New base URL:

Reply to a Maoist on Mao's relation
to the three worlds theory

(from Communist Voice #27, September 2001)


Mao and the three worlds theory, by Joseph Green (July 5, 2001)

Joseph Green Refuted: Grasp the Key Link to Refute the crypto-Hoxites and Teng Hsiao-ping`Three Words Theory, by Majdur Travail (July 1, 2001)

Majdur Travail's introductory note

. On July 1, the Communist Voice received from Majdur Travail his article "Joseph Green Refuted", which denies the relation of Mao to the three worlds theory. Majdur's article, and its introductory note, are reproduced below after Joseph Green's reply. Some typos in Majdur's original have been corrected. Joseph Green's reply is also reproduced in Communist Voice #27, Sept. 6, 2001, and Majdur's article can also be found at his website, the "Marxist-Leninist newswire", at < >..


Mao and the three worlds theory

by Joseph Green


. Recently the Maoist Majdur Travail posted an angry statement on his website seeking to disprove that Mao supported the theory of three worlds. ("Joseph Green Refuted: Grasp the Key Link to Refute the crypto-Hoxites and Teng Hsiao-ping`Three Words Theory'"). Notable, however, is that he doesn't provide a single statement from either Mao or the "Gang of Four" against the three worlds theory. Yet Majdur approvingly quotes a prominent Maoist saying that "Comrade Mao Tse-Tung is a leader who has expressed his point of view on almost all conceivable subjects that came within his purview." But whatever else he may have said, Mao never criticized the three worlds theory. This was not because he was unaware of the three worlds theory. During the last years of Mao's life, three worldism was the rationale under which China turned to building close relations with various reactionary pro-US regimes in the third world. Indeed, Mao was instrumental in this turn of Chinese foreign policy. Whatever fights took place between Mao and Deng Xiaoping on other issues, they didn't seem to involve the three worlds theory. When Deng Xiaoping was, as Majdur says, "ousted for the second time in 1976", there was no mention of differences over the three worlds theory, no repudiation of his then-famous 1974 speech at the UN, no change in China's foreign policy.

. But Majdur closes his eyes to this. Instead of discussing the theory of three worlds and Mao's actual stand, Majdur showers me with abuse. He attributes many odd views to me, such as that I supposedly base my analysis of Mao's views on an article in Peking Review for 4 Nov. 1977 (a year after Mao's death) entitled "Chairman Mao's Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds Theory is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism". Indeed, Majdur claims that this is the sole source of my views on Mao's relation to the three worlds theory. It was news to me that I get my views about Mao by copying a few sentences from Peking Review rather than from a close study of Mao's actions and theories in the light of the evolution of Chinese and world-wide class relations. So I checked the footnotes of Majdur's "Joseph Green Refuted" to see which article of mine could have given him such an erroneous impression. It turns out that Majdur, although he makes many assertions about my views, never cites a single article that I have written. This is why he is able to attribute so many strange and curious views to me. I will disregard all these accusations as unworthy of attention, and return to the issue of the relationship of Maoism to the three worlds theory.

. The three worlds theory went through several different versions, and the Maoists were connected with the earlier as well as the later versions. There is a revolutionary version, which supports some revolutionary struggles in the third world, but gives up in despair when faced with the problem of organizing among the industrial proletariat in the developed countries. Even this version of the three worlds theory gives a wrong class analysis for the national liberation movements and social revolutions in the third world, but it does talk about revolution. (Among its failings are that it prettifies the national bourgeoisie; it abandons the Marxist-Leninist theory which distinguishes the different features of national liberation struggles, radical democratic revolutions, and socialist revolutions; it misses most of the special tasks needed to ensure the political independence of the proletariat; it has a stereotyped view of the tactics of such a struggle; etc.) Meanwhile the version of the three worlds theory that arose in the last years of Mao's life was a reactionary one, that prettified reactionary regimes in the third world as alleged anti-imperialist bastions, and that turned towards alliance with U.S. imperialism as a bastion against Soviet social-imperialism. The history of the various versions, and how the revolutionary versions collapsed into the reactionary version, shows how the abandonment of the proletarian class stand eventually leads to outright betrayal of revolution. But for now, let's deal with the last version, that spread in the last years of Mao's life.

. Mao was connected with the move of Chinese foreign policy to ally with U.S. imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism. Mao personally welcomed Nixon to China, and time proved that this was no mere diplomatic nicety. In the years that followed, Chinese foreign policy turned to strengthening relations with the Shah of Iran, the Pinochet regime in Chile, and other infamous regimes.

. This turn in Chinese policy affected Maoist parties around the world. In the U.S., the Maoist RCP,USA didn't like the most extreme manifestations of the new three worldism, but sought to show that they were actually distortions of Mao's three worldism. It wasn't until well after the death of Mao that the RCP,USA would make a show of denouncing the three worlds theory itself, but they still denounced only a form of it. They held that there was a difference between the three worlds theory as a tactic, which was supposedly OK, and as an "overall strategy", which was bad; between it being a part of the overall international line, which would supposedly be OK, and as the whole international line, which would be bad; and so forth. They sought to explain away various of China's betrayals of revolution under Mao as mere diplomatic maneuvers. They knew that to do anything else would mean criticizing Mao himself.

. The RCP,USA eventually would denounce "the counterrevolutionary `three worlds' strategy", but with the understanding that this applied only to the three worlds theory under Deng Xiaoping, but not to the three worlds theory under Mao. They sought to pour cold water on the struggle against the three worlds theory, no doubt realizing that the distinction between Mao and Deng's form of the three worlds theory wasn't going to be very convincing. After all, RCP leader Avakian described that "Mao himself and the revolutionary headquarters he led" were involved "from the early '70s on" in "seeking to build an international united front...against the Soviet Union" in which "China and the revolutionary forces of the world" would be allied with "the Western bloc of imperialists headed by the U.S." and the reactionary pro-US regimes. This attempt to join with one superpower against the other wasn't yet, according to Avakian, a "counter-revolutionary line" as advocated by Deng Xiaoping, but it's hard for me to see why not. So it's no wonder that, to deflect criticism from Mao, Avakian and the RCP advocated that the real issue was not the three worlds theory, but which faction ruled China. (See "Creeping Three Worldism", Revolutionary Worker, October 14, 1983, p. 15, col. 2)

. Similarly, it wasn't until after Mao's death that a number of other Maoist parties backing the "Gang of Four" came out sharply against the "three worlds theory". But they also insisted on the alleged distinction between the theory of three worlds as put forward under Mao, and as put forward later. For example, the Communist Party of Peru ("Shining Path") declared that it supported Mao's form of the three worlds, while opposing "the revisionist and opportunist distortion by Teng Hsiao-ping of the three worlds". (See, for example, the "International Line" in 1988 by the Central Committee of the CPP, as translated by the Maoist Documentation Project. The Spanish original is posted on Majdur's website.)

. Other Maoist parties swear that there wasn't even a real three worlds theory while Mao was alive, but have to admit that this theory seems to have done great a bit of damage while still an "embryo", before it allegedly even saw the light of day. Thus the Declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement in March 1984 by various Maoist parties swore that the three worlds theory wasn't put forward by Mao and wasn't even elaborated until after his death. But it also admits that in the years before Mao's death Chinese foreign policy turned its back on revolutionary struggles, that "reactionary despots were falsely labeled as `anti-imperialists'" and "certain imperialist powers of the Western bloc" were labeled as "intermediate or even positive forces in the world". It also points out that many pro-Chinese parties began "to shamelessly tail the bourgeoisie and even support or acquiesce in imperialist adventures and war preparations aimed at the Soviet Union". But it blithely claims that this was merely "the embryonic revisionist Three Worlds Theory", and not a full-fledged theory. This presumably is supposed to explain why Mao, if he really opposed this, could have let all this happen without at least commenting to someone about it. A single critical statement by Mao on this subject would have resonated throughout the Maoist parties of the world.

. Some other Maoist statements may vigorously denounce taking the theory of three worlds as the "strategy for world revolution". This sounds militant, but it is the same old hedge: it leaves a loophole for it as a maneuver or tactic under Mao. In reality, the denunciation of the three worlds theory by the Maoist parties generally ends as a denunciation of "Deng Xiaoping's three worlds theory", while usually diplomatically remaining silent on "Mao's three worlds theory".

. As a result of all this, the Maoist parties didn't look deeply into the roots of the "three worlds" theory. Left-wing Maoists repudiated the most extreme aspects of the three worlds theory, attributing them only to Deng Xiaoping, while closing their eyes to Mao's actions and to the underlying problems of three worldism. They wouldn't even think about how the last, reactionary form of the three worlds theory evolved from the earlier forms. Instead of looking deeply into the causes of the fiasco of the three worlds theory, they just set it aside. Eventually, they sought to just let the memory of three worldism die.

. So it's no surprise that Majdur, when our correspondence with him started, said he didn't know much about the three worlds theory. And he still doesn't seem to know much about it. His statement "Joseph Green Refuted", although it supposedly deals with the three worlds theory, only has the same old recycled rhetoric and slogans about Deng and the Gang of Four, with no analysis of what the three worlds theory is, of what stands China took in accord with the three worlds theory, and so forth. Majdur talks about everything but the content of the theory of three worlds. This probably reflects a general viewpoint among most Maoists. There hardly is any discussion of this issue in the Maoist movement any more, so unless various individuals were around the revolutionary movement many years ago, they probably aren't aware of the issue. There is talk in various Maoist circles about how bad Deng is, and about what Mao said on this or that, but not about the three worlds theory. The Maoist unease in dealing with the three worlds theory originates from Mao's own role in this theory.

. Meanwhile Majdur's supposed proof that Mao opposed the theory of three worlds depends heavily on the very Peking Review article that Majdur accused me of relying on. It turns out to be his main source, not mine. According to Majdur, this article, while engaged in "cynically manipulating Mao Tse-Tung's own words" to show that Mao supported the theory of three worlds, claimed that the Gang of Four opposed the theory of three worlds. This isn't really the present point under contention between me and Majdur, which was supposed to be Mao's relationship to the three worlds theory, not the Gang of Four's, but let's follow Majdur's reasoning a bit further. He relies on a Peking Review article that apparently didn't give--certainly Majdur doesn't reproduce from it--any quotes about the three worlds theory from the Gang of Four. Majdur believes the article is lying when it says that Mao supported the three worlds theory, and lying in how it interprets Mao's own words, and presumably believes it is lying in all its main charges against the Gang of Four, yet Majdur believes it is telling the truth when it says that the Gang of Four opposed the three worlds theory. I rely on the history of what Mao actually did and how the Maoist movement evolved, while Majdur relies on some bare accusations in a Peking Review article that he himself regards as unreliable.

. Aside from this Peking Review article, Majdur relies heavily on quotes from Peking Informers, which he characterizes as edited by a representative of "the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie" and published in Hong Kong "for the benefit of the CIA" and "the reactionary intelligentsia abroad". What a dubious source to put such trust in! But even these quotes don't say that either Mao or the Gang of Four opposed the three worlds theory. If the quotes from this odd source show anything, it is that when the people Majdur supports were still "in control of the mass media" and bitterly denouncing Deng and the "Right deviationist wind", they had no criticism of the three worlds theory.

. Mao's connection with the three worlds theory was embarrassing for the left-wing section of the Maoist movement. But they will never overcome it by abusive rhetoric, no matter how many pages of insults they scribble about their opponents of the moment. Three worldism is the silent guest at the Maoist table, and they are apparently having no more success in washing their hands of it than Lady Macbeth had in washing her hands of the murdered Duncan's blood. For example, the denigration of the proletariat in the developed countries still appears in Maoist circles, from MIM's denunciation of the proletariat as sold-out to Majdur's view that denigrates Marxist political and economic organizing among the working class by putting forward "protracted people's war" as the path for organizing in the US. It's often said that those who don't take account of the past may be compelled to relive it, and it appears that various Maoist trends today are reliving different aspects of the Maoist doctrine of the past. The anti-revisionist movement must instead subject the past to a critical analysis. This is the only way to clear the way for rebuilding the proletarian movement and raising the red flag of Marxism-Leninism as the banner of the revolutionary movement of tomorrow. <>


Joseph Green Refuted,
Grasp the Key Link to Refute the crypto-Hoxites
and Teng Hsiao-ping "Three World's Theory"

by Majdur Travail


"As an old saying goes, 'Once the key link is grasped, everything else falls into place.' Take hold of the key link and everything else will get into its proper place. The key link means the main theme. The contradiction between socialism and capitalism and the gradual resolution of this contradiction- -that is the main theme, the key link." --Mao Tse-tung

Joseph Green bases his entire thesis that Mao Tse-tung was behind the "Three Worlds Theory" on one quotation attributed to Mao in an article published in the Peking Review, 4 Nov. 1977 entitled "Chairman Mao's Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds Theory is a Major Contribution to Marxism- Leninism". Although he keeps his references secret from the rest of us, Joseph Green asserts, inter alia,

l. Mao did not fight "capitalist roaders," and that when Mao said that he was fighting the capitalist roaders in the Party, Joseph Green asserts that Mao was "not serious."
2. Those who upheld Mao's line "incidentally was not the gang of four."
3. The Three World's Theory was Mao's.

This essay will prove that of Joseph Green's several assertions that:

1. if [2] is wrong then [1] must also be wrong,
2. if both [1] and [2] are wrong then [3] must also be wrong.

Joseph Green, like the and tradition originating from Enver Hoxha and Teng Hiso-ping which he represents, blathers on and on that Mao was behind the "Three World's Theory" and, like his political ancestors, he refuses to cite even one single quotation from Mao Tse-tung to support his assertion. We, however, agree with Com. Sanmugathasan of the Communist Party of Ceylon, who said, inter alia:

"We vehemently repudiate the thesis that the anti-Marxist-Leninist Theory of the Three Worlds was a product of Mao Tse-tung Thought. There is no evidence whatever to support such a possibility. Comrade Mao Tse-tung is a leader who has expressed his point of view on almost all conceivable subjects that came within his purview. The fact that the apologists for the Theory of the Three Worlds cannot dig up a single quotation from Mao in support of this absurd theory is sufficient proof that he never did advocate the unity of the second and third world against the first world; or, worse still, advocate the unity of the second and third world along with one part of the first world against the other half." --"Enver Hoxha Refuted," N. Sanmugathasan General Secretary, Ceylon Communist Party

Joseph Green has said it, as Enver Hoxha said it and Teng Hsiao-ping said it before him, and he would expect us to accept it at face value the wise worlds of an old sage, a true salt! We shall see. Joseph Green has been given ample time to cite his sources of information for the "Three World's Theory", but now he refuses to respond. We shall, therefore, begin our investigation of this topic without him. The quotation regarding the "Three World's Theory" attributed to Mao Tse-tung is as follows:

"In my view, the United States and the Soviet Union form the first world. Japan, Europe and Canada, the middle section, belong to the second world. We are the third world. The third world has a huge population. With the exception of Japan, Asia belongs to the third world. The whole of Africa belongs to the third world and Latin America too."
"Chairman Mao's Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism," Peking Review, Vol. 20 No. 45, p. 11, 4 Nov. 1977.

Rendered such as this, one year after Mao's death, with out reference except that "Chairman Mao said this in a meeting with a third world leader in February 1974." The Peking Review for February and March 1974 reveals no such speech or comment by Chairman Mao although all of Mao Tse-tung's speeches made at meetings with foreign guests were faithfully reprinted, except this one. I, therefore, maintain that this is a hoax, coming on the heals of Teng's official political rehabilitation, perpetuated by the Hua Kuo-feng, Yeh Chien-ying, Teng Hsiao-ping clique in order to supress the red fraction--Chang Ching, and her so-called "gang", their allies who still remained very popular, and their supporters who had not already been entirely liquidated.

Historically speaking, the reader ought to be reminded that Teng Hsiao-ping was ousted from the CCP in 1966 and again in 1976. In Teng's self-criticism 23 Oct. 1966 Teng said:

"Chairman Mao hit the nail on the head when he pointed out the nature of our mistakes was that we, 'stand on the side of reactionary bourgeois dictatorship, strike down the vigorous Great Cultural Revolution of the proletariat, stand facts of their head, juggle black and white, harass revolutionaries and suppress different opinions, practice white terror, feel very pleased with ourselves, and puff the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and deflate the morale of the proletariat. How sinister it is.' Chairman Mao's shot was very accurate; he really has my number."
People's Republic of China 1949-1979: A Documentary Survey, p. 1629, Scholarly Resources Inc., Wilmington, DE., 1980

Through Teng's self-criticism was he was politically rehabilitated, by majority vote in the CCP, and allowed to resume his duties in the CCP. Teng was ousted again in 1976 by the leaders of what would be later called the "gang of four"--hereinafter called the "red fraction". The CCP Central Committee had met secretly from 16 July to 21 July 1977 and voted to restore Teng Hsiao-ping to his former post as Vice CCP Chairman, Vice Premier and Chief of the General Staff.

When Teng was ousted for the second time in 1976, after the reactionary T'ien An Men Square incident, the People's Daily, would run an editorial denouncing him, stating, inter alia:

"Teng Hsiao-p'ing has benn the arch unrepentant capitalist roader in the Party. Over a long period of time, he has opposed Chairman Mao, opposed Mao Tse-tung thought, and Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line. Before the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, he worked in collaboration with Liu Shao-ch'i in pushing a counterrevolutionary revisionist line; during the early stage of the Great Cultural Revolution, he, together with Liu Shao-chi, suppressed the masses and pressed on with a bourgeois reactionary line. Through criticism by the masses, he expressed his willingness to mend his ways and declared that he would "never reverse the verdict." Chairman Mao saved him and gave him a chance to resume work. But he did not live up to Chairman Mao's education and help. Once back in a position to wield power in his possession, he relapsed and reversed the correct verdicts of the Great Cultural Revolution and sought to settle scores with it. He dished up the revisionist program of "taking the three directives as the key link," continued to pursue the counterrevolutionary revisionist line, and took the lead in stirring up the right deviationist wind."
The People's Republic of China: 1949-1979 A Documentary Survey, Vol. 5, p. 2559-2560.

With respect to the T'ien An Men Square incident itself, the People's Daily, said:

"It further shows that the bourgeoisie is to be found inside the communist party. The two-line struggle in the party is a life-and-death struggle between two antagonistic classes--the proletariat and the bourgeoisie."
The People's Republic of China: 1949-1979 A Documentary Survey, Vol. 5, p. 2561.

There can be no doubt, then, that Hua and Teng were co-conspirators for after Teng, a man who had admitted that he "[stood] on the side of reactionary bourgeois dictatorship" and that he was capable of "juggling black and white" was swept back into power withthe aid of Hua very shortly after the arrest of the red fraction lead by Mao's widow Chang Ching.

"Well before the official announcement of Teng's second comeback was made public Chairman Hua had virtually rehabilitated the former Vice Premier in all but name."
"Political Rehabilitation of Teng Hsiao-ping," Peking Informers, Vol. 35 No. 3, p. 1, 1 Aug. 1977.

One year after Mao's death, the article "Chairman Mao's Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism," would be published and for more that a year the central propaganda organs would attempt to completely reverse the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution by cynically manipulating Mao Tse-tung's own words to conclude, inter alia:

l. that the Third World could be united with the Second World against the First World,
2. that the Soviet Union was the principal enemy of China (1)
3. that the "to each according to their work, to each according to their need",(2) as opposed to "from each according to their work, to each according to their need" (3) was a Marxist theory advocated by Mao and belittled by the "gang of four,"
4. that the "gang" was a "Trotskite conspiracy" against socialism,
5.and that the "Key Link" in Marxism was "unity, stability and national economy" as opposed to "class struggle" advocated by the red fraction--the so-called "gang of four".(4)

Joseph Green would have us believe that the above assertions which appeared in the Peking Review after Chang Ching's red fraction were jailed, or killed, are an accurate portrayal of Mao Tse-tung Thought. Such political swindling by a so-called "communist voice" cannot be ignored, since it places the CVO firmly on the side of the arch unrepentant capitalist roader Teng Hsiao-ping and the political swindler Enver Hoxha. The "Three World's" article continues on to say many incorrect things recognizable as revisionist by any elementary student of Marxism. But Joseph Green would have us believe that one simply attributes words to some one after their death and that we should accept those words as truth even if they contradict the course of that person's life and thought. Inter alia:

"In appearance, this theory of Chairman Mao's seems to involve only relations between countries and between nations in the present day world, but in essence, it bears directly on the vital question of present-day class struggle on a world scale. In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. (5) The same holds true of relations between countries. Relations between countries or nations are based on relations between classes, and the are interconnected and extremely complicated...In waging struggle on the international arena, the proletariat must unite with all those who can be united in light of what is imperative and feasible in different historical periods, so as to develop the progressive forces, win over the middle forces and isolate the diehards. Therefore, we can never lay down any hard and fast formula for differentiation, the world's political forces (i.e., differentiating ourselves, our friends and our enemies in the international class struggle).
"Chairman Mao's Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism," Peking Review, Vol. 20 No. 45, pp. 11-12, 4 Nov. 1977.

According to this we should fall back to Hegel's nation spirit thesis and reject Marx. The principal contradiction, according to Marxist analysis is, in capitalist countries, the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the national proletariat. Proletarian internationalism refers to the fact that proletarians have no countries, therefore, "you can't take from them what they haven't got". According to the above rendition of Mao Tse-tung Thought there are no "hard and fast rules" for determining who is the proletariat and who is the bourgeoisie, notwithstanding Engels' statement that the proletariat is those "who live solely by the sale of their own labor" [Principles of Communism].(6) It lumps together socialist countries with reactionaries and implies that an alliance can be made on the part of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie. The purpose to the "Three World's Theory" is to confuse the issue of imperialism to make it appear that hegemonic block of imperialist power can be united on the grounds that one block represents the "poor and oppressed" while the other block represents the "rich and exploiting," but ignores the issue of the national bourgeoisie within each capitalist country. The Teng clique needed to do that in order to divert the struggle from the rising bourgeoisie in the CCP. The red fraction was, following Mao's leadership, attempting to elucidate the fact that a bourgeoisie had indeed grow within the ranks of the CCP. We have only begun our investigation, if Maoists blanched at the previous perversion of Mao Tse-tung's thought, we shall boil by the end of this. The so-called "gang" was actually six, but Hua Kuo-feng's bodyguards killed Mao Yuan-hisn and Ma Hsiao-liu.

The Peking Informers reported that the CCP official version of the arrest of the "gang of four" was:

"On October 7 [1976] Hua Kuo-feng asked Chiang Ching, Wang Hung-wen, Chang Chun-chiao and Yao Wen-yuan to attend a meeting. Instantly, there were vehement exchanges and armed clashes followed. Hua's guards killed Mao Yuan-hisn and Ma Hsiao-liu (Deputy Commander in Chief of the Peking Militia). Wang Hung-wen was shot in the left leg. The 'gang' was routed. Apart from the casualties, all were seized."
"A Closer Look at the Charges Against the 'Gang of Four'", Peking Informers, Vol 33. No. 11, p. 1, 1 Dec. 1976.

After the red fraction's arrest in October 1976, Teng was subsequently reinstated 21 July 1977, in November of that year the infamous article on the "Three World's Theory" would appear--attributed to Mao but was really a product of the Teng clique who intended to reverse the correct verdicts of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and take the capitalist road. Since hind sight is 20/20 we can now see clearly that this is indeed what happened. China is now a capitalist country and the revision began immediately after Teng's political rehabilitation in the CCP. But Joseph Green maintains that Mao was a capitalist and that China was, therefore, always a capitalist country and, therefore, there was no real change in the CCP between Teng and Mao. Joseph Green, in fact, asserts that Teng upheld Mao Tse-tung Thought and that the red fraction did not. Let us first begin with Joseph Green's assertion [2] that the people who upheld Mao's line "incidently was not the 'gang of four'"

In the Peking Informers, published by the Continental Research Institute, Hong Kong, for the benefit of the CIA, et al, the reactionary intelligentsia abroad, and now us as communist historians, Chow Ching-wen, editor, who represented the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie (7) reported 16 June 1976:

"The Maoist campaign to liquidate Teng Hsiao-ping has apparently entered into a new phase following publication in Peking's mass news media of a major article in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Cultural Revolution. The new stage of the anti-Teng campaign is characterized by the broadening of the area of attack to include all 'capitalist roaders' and 'new class on the capitalist road,' that is, all government functionaries not favored by the Maoist radicals, not just Teng Hsiao-ping alone."
"the Maoist radicals have explicitly called for 'deepening' the anti-Teng drive...the criticism of Teng is to be likened with the actual class struggle."
"Purging the 'Capitalist Roaders' and Suppressing the 'Counter-Revolutionaries'", Peking Informers, 16 June 1976, Vol. 32, No. 12, pp.1-2.

Up to the very moment of the Hua Kuo-feng coup the Peking Informers were declaring that the "Maoists" were still in control of the Communist Party of China [CCP] and the Chinese government.

"With the passing of Chairman Mao-Tse-tung more than a month ago, no signs of any change in the present Maoist leadership or in its foreign and domestic policies appear to have emerged.
"The Maoists appear to still be in control of the mass media, with the published articles mainly reflecting the views and intentions of the Maoist faction...the Maoists are still stressing the need to 'deepen the criticism of Teng and carry the struggle to repulse Right deviationist wind to revers correct verdicts to its completion.'

According to the Peking Informers, Red Flag had recently ran an article which stated:

"At any time and under any circumstances, we must consciously adhere to Chairman Mao's revolutionary line, unremittingly carry out prolonged struggle against the capitalist roaders in the Party who are vainly trying to alter the Party's basic line and persisting in carrying to its completion the great struggle long led by Chairman Mao against revisionism."
"The Maoist Hierarchy As Seen From Red Flag Articles," Peking Informers, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 4-5, 16 Oct. 1976

These statements, published by the Peking Informers, disposes of Joseph Green's assertion, that the "gang of four" did not uphold Mao's line, in short work. It is plain from the above reports that the red fraction, contra Joseph Green's assertions, was indeed struggling against "capitalist roaders" and were, therefore up-holding Mao's call to do so.

"Those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the Party, the government, the army, and various spheres of culture are a bunch of counterrevolutionary revisionists. Once conditions are ripe, they will seize political power and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie...You are making the socialist revolution, and yet don't know where the bourgeoisie is. It right in the Communist Party--those in power taking the capitalist road." --Mao Tse-tung

But if, of Joseph Green's assertions, [2] and therefore [1] are false then [3] must also be false. If, according to Joseph Green,

1. If those who up-held Mao Tse-tung Thought were not the red fraction lead by Chang Ching,
2. then those who upheld Mao Tse-tung Thought must have been Teng Hsiao-ping clique.
3. If Chang Ching, et al, opposed the "Three World's Theory",
4.then the "Three Worlds Theory" must have been Teng's, since Teng supported Mao. 5. Therefore, the "Three Worlds Theory" is Teng's not Mao's.
6. because, the red fraction upheld Mao [supra] and opposed the "Three Worlds Theory" [infra].
"In our own country, there are persons who frantically oppose Chairman Mao's theory of the three worlds. They are none other than Wang Hung-wen, Chang Chun-chiao, Chang Ching and Yao Wen-yuan, or the 'gang of four'"
"Chairman Mao's Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism," Peking Review, No. 45, p. 18, 4 Nov. 1977.

If, as Joseph Green asserts, Mao Tse-tung was a capitalist roader and that Teng Hsiao-ping, and not Chang Ching, upheld Mao Tse-tung Thought, then why would the Peking Informers suddenly report 1 Dec. 1976:

"Great changes have taken place in the leadership structure of the CCP hierarchy since the collapse in early Oct. of the radical camp led by Mao's widow, Chiang Ching, Wang Hung-wen, Chang Chun-Chiao and Yao Wen-yuan. One change that has manifested itself is the new leadership's attention to production and economic work in all it practical manifestations, to the neglect of ideological purity."
"Peking Gives Priority to Production," Peking Informers, Vol. 33, No. 11, p. 2, 1 Dec. 1976

It had become clear to Chow Ching-wen, a self described middle of the road socialist, that by 16 Oct. 1977:

"The removal in early October last year of the "gang of four" radical leaders from the Chinese scene was in essence a palace coup staged by the military-bureaucrat group headed by Hua Kuo-feng and Yeh Chien-ying. It amounted to a complete negation of the gains of the Cultural Revolution, a negation of Mao Tse-tung's political line and of the "new things" that have appeared since the political upheavals of 1966-68."
"One year after the palace coup and despite the new leadership efforts to dismantle what Mao had established in a bid to steer a post-Mao China from a dogmatic to a pragmatic course, the influence of the Maoist radical remains strong and the resistance of the "gang of four" followers not initially wiped out, especially in the provinces.
"Purges To Continue A Year After Collapse of Maoist Radicals," Peking Informers, Vol. 35 No. 8, p. 6, 16 Oct. 1977

It should now occur to Joseph Green that there is more to Marxist analysis than merely tossing in the word "seriously" from time to time. To assert that the those who up-held Mao Tse-tung Thought "incidently was not the 'gang of four'" is intellectual dishonesty and academic fraud. Joseph Green, like Enver Hoxha and Teng Hsiao-ping, continues to put forward the idea that "unity, stability, and national economy" (7) --Mao Tse-tung's "three directives" (8) --are the "key link" to differentiating between correct and incorrect political lines, whereas the red fraction took "class struggle as the key link."

. Time and time again the bourgeoisie attempts to fashion a criticism against communism by asserting that capitalist economy is more productive than socialist economy. Socialist frequently defend by asserting "liberation of productive forces" under socialism is a historical and material fact. As true as this may be, socialist cannot allow themselves to be diverted from the fact that socialism main claim is the transformation of social relations which intends to destroy the class structure of the capitalist system--i.e., the elimination of "exploitation of man by man". The theory of productive forces is a revisionist theory negates taking class struggle as the key link and putting politics in command. Class struggle, therefore, is taken as the "key link" to socialism. The validity of the socialist programme rests on the fact that when classes are eliminated we will have socialism in practice. Joseph Green, and the Teng-Hoxha tradition, attempt to revise Marx on this issue and attempt to maintain that success in production is an authentic gauge to which the success of socialism is compared. "From each according to their work, to each according to their need" is touchstone of the transformation of social relations not a milestone in production. The red fraction, lead by Chiang Ching, understood that class struggle inevitably lead to the elimination of classes, "national economy" and the increase in productive capacity does not.

. Joseph Green vigorously applies himself to theories of production inferring that a new theory will eliminate lying on the part of factory bureaucrats and that the solution may be found somewhere in the "elimination of value" contra Marx. (8). Whereas, Maoist understand that it is in class struggle against the new bourgeoisie within the communist party which solves these problems. In a practical sense, Chiang Ching under took this important two line struggle for the correct line. It ought to be apparent that one cannot simply stand behind a portrait of Mao Tse-tung and speak though a hole cut in the mouth in order to justify overturning Mao Tse-tung Thought and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which was the greatest advance toward socialism in the history of the world. But, furthermore, one must also ask the question, why did the Teng clique, Hoxha and Green after them, feel the need to use Mao as a mouthpiece for their own revisionist programme if it were not for the fact that Mao Tse-tung was, and still is, loved and respected by millions? In the last analysis, Joseph Green supported Teng's revisionist programme and his political swindling against Mao, but when the Teng clique was exposed as a new bourgeoisie in China, Joseph Green was caught floundering and has sought his way out by attempting to denounce both Teng and Mao. Unable to swim to either shore, he clinged [to] the wreckage of the political shipwreck Enver Hoxha and proclaimed his third "independent" position. It is important at this particular time, when the red fraction is on the rise again world wide, that cadre study the Hua coup and these documents first hand in order to be aware of how the Teng clique was able to cynically manipulate the worlds of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao to distort an entire generation's view of the events that took place immediately after Mao Tse-tung's death, that we be armed with this knowledge and thereby be enabled to continue the two line struggle against the bourgeoisie which has smuggled itself into current revolutionary movements. That we come to truly understand the meaning of the phrase "take class struggle as the key link."



(1) "Soviet social-imperialism is our chief and most dangerous enemy, so we must take it on all seriousness." Hsu Hsiang-chien, "Heighten Our Vigilance and Get Prepared to Fight a War," Peking Review, Vol. 21 No. 32, p. 9, 11 Aug. 1978.

(2) "He who works more gets more, he who works less gets less and he who does not work, neither shall he eat. This is a great revolution in the system of distribution. It is a new thing which can emerge only in socialist society...The theorists fostered by the 'gang of four'" said that after the completion of the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production, bourgeois right (what they meant was the principle "to each according to his work") was the "soil" on which the bourgeoisie grew. That is to say, due to the practice of the principle "to each according to his work," those with higher incomes will constitute a new bourgeoisie...This is a distortion of the socialist system." Li Hung-lin, "To Each According to his Work: Socialist Principle in Distribution", Peking Review, Vol. 21, No. 7, p. 6-7, 17 Feb. 1978.

"'To each according to his work' is not an obsolete capitalist principle; on the contrary, it is a newborn socialist thing, a socialist principle that come into force only after the proletariat has overthrown the capitalist system and established the socialist system." Su Shao-chih and Feng Lan-jui, "Refuting Yao Wen-yuan's Fallacy that the Principle 'To Each According to his Work' Breeds Bourgeoisie," Peking Review, Vol. 21, No. 6, p. 11, 10 Feb. 1978.

(3) "From each according to their work, to each according to their needs," Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, p. 17, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1972.

(4) "[The 'gang of four'] flaunted the banner 'take class struggle as the key link' not for continuing the revolution, but for overthrowing Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping and a large number of leading cadres of the Party, government and army." Chou Cheng, "On 'Grasping the Key Link'", Peking Review, Vol. 21 No. 9, P. 12, 3 March 1978.

(5) Reference to a statement made Mao Tse-tung and read upon the request of Robert Williams regarding the African American liberation struggle in the United States wherein Mao stated: "The speedy development of the struggle of the American Negroes is a manifestation of the sharpening of class struggle and national struggle within the United States." Peking Review, 8 Aug. 1963

(6) "The wage-labourer lives only by the sale of his labour-power." Capital, Vol. II, p. 33, International Publishers, N.Y., 1967.

(7) In a eulogy for Mao after his death, Chow Ching-wen would say, "I knew him very well...He was a Marxist, an advocate of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat...I embraced the idea of government of the whole people...I was advocating the socialist system under guarantees of democratic principles." Peking Informers, Vol. 33 No. 9,1 Nov. 1976, p. 1

(8) "The utility of a thing makes it a use-value...Use-values become a reality only by use or consumption; they also constitute the substance of all wealth...We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or labour-time socially necessary for its production...The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of society...Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value." [emphasis added] Marx, Capital, Vol. I, pp. 36-39, International Publishers, N.Y., 1977.

"Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportion must be equal in value." Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 45, International Publishers, N.Y., 1977.

"Every product of labour is, in all states of society, a use-value." Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 61, International Publishers, N.Y., 1977.

"The mythical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use-value." Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 71, International Publishers, N.Y., 1977.

"The capital-relation during the process of production arises only because it is inherent in the act of circulation, in the different fundamental economic conditions in which the buyer and seller confront each other, in their class relation. It is not money which by its nature creates this relation; it is rather the existence of this relation which permits of the transformation of a mere money-function into a capital-function." [emphasis added) Marx, Capital, Vol. II, p. 30, International Publishers, N.Y., 1967.

Majdur, Marxist-Leninist Newswire


Majdur's introductory note


Note [introducing the article "Joseph Green Refuted" on Majdur Travail's website]:

We commenced our dialogue with the Communist Voice under the philosophical "principle of generosity," which states that "a philosopher's writings are, at first, to be assumed true and of philosophical value," at least until we can prove one or more of their philosophical postions are false. Joseph Green claimed to be an "anti-revisionist" and we took that at face value, assumed it true until proven false. But, it now seems that the CVO has chosen to represent the sophistical tradition which originated in classical Greece, i.e., those who conspired against the Socratic dialectical tradition- -which culminated in Socrates' own execution--like Gorgias, Joseph Green is adept at juggling black and white, standing facts on their heads, causing a discrapancy between appearence and reality, and being very pleased with himself for doing so. He is frequently adept at giving a long answer to any question, but he is even better at giving the shortest answer of them all, which is pure silence. How sinister it is. The CVO would now have it appear that Majdur agrees with them when I do not. If I agree that opportunism is structured within the RCP/USA, I do not agree that Maoism is opportunism. There can be no doubt that the CVO will attempt to make some argument of this along the lines "see look Majdur agrees with me [I think I saw a puddy tat...I did...I did..I did saw a puddy tat--Tweety]." But we'll let them entertain themselves with that notion for as long as they like. Should I now be honored that the CVO is now gauging its own credibility based on whether or not Majdur agrees with them? Since, Majdur doesn't agree with them, should they now have no credibility?

Back to main page, list of all articles, write us!

Last changed on October 15, 2001.