which openly publishes the writings of Comrade HBS  writings which would be an integral part of the treasure house of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist polemics. A school could have been formed in hi s name for partaking the essentials of Leninism and to educate advanced cadres. I wish someone constructively worked on a biography of Comrade HBS.I recommend every cadre to thoroughly read HBS’s articles on Mao Tse Tung Thought and Revisionism in China in 1980, His document In defence of Mao Thought and general line of International Communist Movement ‘ in 1982, his writings in 1973 on elections, his 1990 article on Kashmir and his 1996 document on International situation. Late Comrade Darshan Singh Koohli compiled a set of his documents in Punjabi.

‘Hold Aloft the Invincible Banner of Mao Tse Tung Thought’

Excerpts from statement published in the Proletarian Path,Organ of the cc(provisional) of the U.C.C.R.I.(M.L.),March 1980 in commemoration of comrade Mao Tse Tung’s 86th birthday(written by Com.HBS Aloft the invincible banner of Mao Tse Tung Thought)

Today powerful forces have sprung from within the international Communist Movement to derail or deviate it from it’s established general line and principles. In this great trial and strength between Marxism Leninism and Opportunism, the battle around the estimation of Mao Tse Tung and Mao Tse Tung Thought is crucial. Feverish attempts are being made in categorical as well as veiled fashion by various opportunist quarters to denigrate the name and teaching s of Com.Mao Tse Tung.Confronted with this temporarily formidable opposite, the revolutionary aspect of international communist movement is being impelled to develop and supercede it through struggle. The gradually increasing number of genuine Marxist-Leninist parties and groups who boldly come forward against heavy odds, in defence of the glorious revolutionary practice of Mao Tse Tung and Mao Tse Tung Thought, is the manifestation of this phenomenan and a testimony to the inexhaustible vitality of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung Thought.

Mao Tse Tung’s conceptual grasp over the law of contradiction in things,especially,the uneven and dynamic character of contradiction: the possibility under certain condition, of mutual transformation of principal and non –principal aspects of a contradiction, of partial qualitative changes permeates all his important military concepts ,which constitute the most developed form of proletarian military thought till date-the strategy and tactics of protracted Peoples War. For instance, at a strategic plane the concept of a revolutionary base area under people’s state power amidst the country-wide counter-revolutionary state power; and at a tactical plane, the concept of miniature counter-encirclements by the people’s armed force s within the overall encirclement by enemy forces, and the concept of ‘ten against one,’ in tactical operations.

Moa Tse Tung integrated the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. In grasping and solving the complex fundamental problems of national democratic revolution of semi-colonial and semi-feudal China and of it’s transition to socialist Revolution.

Carrying forward the teachings of Lenin and Stalin on the colonial revolution, he dissected the native bourgeoisie ,studied the characteristics of its segments, drew a clear cut demarcation between the big bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie treating the former as a target and the latter as a former ally of the revolution in its first stage preceding the Socialist Stage; concretely solved the peasant question by providing proletarian leadership to the agrarian revolutionary movement and relying on the peasantry as a main force in the national democratic revolution: ensured the consummation of the national democratic revolution and the transition to the Socialist Revolution by charting out a course of maintaining the independence of the proletariat as a political force, forging the worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the proletariat, establishing the hegemony of the proletariat over all the political forces engaged in the revolution, including the national bourgeoisies, thus making it new democratic Revolution, in it’s political character.

Moa Tse Tung critically absorbed the first experience of the proletariat of building Socialism in USSR and the loss of proletarian state power there, and drew illuminating conclusions for steering the development of socialist revolution in China “In the historical period of socialism there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is he struggle between the Socialist Road and the Capitalist Road “Hence he brought forward the foremost position occupied by class contradictions in propelling social development throughout the historical period covered by Socialist Society, and laid down the cardinal precept that for properly appreciating and tackling problems of the development of Socialist Society proletarian revolutionaries must proceed by taking class struggle as the key link. He stressed the great significance of thoroughgoing changes in the relations of production and the superstructure for greatly boosting the development of productive forces during periods of revolutionary transition of society.

He pointed out that Socialist Society being a long historical period of revolutionary transition, calls for unrelenting revolutionary effort to adapt the relations of production to the constantly emerging requirements of the development of productive force s,and transform the superstructure to bring it in tune with the Socialist economic base, so as to consolidate and develop the latter. He further observed that as every socialist transformation in the relation sof production and the superstructure corrodes the socialist basis, influence and power of the old exploiting classes and new bourgeois elements, it encounters frantic resistance. And, this class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie gets intense expression on the political front. Hence the paramount importance for political revolution.

Moa pointed out that after the smashing of the bourgeois political resistance, the chief representative s of the bourgeoisie are found to be hiding within the Communist party itself-the party persons in authority taking the Capitalist Road-against whom the sharp class struggle has to be directed. To achieve all-round socialist revolution in ideological, political and economic spheres and to defend and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, Mao exhorted the proletarian revolutionaries to rely on the revolutionary masses of the people and revolutionary mass movements bringing into full play their creative initiative and genius.

The glorious decade of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution lead by the proletarian revolutionaries headed by Mao Tse Tung, witnessed the practice and maturing of this theory of continuing revolution under the condition sof dictatorship of the proletariat, marking a great leap forward in the revolutionary experience and achievements of international proletariat.

We do not subscribe to the notion of infallibility of great revolutionary persons, no MARXIST DOES. Mao Tse Tung, like other great teachers of the International proletariat MARX,Engels,Lenin and Stalin cannot be free of errors and inadequacies. But such errors and inadequacies,if noticed, are to be analysed in a total and historical perspective, on the basis of Marxism-Leninsm Mao Tse Tung Thought and to enrich it.Whoseover ventures to challenge the validity of MAO Tse Tung Thought, as an inalienable part of Marxism-Leninism must come to grips with this ideological edifice as a whole, especially his contribution s to Marxist philosophy.

Below I am posting excerpts from the document Com.HBS wrote in 1982′

In defence of Marxism-Leninism Mao Tse Tung Thought and General Line of International Communist Movement.’

In this pernicious theory termed as ‘The theory of 3 Worlds” the middle forces( 2nd World Countries like West European countries and Japan)have dual character and are given the role that the national bourgeoisie is given in a semi-colonial country.

This force at no given stage of its development have some potential for playing a role in the revolutionary movement to a certain extent, under certain condition.

Even when a tactical alliance is launched by revolutionary forces with a section of enemy forces against the principal enemy, this section does not lose it’s enemy character or posses ‘dual character.’

By attributing dual character to these imperialist powers the ‘three worldists’ change the fundamental contradiction of between the 2nd rate Imperialist powers and 2 Imperialist superpowers.

It no more remains an anti-imperialist contradiction, imperialism at one pole of this contradiction gets transformed into something of a higher order ‘hegomonism.

The 3 worldists state: The 2nd world Countries exploit the oppressed nations and are at the same time bullied by the superpowers.

They have a dual character, and stand in contradiction with both the first and third worlds. But they are still a force in the 3rd world and can win over or unite with in he struggle against hegemonism.

According to such caricaturists of Leninism,it is not a question of making a distinction between the chief hegemonistic power and secondary hegoministic powers and making use of the contradicton between the 2,but the question of handling a new fundamental contradiction between the hegemonistic imperialist superpowers and allegedly anti-hegemonist imperialist powers so as to unite he latter in the world-wide struggle for overthrowing hegemonism which turns out to be the target of world proletarian revolution.

It’s present anti-hegemonic sate of development, preceding the stage of Socialist Revolution for overthrow of world Imperialism.

Even if the east European countries and Japan have a thousand and one ties with the United States and face the menace faced by Soviet Social Imperialism their objective struggle against the over-bearing U.S.Imperialism is to attain ‘equal partnership’,

So long as U.S.A, continues it’s policy of control they will not cease the struggle against such control and for equal partnership.

This ‘equal partnership’ is being sought in the predatory imperialist alliance for perpetuating and intensifying oppression and exploitation of under-developed countries, and contending with Social Imperialism for this neo-colonial loot. U.S Imperialism, seeks through it’s policy of control, to limit the scope of Imperialist contention and loot o part of these powers, they, through their struggle against such control seek to enlarge the scope, and the friction between the 2 sides, on this score, is just another dimension of the fundamental contradiction between U.S.A and these countries as Imperialist powers.

This year when Zaire was repelling the armed invasion of Soviet Union ,France supported them logistically. Could the entry of French Imperialist troops,in Zaire, with the help of Belgium, and America, to boost up the efforts of the lackey Mobutu clique be called supporting 3rd world’s struggle against hegemonism’.

If Cuban troops, East German and Soviet Union military advisors were engaged in building up military forces of the lackey N.A .T.O clique of Angola in repelling South Africa Armed Invasion masterminded by U.S Imperialism thy were supporting third world struggle against hegemonism.

Mao had said “referring to the phenomenan of intensifying contention among imperialist powers:

Their embroilment is to our advantage.

We,the Socialist Countries, should pursues the policy of consolidation ourselves and not yielding a single inch of land.

We will struggle against anyone who makes us do so.We certainly will support the anti-imperialist struggles of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the revolutionary struggle of he people o fall countries.

‘As for the relation of Imperialist Countries and ourselves ‘they are among us an we are among them; support the peoples revolutions in their countries and they conduct subversive activities in ours. We have our men in their mist Our assessment of the international situation is that the embroilment of the imperialist countries contending for colonies is the greater contradiction.

They try to cover up contradictions between themselves by playing up their contradictions with us. We can make use of their contradictions lot an be one in this connection. This is a matter of importance for our external policy.

The 3 worldists give the status of sovereignty and political independence to several nations of Asia ,Africa and Latin America where independence was merely a ‘transfer of power’ and thus under estimate or ignore neo-colonialism.

In a great majority of former colonies independence are superficial and virtually transferred to another ruling Comprador bourgeoisie class tied to Imperialism.

Even popular nationalistic regimes were replaced with reactionary regimes.

The 3 worldists defend the lackey reactionary state power in the 3rd world Countries by stating hat “By excercising the state power in their hands, the independent 3rd world countries have gained broader arenas and more means to carry on their struggle than in the past.

This glorifies the political role of he states of this region.

Through the eclectic method of knocking together ,into a hybrid whole ,phenomena of different order or differentiating phenomena of essentially similar nature, Into qualitatively different categories,the ‘3 world theorists’, mutilate the fundamental contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations and he fundamental contradictions between the various imperialist powers, transforming the reactionary ruling clique in underdeveloped countries into the main anti-imperialist force and the imperialist ruling cliques in highly developed capitalist countries into an anti-hegemonistic force.

All the revisionist acrobatics of the ‘3 worldists are meant or selling their line of unadulterated class collaboration and tying up of the proletarian and other evolutionary forces to the boot laces of the ruling cliques of the 3rd World an the 2nd world ,both for renouncing revolutionary tasks concerning the struggles against unjust criminal inter-imperialist war.

Deng Xiaoping called for uniting with U.S Imperialism in the struggle against Soviet Social Imperialism,terming the latter as he principal enemy.

The differentiation between U.S Imperialism and Soviet Social Imperialism is a distortion of logic.

They say that U.S Imperialism has over-reached itself and all it can do at present is to strive to protect it’s interests and go over to the defensive in it’s strategy.

How can it go on the defensive if it seeks exclusive hegemony in contention with Social Imperialism.

In the criminal imperialist operation of forcible redivison of the world, where each superpower seeks to realize exclusive world hegemony ,the circumstance of U.S Imperialism having to fight in a state of strategic defensive, that is,having more to exert in retaining and consolidating it’s earlier huge colonial exploits than I seizing new territories, does in no way change the predatory character of its endeavour before and during the outbreak of imperialist war.

A superpower may deploy an offensive strategy or go over to the defensive in it s overall strategy, the imperialist striving for seizing or retaining colonial possessions through military means is equally predatory in both cases.

It gives no scope to International proletarian revolutionary movement for meting out differential treatment to Soviet Social Imperialism and U.S Imperialism.

There is another absurd analysis where the 3 world theorists feel that U.S Imperialism has been exposed in the eyes of the World people, but Soviet Social Imperialism pretends to be a liberating Socialist power ,thus it is more dangerous.

However is a Marxist Leninist tactic to treat the politically less exposed enemy as the ‘primary target’ and the notorious one as the secondary target..(3 worldists say that progressive World opinion is already familiar with he true nature of U.S Imperialism and will go o fighting it but that is not the case with Soviet Social Imperialism which wears a mask of being Socialist)Even if as some military experts claim that he Soviet Union has a marginal military edge, this would hardly have ay significance as the capability or role of either of them as a aggressive imperialist superpower would not be reduced and would be irrelevant to the formulating of policy of the international proletarian movement.”

Harsh Thakor is an independent writer [email protected]



Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter


Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

2024: Rebuilding the Global Left 

Writing about the passing year, a friend of mine recently lamented the state of the world, expressing a very bleak view of the future. It was doom and gloom everywhere…

Join Our Newsletter

Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News