A contribution to the 
6th International Conference of Marxist Leninist Parties and Organizations

ABOUT  THE  GENERAL  LINE 
OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL  COMMUNIST  MOVEMENT 
IN  THE  CONTEMPORARY  CONDITIONS

[ Extracts; the full text can be requested from the following address:
"Aristera!", Tsamadou 8, 10683 Athens, Greece
or by E-mail: arister@eexi.gr ]

 1. The need for discussion and the general conditions in which it takes place

It is true that it is many years since a serious discussion took place regarding the general line of the communist movement in the contemporary conditions. The last earnest attempt to raise issues of general line in the international communist movement was in the early ‘60s by the Communist Party of China. Since then, however, many years have rolled on. The current picture of the world is very different from the one in the early ‘60s. In order to reach the actual situation, several processes, overturnings of correlation of power and retrogressions have taken place. Lots of battles of historic significance have been fought, like the unfulfilled storm of revolutionary struggles in the ‘60s, with its peak, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China. The historic question posed and seeking an answer is whether the course of the revolutionary movement could have been different. That is, whether several battles could have been fought from better positions, whether or not serious attempts have been made to confront, in a united and thorough way, the bourgeois and revisionist line on all the issues.

This question follows and links all the problematics regarding the general line. Reasons beyond the scope of the present contribution have led to the overlooking of the importance of the problem of the general line, which has had disastrous results for the marxist-leninist movement, especially in the ‘80s. The marxist-leninist movement suffered a great ordeal and disintegration in the ‘80s. Despite the honoring exceptions of some Parties and movements, which held high up the revolutionary flag under extremely difficult circumstances, the majority of parties and organizations faced great crises and their power shrank to a great extent. The departure from the problematics of a general line and the obvious crisis of the marxist-leninist movement (which had been detected in previous years as well through the adventures, the “line” and the attitude of the two centres, China and Albania) led either to substitutes of the general line at the best of times (such as the equalization of the people’s war with the general line) or in significant departures from the anti-revisionist positions, to pro-socialimperialist attitudes and to a tacit renunciation of the issues raised by the work of Mao Tsetung.

Nevertheless, even after the difficult decade of 1980, during the ‘90s, in conditions of reconstruction of the revolutionary movement and of more and more intense demonstration of the people’s discontent all over the world, we notice that the several initiatives and regroupments of communist parties and organizations do not focus the discussion on the vital problem of the general line. The degree of co-ordination is very low, as other priorities seem to be motivating the initiatives and not the steady and determined promotion of the dialogue and discussion on the general line. All these happen in conditions of great changes around us. Great convulsions are caused by the process of the capitalist/imperialist restructuring, while the whole planet is preparing to change century and the ideological-political arsenal of the bourgeoisie manages to raise several issues and have the initiative in a worldwide scale. 

The requirements of the new phase of the revolutionary movement impose the need for the existence of parties and organizations which have their feet firmly on the ground, which think on their own, which are capable of analyzing the specific conditions of the specific situation, which will acquire the ability to open new paths. These requirements cannot be met, unless we examine in a self-critical way the great damage caused by suivism, the lack of view and opinion on a series of important and crucial problems, the poverty in issues of general line and the easy ideologicalization of all problems.

For all these reasons we believe that the 6th International Conference of the Marxist Leninist Parties and Organizations must bend over this problem, assess its importance and contribute to its confrontation. What follows should be considered a small contribution to the problematics on the general line in the contemporary conditions.

2. The requirements of the discussion on the general line in the light of our experience

The general line does not concern the situation and the tasks of the movement in a specific country. Therefore, it should not be thought, that the use of the term “general line” regarding the needs and specifications of the development of the movement in one country, covers the subject. A more careful analysis would show that it is difficult to distinguish between the general-international conditions and correlation and the analysis and tasks in a specific country, even if the movement in this country has made great progress. The general line concerns a whole phase of the world history, it covers a relatively long period of struggle and efforts on a worldwide scale, it readapts according to the curves of history, its great advances or its retrogressions.

Preconditions for a substantial discussion

For any substantial discussion on the general line some preconditions should be fulfilled. We mention the most important ones in our opinion:
(a) The starting point cannot be other than the specific analysis of the international political and economic situation as a whole and the specific class analysis of the fundamental contradictions in the world nowadays.
(b) The specific assessment of the present phase of the situation in the communist movement, as well as the description of its strategic objective in the current stage on a worldwide level is necessary.
(c) This process of substantial discussion should lead to the isolation of the main counter-revolutionary force, against which the main firing of the peoples’ movements should be aimed.
(d) The determined, wide mobilization of the peoples for the accomplishment of the strategic objective, that is the change of the correlation of power all over the world, is the distinguishing criterion between the communist general line and the bourgeois, revisionist or neo-revisionist supposed general line.
(e) Since the general line promotes the duties of the communist movement with a sight that looks to the future, it has to assert the movement’s final aim, the communist program, enriching it as necessary with the experience (positive and negative) of the last decades.

A necessary clarification

At this point a clarification is necessary. What is the difference among the terms “general line”, “strategic objective”, and “final aim”? They are not equivalent terms, which mean more or less the same. The confusion normally caused is due to the fact that the difference between the general line and the strategic objective has not been clarified. More accurately, it is due to the confusion as regards the strategic objective. The most common sort of confusion is the identification of the strategic objective with the final aim of the movement.

In broad outline, the general line consists of a series of evaluations regarding the international situation and the contradictions in the world today. It necessarily includes the strategic objective corresponding to the specific phase of the revolutionary movement. It outlines, as accurately as possible, the final aim and the means for its achievement. The general line is the immediate, medium- and long-term political program of the world proletariat with the clarification (this is where it differs from the program) that it lays weight on the immediate struggle of the communists for the changing of the existing conditions and correlation or of the conditions obstructing the development and advance of the class struggle. 
The strategic objective compresses in each case the necessary steps to be taken and positions to be reached by the revolutionary movement either on international level or within one country, so that it can change the correlation of power in such a way that it permits the promotion of the class struggle from a better position. For instance, the winning of the majority of the working class is a strategic objective, because without the fulfillment of this precondition it is difficult to imagine a party, which can play an important role in the developments in a specific country. The strategic objective may readapt relatively more flexibly and more often than the general line. It is a more changeable term and it is not impossible for the strategic objective to be modified within the context of the unchanged general line. However, this modification will signify that there is a considerable change in the correlation of power, which renders the previous strategic objective old or accomplished. Or such retrogression will have been made that it will need to be seriously considered in terms of the strategic objective. Nevertheless, in all these cases there is no such drastic change of the correlation that might bring about considerable changes of the general line.
The final aim of the movement, that is socialism and communism, cannot be missing from the formulation of the general line. But even the former cannot be phrased as if there has been no enrichment of the final aim both in terms of positive and negative experience and in terms of the changes having occurred on a worldwide scale. The latter reveal potentials and necessities, which must always be utilized for the benefit of the theory, the program and the line.

[The discussion on whether Maoism is the third and higher stage of Marxism, whether the term “Mao Tsetung thought” is sufficient or not, and its juxtaposition to Maoism, etc., sheds little light on the problems of the general line. At the best of times, it depicts the historic lessons of the class struggle, especially in the second half of our century, on an ideological level. However, if we believe that such ideologicalization of political problems is also their solution, then we are mistaken. Many times ideologicalization may take other forms, which do not help in the acquisition of means for the analysis of the international situation and the advance of the general line.
On the other side, some parties and organizations declare that their strategic objective is socialism and communism, confusing the final aim with the strategic objective. In other cases we observe the shrinking of the general line to one path, to one example, such as that of the people’s war. But if we examine the present world as a whole, we will find out that people’s war itself cannot substitute the general line, it is not the general line, for the very simple reason that it excludes from its perspective a substantial part of the planet, that is the imperialist metropolis and the relatively developed capitalist countries.
Both the emphasis on the subject of Maoism or the Mao Tsetung thought and the stress laid on people’s war, together with the parallel disregarding of the general line, lead to the underestimation of the need for specific analysis of the international situation and for tracking down new phenomena and processes. It is more like adhering to what is granted from the past and to the elements of political formation of a specific period. It also reveals embarrassment or fear of studying all the numerous changes in the world today.
We realize, insisting on the issue of the general line, that the revolutionary movement must be armed with the weapons of political science, that it must avoid the ideologicalization of political problems (which is a form of expression of both subjectivism and dogmatism-empiricism). Moreover, we consider the focusing on the preconditions required by the general line as necessary.]

About the C.P. of China and the L.P. of Albania

Let’s just remember the adventures of the marxist-leninist movement in the past decades. At this point we need to examine the role played by the two main centres of the contemporary marxist-leninist movement, the Communist Party of China and the Labour Party of Albania. Although these two titles might not mean anything for us today, they once were the ‘lighthouses’ of the world revolution. And naturally we can all suppose today that the then unity of the marxist-leninist movement was not based on firm foundations, and that other priorities led to this or that formation of line or of the choices made by the leadership of each of these two parties. 

For example, the “theory of the three worlds” (which was not expressed after Mao’s death, but while he was still alive) created great problems for the marxist-leninist movement. The principle of not depending on one superpower in order to fight the other one was forgotten by the Chinese responsibles first of all. The suivist trend, however, of so many parties and organizations was not the primary responsibility of the Chinese (who may have encouraged it for a relatively long period), but of those adopting it and, thus, causing great damage to the marxist-leninist movement. To what extent were the platform of the LPA and the attack against Mao after his death based on a different general line and how determining were the inter-state relationships between the two countries in this choice? However, a number of marxist-leninist parties and organizations welcomed LPA’s attitude, adopted its attack against Mao (that is, they completely changed their ideological orientation), reduced the “five classicals” to “four” and continued their course in a somewhat unconcerned way. Of course the developments in Albania itself, and the open surrender of Ramiz Alia to the international imperialism, upset their consciousness, but they did not lead them to conclusions about what LPA was, how it was also conquered by revisionism. Not even for one moment did they wonder about Mao’s contribution, especially on that subject! 

Our evaluation is that no matter how much responsibility falls on the two centres (and it is a lot for sure), for many reasons the weight should be laid on what type of parties the marxist-leninist parties and organizations were, what their formation was, to what extent they depended on their own forces, to what extent they had elaborated and digested all the citations they reproduced. The stress must be laid on this level, because in the present conditions there are no centres, we will miss their warmth for a long time and we have to march forward and construct the international revolutionary movement under completely new conditions.

3. The formulation of a general line for the present stage of development of the communist movement

3.1. The Chinese example in 1963

On 14th June 1963 the answer of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China to the letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Soviet Union of 30th March 1963 is published, under the title “A Proposal concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement”. This document is also known as the “25 points of the CPC”. In our opinion this is one of the most significant documents of the debate between marxist-leninists and modern revisionists. Moreover, in our opinion again, it is probably the only formulation of a general line in those years. Later, in the following years, there were no other references to the subject or advances on aspects of these issues. After all, the publication of such documents by the Chinese communists stopped, a fact which is definitely related to the course of the class struggle within China.

We feel obliged to make one more remark: in 1963 it is already too late, and the modern revisionism has gained a series of positions in the communist parties. As we have pointed out at other opportunities, the Chinese communists’ intervention should have been done a lot earlier so as not to leave revisionists free scope. The period 1953-1956 was decisive for the consolidation of Chroushchevism, while the conferences of 1957 and 1960 were exploited by revisionism for its further strengthening. The generally correct declarations of these conferences did not prevent the spreading of revisionism and created a false picture of unity. Several initiatives should and could have been taken in those years. After all, in 1953-1956 the radiance of Mao Tsetung was far greater than that of Chroushchev, Kossygin, Migoyan, Shoushchlov, etc. Finally, the document of the “25 points” has been attributed by several persons to Mao himself, something which has never been denied. Therefore, it is of great importance to see how the Chinese communists described the general line of the communist movement in 1963:

“(…) Workers of all countries, unite; workers of the world, unite with the oppressed peoples and oppressed nations; oppose imperialism and reaction in all countries; strive for world peace, national liberation, people's democracy and socialism; consolidate and expand the socialist camp; bring the proletarian world revolution step by step to complete victory; and establish a new world without imperialism, without capitalism and without the exploitation of man by man. 
This, in our view, is the general line of the international communist movement at the present stage. 
This general line proceeds from the actual world situation taken as a whole and from a class analysis of the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world, and is directed against the counter-revolutionary global strategy of U.S. imperialism. 
This general line is one of forming a broad united front, with the socialist camp and the international proletariat as its nucleus, to oppose the imperialists and reactionaries headed by the United States; it is a line of boldly arousing the masses, expanding the revolutionary forces, winning over the middle forces and isolating the reactionary forces. 
This general line is one of resolute revolutionary struggle by the people of all countries and of carrying the proletarian world revolution forward to the end; it is the line that most effectively combats imperialism and defends world peace. 
If the general line of the international communist movement is onesidedly reduced to "peaceful coexistence", "peaceful competition" and "peaceful transition", this is to violate the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement, to discard the historical mission of proletarian world revolution, and to depart from the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism. 
The general line of the international communist movement should reflect the general law of development of world history. The revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the people in various countries go through different stages and they all have their own characteristics, but they will not transcend the general law of development of world history. The general line should point out the basic direction for the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and people of all countries. 
While working out its specific line and policies, it is most important for each Communist or Workers' Party to adhere to the principle of integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of revolution and construction in its own country. 
In defining the general line of the international communist movement, the starting point is the concrete class analysis of world politics and economics as a whole and of actual world conditions, that is to say, of the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world. 
If one avoids a concrete class analysis, seizes at random on certain superficial phenomena, and draws subjective and groundless conclusions, one cannot possibly reach correct conclusions with regard to the general line of the international communist movement but will inevitably slide on to a track entirely different from that of Marxism-Leninism.” 
(A Proposal concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement, Letter of the CC of the CPC, 14 June 1963).

These passages, making up points 2, 3 and a part of point 4 of the “25 points”, are extremely important both in terms of wording and content. However, at the same time they urge us to wonder what a general line for the communist movement would be nowadays and how it would be formulated. The wording of the general line (point 2) is brief and clear. It is the general line in the “present stage”. This means that all the associations and contradictions in the contemporary world are taken into account, there is an inclusion of the broader correlation of power, and the subjective factor is present throughout the point (with the socialist camp and the world proletariat as its core). The isolation of the main counter-revolutionary force, the US imperialism, is a fundamental aim. The line should allow the daring mobilization of the masses, develop the revolutionary forces, win the intermediate forces and isolate the reactionary ones. The general line leads the proletarian revolution to the achievement of the final aim, but it simultaneously fights more effectively against imperialism, and thus defends peace. Although the revolutionary movement in each country will have peculiarities and special features, it cannot “surpass” the tasks posed by the “present stage” of the revolution on a worldwide scale. It is an absolute necessity to respond to these tasks, it cannot ignore them or seek easy solutions.

For instance, in the decade of 1960, the double task of the deepening of the revolution in the countries building socialism and of the determined opposition to imperialism, more specifically against the US imperialism, was posed. No movement in any country could avoid these two duties of historic significance and set another one in their place. It is obvious why and how the shattering of the US imperialism bothered the whole world. Even in the countries it did not intervene directly, the tasks of determined mobilization against it, and of solidarity with the peoples fighting against it, were posed. The task of the deepening of socialism was related to the confrontation of the modern revisionist current both in the countries where socialism was built and in the capitalist ones, against its liquidationist influence and its open collaboration with imperialism.

3.2. The differences between then and today

However, almost 40 years have rolled since then. Many great changes have occurred in the world. The most important ones are related to a great extent to the defeat of the revolutionary movement and its inability to fight back the joint attack of imperialism and revisionism.

What has been the main form of the counter-revolutionary strategic in the past 30 years? In our opinion it has been the forwarding of restructuring of the capitalist/imperialist system in order to answer two great issues: a) the dealing with the worst world over-accumulation crisis in capitalist history, b) the suppression of the revolutionary movements, the absorption of revolts, the imposition of the western imperialist culture. During all this time the several stages of this unified process have been forwarded in an asymmetric way, with delays or accelerations and, of course, in a competitive environment. In the decade of 1970 what prevailed was the collusion between West and East for the suppression of the revolutionary movement. In the decade of 1980 the model of thatcherism and reganism started spreading and the productive restructuring process started being fulfilled having as its main subject the multi-branched multinational monopolies. If until 1989-90 we could notice a relatively massive trend of support of this restructuring process both in the east and the west (e.g. the masses have been used for the completion of the collapse, just as caricatures of people’s war have been used by the Americans to dislodge the Russians from various areas), in the decade of 1990 the demonstrations of popular discontent, as well as the strengthening of people’s movements, revolts etc. multiplied.

If we consider the New World Order as the political superstructure of all the processes forwarded by restructuring all over the world, we should note that we have reached it through a conflicting and escalating process of imposition of a basically counter-revolutionary strategic in an environment, where the correlation of power between revolution and counter-revolution tended in favor of the latter. This was not true in the ‘60s, for example. All this period the “eastern wind was really stronger than the western wind” and this was confirmed almost in the whole world. There was a magnificent revolutionary outburst all over the world. This manifested in the heart of capitalism, but also in the heart of socialism with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and also in the whole zone of the revolutionary storms.

If one wishes to find the causes of the retreat, a thread can be found in the following words of Mao: “In the social practice, the forces representing the vanguard class often suffer failures; not because they have erroneous ideas, but because, in the correlation of powers within which they are struggling, they are, temporarily, less strong than the reactionary forces. This is the origin of their temporary failures; but, finally, they always triumph.”.

However, what is important for us is that the battle was fought in a rather dispersed order, without drawing the necessary conclusions on theoretical and practical level. For instance, there can be no comparison between the help given by the Communist International (CI) in the years of Lenin-Stalin to young parties and organizations, and the practical attitude of the Chinese communists. If we want to be precise, the comparison should be made between the period of the formation of the CI (1919), when the young Soviet republic was not consolidated yet and the revolutionary forces in Europe and elsewhere were particularly weak after the period of confrontation with modern revisionism on the one hand and the birth of a number of communist parties and organizations in order to fight against the latter on the other. The argument that there was an “overreaction of the Communist Party of China to the negative aspects of the Comintern that led them to refuse to play the necessary leading role in building up the organisational unity of the Marxist-Leninist forces at the international level” (RIM Declaration, 1984) is not a satisfactory answer to the question why socialist China did not rise to the occasion. The answer has to be sought in the confusion of the relationship between the international and the state factor within the revolutionary headquarters in China, in the correlation of power within the CPC and in the confrontation between the proletarian and the revisionist line.

Follow the link for Part 2:

• Continued in Part 2

Go to the main page:

• Supporters of the Revolutionary Marxist Organization A/synechia (Greece)