Criticism of the Theory of the Three Worlds/ TWT accelerated following that initially raised in the 7th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania (PLA) in November 1976. Relations between the two allies had not fully recovered from when Enver Hoxha wrote a 19-page letter in August 1971 to Chairman Mao, declaring that President Nixon’s next visit to Beijing would be considered a betrayal to Marxism-Leninism. Enver Hoxha, It Is Not Right to Receive Nixon in Beijing. We Do Not Support It Selected Works, Vol. IV p665. The “8 Nëntori” Publishing House, Tirana, 1982
The CPC did not response to the letter. Besides the silence to Hoxha’s letter, the second sign of the crack in the relationship was China’s refusal to send a delegation to the 6th Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, to be held in November 1971.
The criticism signalled at the 7th Congress did bring forth response as the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China sent a protest letter to the PLA on December 8, 1976. The Albanian response was to accelerate the issue the following summer with a more explicitly attack on the Three Worlds Theory with an article, later attributed to Enver Hoxha, published in Zёri i Popullit, “The theory and the practice of the revolution” Teoria dhe praktika e revolucionit”, Nr. 162, July 7, 1977, pp. 3-4. Enver Hoxha’s later publication, Imperialism and the Revolution (1978) returned again with an attack on “The Theory of “Three Worlds”: a counter-revolutionary chauvinist theory, and China’s Plan to Become a Superpower . The volume ends with his thoughts on “Mao Tsetung Thought”—An Anti-Marxist Theory.
From Hoxha we learn that Mao was a “bourgeois nationalist” and his foreign policy – Three World Theory – was, straight out of a cold war playbook, an attempt to instigate war between the USA and USSR so that China could dominate a devastated world.
The Albanian intervention saw a consolidation of some forces around the Party of Labour of Albania with a series of regional rallies and international rallies organised in Europe with joint statements (republished by the PLA) and supporting the Albanian position were publicised as Radio Tirana informed the world about the strengthening threads of this new international constellation. Albania Builds An International. Woodsmokeblog
João Amazonas de Souza Pedros (January 1, 1912 – May 27, 2002), national President of Communist Party of Brazil/ PCdoB, published The theory of Three Worlds – an opportunist variant of the class struggle of the proletariat , in Classe Operaria (1978) that built on a criticism of the seminal Renmin Ribao editorial of November 1st 1977. That editorial “Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds Is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism” (reproduced in Peking Review November 4, 1977) was the retort to Zёri i Popullit. What was clear was that consideration of China’s foreign policy statement on the three worlds theory/ TWT raises questions about China after the death of Mao Zedong.
A common position argued against TWT supporters was expressed by the President of the Franco-Chinese Friendship Association (Association des amitiés Franco-Chinoises), FrenchMarxian economist and historian, Charles Bettelheim (1913-2006) that TWT “buries the class contradictions involved, to say nothing of the contradictions between countries.” The 1978 polemic, with Neil Burton, China Since Mao published by Monthly Review Press, challenged some of the basis of China’s foreign policy targeting the superpowers: “It wrongly assumes that, as between the ‘Second’ and the ‘Third’ worlds, unity can have primacy over contradiction, an idea which runs counter to everything taught us by history, past and present. History reveals the deep conflicts which set many of the countries of the ‘Second’ and the ‘Third’ worlds against each other”.
TWT was substantiated in reference to the writings of the “classics”, noted a German commentary, drawing on supportative quotes from Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
Lenin’s 1916 assessment: “The social revolution can come only in the form of an epoch in which are combined civil war by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in the advanced countries and a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations.” (Collected Work 23/60).
The division into several “worlds” was placed in a tradition stemming from Lenin: “The characteristic feature of imperialism consists in the whole world, as we now see, being divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an insignificant number of oppressor nations” (Collected Works 31/240).
“[U]nfortunately, there are now two worlds: the old world of capitalism […] and the rising new world” (Collected Works 33/149 et sq.).
Stalin: “The world has definitely and irrevocably split into two camps: the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism.” (Works 4/240) –
So far, only a dichotomous division of the world had been defined. But Stalin also conceptualised a second division, which could be understood as running straight through the first one: “The world is divided into two camps: the camp of a handful of civilized nations, which possess finance capital and exploit the vast majority of the population of the globe; and the camp of the oppressed and exploited peoples in the colonies and dependent countries, which constitute that majority.” (Works 6/149 et sq.)
The pedigree of the Three Worlds Theory did reach back into Chinese political thinking . As both practitioner and theoretician, Mao concluded in 1940: “This [world] revolution has the proletariat of the capitalist countries as its main force and the oppressed peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies as its allies. No matter what classes, parties or individuals in an oppressed nation join the revolution, and no matter whether they themselves are conscious of the point or understand it, so long as they oppose imperialism, their revolution becomes part of the proletarian-socialist world revolution and they become its allies.” Selected Works Volume 2 (1965) Peking Foreign Language Press p346
The Maoist unease in dealing with the three worlds theory originates from Mao’s own role in this theory. Mao was instrumental in this turn of Chinese foreign policy. “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”. Any 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”.
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement / RIM’s 1984 Declaration argued that “The Marxist-Leninists have correctly refuted the revisionist slander that the “Three Worlds Theory” was put forward by Mao Tsetung.” Unfortunately, this is indeed a questionable assertion. Whilst it is true that Mao himself never advocated for a “TWT” in any of his known written or oral statements; on the contrary, he seems to have prevented the publication of his statements from 22 February 1974 for as long as he was alive. A single critical statement by Mao on this subject would have resonated throughout the Maoist parties of the world. However, as a foreign policy concept, however, he developed and supported it. Mao Zedong on Diplomacy (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1998) A collection of 160 of Mao Zedong’s writings, speeches, talks, comments and telegrams concerning diplomacy from July 1937 to May 1974.
Writings, released since his death substantiate statements and positions taken , such as from January 1957:
“The contradiction between the imperialist countries and the socialist countries is certainly most acute. But the imperialist countries are now contending with each other for the control of different areas in the name of opposing communism. What areas are they contending for? Areas in Asia and Africa inhabited by 1,000 million people. […] [T]wo kinds of contradictions and three kinds of forces are in conflict. The two kinds of contradictions are: first, those between different imperialist powers, that is, between the United States and Britain and between the United States and France and, second, those between the imperialist powers and the oppressed nations. The three kinds of forces are: one, the United States, the biggest imperialist power, two, Britain and France, second-rate imperialist powers, and three, the oppressed nations.” Selected Works – Vol. V (marxists.org) Talks at a conference of secretaries of provincial, municipal and autonomous region party committees p359
An early defence of Mao against the Albanian attacks and post-Mao authorities, veteran maoist, Sanmugathasan of the Communist Party of Ceylon, laid out the basic position that:
“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 (marxists.org) 1981
The Declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement in March 1984 acknowledged that in the years before Mao’s death Chinese foreign policy turned its back on revolutionary struggles, that “reactionary despots were falsely labelled as `anti-imperialists'” and “certain imperialist powers of the Western bloc” were labelled as “intermediate or even positive forces in the world”.
“Despite the tremendous victories of the Cultural Revolution the revisionists in the Chinese party and state continued to maintain important positions and promoted lines and policies which did considerable harm to the still fragile efforts to rebuild a genuine international communist movement. The revisionists in China, who controlled to a large degree its diplomacy and the relations between the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist parties, turned their backs on the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the oppressed peoples or tried to subordinate these struggles to the state interests of China. Reactionary despots were falsely labeled as “anti-imperialists” and increasingly under the banner of a worldwide struggle against “hegemonism” certain imperialist powers of the Western bloc were portrayed as intermediate or even positive forces in the world. Even during this period ………… The Marxist-Leninists have correctly refuted the revisionist slander that the “Three Worlds Theory” was put forward by Mao Tsetung. However this is not enough. The criticism of the “Thee Worlds Theory” must be deepened by criticising the concepts underlying it, and the origins must be investigated. Here it is important to note that the revisionist usurpers had to publicly condemn Mao’s closest comrades in arms for opposing this counter-revolutionary theory.” (bannedthought.net)
This shifted somewhat as Maoists then insisted on the alleged distinction between the theory of three worlds as put forward under Mao, and as put forward later under Deng. For example, the Communist Party of Peru declared:
“We consider Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s thesis that three worlds are delineated just and correct and that it is connected with Lenin’s thesis on the distribution of forces in the world based on the analysis of classes and contradictions. We reject the opportunist and revisionist misrepresentation by Teng Hsiao-ping of the three worlds that follows at the tail of the U.S. or USSR in order to betray the revolution. Starting from this, President Gonzalo analyzes the current situation in which the three worlds are delineated and further demonstrated that they are a reality.” 1988 – Bases of Discussion of General Political Line : International Line (foreignlanguages.press)
RIM charged, many of the pro-Chinese Marxist-Leninist parties supported by the revisionists in the CPC had “shamelessly tail the bourgeoisie and even support or acquiesce in imperialist adventures and war preparations aimed at the Soviet Union which was increasingly seen as the “main enemy” in the whole world. All these tendencies blossomed fully with the coup d’etat in China and the revisionists’ subsequent elaboration of the “Three Worlds Theory” which they attempted to shove down the throats of the international communist movement. the Declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement 1984
Some groups emphasised the Soviet threat
The strong Chinese preference for European unity was reflected in most Maoist groups, the Belgian group AMADA called for “a strong European defence which is democratic and independent” and argued that “in the face of the Russian menace, Western Europe must carry out a common foreign policy in order to protect its independence.” In Order to strengthen peace Through An Independent and Democratic Europe: Yes to European Unity.
AMADA argued “Russian social-imperialism is the main warmonger”, “No to social-imperialism, no to the policy of world dominance of Russia!” The Soviet Union: the most dangerous and aggressive superpower, issued in 1975 by the National Bureau of AMADA.
The idea of war in Europe did preoccupy the Norwegians conscious of the Soviet naval base at Murmansk and regular military exercises “to prepare landing of occupation troops in Norwegian territory”. The country was seen as strategically vital to control of Europe’s northern flank. Activities by NATO were seen as increasing military pressure by the US against Norwegian sovereignty and the sophisticated scenario discussed by the AKP (ML) included the possibility of a Chile-style coup orchestrated by the US in order to launch a ‘first strike’ blow against the Soviet Union.
The AKP (ML) campaigned for the defence of Norway, discussing strategic issues. Unpublicised planning to disperse an unknown part of its leadership, who when the party’s structures were smashed, the publically-identified leadership imprisoned or dead, were to go over to guerrilla struggle, based in the mountains and on the Swedish border, to engage in a national liberation struggle. The AKP (ML) was clear on its policy “of fighting against both imperialist superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, without relying on the Norwegian bourgeoisie. If the Superpowers attack Norway, the line of the Party is that the Norwegian labouring masses have to rise in a national-revolutionary people’s war against the invader.” Norway’s Communists Get Prepared”. The Call (newspaper of the CPML) July 18 1977
Since there was no centralized Maoist International it was not surprising that there were differing interpretations of the Three Worlds Theory before, and after, it appeared formalised in its 1977 statement. It had been outlined at the United Nations in 1974 in a speech delivered by Deng Xiaoping in a major foreign policy statement. After Mao’s death in 1976 some critics vented their opposition to the theory and extended it to encompass Mao and Maoism. Organisations were split by the stance taken over TWT e.g
Toufahan’s opportunism, and opposition against the new Chinese leadership rallied e.g the appearance of the 1981 Basic Principles for the Unity of Marxist-Leninists and for the Line of the International Communist Movement A Draft Position Paper for Discussion Prepared by the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. There were contending political interpretations on the questions of the day that reinforced the organisational fragmentation of the movement.
There were echoes of all these concern throughout the movement, for example see Section Three of State of the Movement: A selection of texts from, and commentary on, the Western European Marxist-Leninist Movement (2010) | 90. A documentary selection 1976-1997 – Mao and Global Maoism (wordpress.com)
There were sharp divisions with the pro-Three World Theory camp with some small groups taking up an interpretation of the policy to advocate a united front such as at the Lisbon Conference. The Communist Party of Portugal (ML) / Partido Comunista de Portugal (Marxista-Leninista) / PCPml – had the major organising role for the 1978 Lisbon Conference on the Russian Imperialist Threat calling “for patriotic and democratic action to oppose” the perceived foreign policy intentions of the Soviet Union described as “neo-colonial domination”, “expansionism” and “world hegemony”.
Even if the prospect of war in Europe influenced the analysis and actions of the MLs, the Lisbon Conference did not attract major support from pro-Chinese organisations. Few European Maoists would agree with the Portuguese analysis that:
In the present stage of revolution, the aim of the Party’s strategy is to defeat social imperialism. To affirm this aim, the formation of national democratic front with the national bourgeoisie is necessary. PCP (ML) International Information Bulletin No63, 30th December 1978
The British-based, Second World Defence group produced the pamphlet, The Superpowers, the Threat of War and the British Working Class in 1977. It produced a translation of a 1977 German pamphlet on Soviet Naval Strategy highlighting the Soviet threat.
Second World Defence and other minor British groups that adopted similar emphasis in their treatment were regarded as adopting a rightist interpretation.
Among the most developed of the treatments that advocated a policy based on the premise that the United States was “a positive factor in the united front against (Soviet) hegemonism” was the 120-paged argument presented in Sooner or Later: Questions & Answers on War, Peace & the United Front published by Massachusetts-based New Outlook Press in 1980. The aggressive expansionist nature of Soviet fascism (characterised by analogies of ‘Hitler-like’ comparisons) and belief based on the analysis that the 1980s was a pre-war period similar to the 1930s, shaped the strategic considerations and conclusions that singled out the Soviet Union as the most dangerous source of world war. This shifted the dial away from the struggles against the two superpowers towards a singular focus in a united front.
The construction and advocacy of a global strategy by groups whose reach and impact within their own societies were negligible seems an intellectual indulgence, however such a worldview was vital in understanding the implications for politics at the domestic and local level.
Outside of the anti-revisionist Marxist Leninists, around any discussion of the Three Worlds Theory raises a multitude of issues that were focused on, by the various individuals and friendship associations who produced sympathetic commentaries on China’s foreign policy stances.
From the UK-based Anglo-Chinese Educational Institute, its publication “China’s World View” (Modern China Series No. 10, 1979) favourably explained China’s foreign affairs following Mao’s death, and focuses especially on its “Three Worlds Theory”. China’sWorldView-MC-10-1979.pdf (bannedthought.net)
Compiled by RCP,USA associated, C. Clark Kissinger , China’s Foreign Policy – an outline published in Chicago, August 1976, supported China’s foreign policy stances, however within a couple of years the Revolutionary Communist Party was issuing articles with a far different tone: “Three Worlds” Strategy: Apology for Capitulation [Revolution, Vol. 3, No. 14, November 1978.] China’sForeignPolicy-AnOutline-Kissinger-1976.pdf (bannedthought.net)
China’s Foreign Policy by Victor Levant, an academic in Canada published by Red Sun Publishers, San Francisco 1977, looked broadly and favourably at the subject. The subject was returned to many times e.g. Chinese Foreign Policy during the Maoist Era and its Lessons for Today by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the U.S. (January 2007).
Mainstream ML opinion was more like the Spanish Organisation Revolucionaria de Trabajudores /ORT , while accepting that the two superpowers were the main enemies of the people of the world and the Soviet Union the more dangerous source of war, the ORT’s strategy was “to direct struggle at principal enemies, US Imperialism and its Spanish supporters. They have bombs, bases and economic control. Simply not materialist to [argue the] Soviet Union is [the] main enemy.”
The Kommunistischer Arbeiterbund Deutschlands /KABD – fore runner of the Marxistisch-Leninistische Partei Deutschlands/MLPD founded in 1982 – took a pro-Mao stance that supported neither the ‘Gang of Four’ nor the post-Mao leadership in China. Back in 1978 the precursor of the MLPD dismissal of the anti-Mao arguments which came out of Tirana and those, like fellow Germans, the KPD/ML which promoted them. This defence of Mao Zedong Thought was accompanied by analysis that the three worlds theory, as a strategic concept, is a right-opportunist theory which negates class struggle as the decisive driving force behind the progress of history and the leadership of the proletariat in the class struggle. To lend this theory credibility, its proponents cite Mao as their authority. Their trick is to misrepresent a tactical concept developed by Mao for a special situation as a fundamental, strategic theory. The leaders of the Party of Labour of Albania also fell for this.
In contrast, the American League of Revolutionary Struggle (M-L), Study Column on the Theory of the Three Worlds provided a supportive study guide for Mao Zedong’s theory of the three worlds that first appeared in Fall 1978, in the pages of UNITY, the newspaper of the League It had sections on
- The three worlds theory : a guide for Marxist-Leninists of all countries
- The two superpowers : the main enemies of the people of the world
- The third world : the main force opposing imperialism
- The second world : a force that can be united with against the superpowers
- The superpowers threaten a new world war
- Combat the danger of world war; oppose the superpowers
- The theory of the three worlds is a beacon for the international proletariat
The Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line has over 30 contributions to a contested debate of collated Primary Materials accessible from when U.S. Marxist-Leninists Take Sides: the “Theory of Three Worlds”.Other 2nd World national sections have collated material e.g. Canada and the Australian Debate On the Theory of Three Worlds. The Communist Party of Australia(ml) under Ted Hill uncritically supported the Chinese position. Other Maoists, those in the Red Eureka Movement did not:
Three Worlds by Alan Ward
Opinions on Some International Questions A statement from the Red Eureka Movement
Draft Statement on International Questions by Martin and David
Comments on “Draft Statement on International Questions” by Ron
Three Worlds and the International Communist Movement by George
Some Brief Comments on the Debate Over the Theory of Three Worlds by John Williams
Reject the Theory of Three Worlds! by Martin Cornell
Reject the Theory of Pompous Phrase-Mongering by Alan Ward
Interestingly in Spring 2020 The Australian Communist carried a discursive if critical look at TWT: It argue that, “Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds Is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism” “became a source of a right-opportunist trend in the revolutionary movement world wide.”
“Deng Xiaoping saw no value in Mao’s TWT, in Mao’s theory of world revolution, or in Mao’s theory of class struggle. Deng’s “breakthrough” – his theory of cooperation and development – had an entirely different aim and objective to Mao’s pursuit of unity against Soviet social-imperialism.” Nick G probably now reflects the consensus of opinion that Mao’s “Theory of the Three Worlds is not a major component of his theoretical contributions, but rather a subset of his approach to an analysis of contradictions.” cpaml-3-worlds.pdf (marxists.org)
woodsmokeblog 