The DC has been asked to take the lead in the effort to better understand Mao Zedong's Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds (TTW). This paper is the first of 3 or 4 to be distributed before we hold a London meeting on the subject in late November. The national conference on the international situation is to be held next June, and our district-level study will be well directed in preparation for it.

In the four years since the editorial staff of the People's Daily of China published the pamphlet (Foreign Languages Press, 1977) that very clearly and precisely expounds the theory, it has come to occupy a most important position in Marxist-Leninist circles everywhere. Acceptance of the theory as a strategic concept has become the touchstone for Marxist-Leninists, just as the realization that the Soviet Union had become a basic M-L principle in the previous 10 years. It is the TTW that proved to be the tombstone for the social-chauvinist Birchites of the CPB (M-L) and revealed the hollowness of the adulation of the Bainesites of the then CPE (M-L). They categorically rejected it. At the same time, sycophants of the new theory appeared who embraced it so tightly that the pips squeaked.

Today it has become a line of demarcation that marks us out among all the "left" forces in Britain. This in itself is no reason to accept it out of hand. Rather, it places a heavy burden on us to understand and apply it. We have long accepted the TTW in words (and the way we have applied it in the last 3 years will be the subject of the next paper), but our understanding of it needs to be deepened. Understanding concrete reality and applying the TTW to it is crucial to our development of a solid body of theory on which the proletarian party must be built.

Is it Mao Zedong's Theory?

This question is still asked, even by followers of TTW. The clearest indication that he formulated it was in February 1974 when he categorized the Three Worlds. The significance of this may have been overlooked outside of China because we had long been used to hearing about the

The Third World', which in the 50s and 60s meant (1) the Western imperialist world, (2) the socialist world including the Soviet Union, and (3) the underdeveloped world. Mao's statement was made in his later declining years, when ultra-leftism was rampant in the CPC, and its implications may also have been deliberately ignored by the Gang of Four.

But the TTW does not just define three worlds. It also emphasizes that of the two First World countries, the Soviet Union is the most dangerous threat to peace. This conclusion was also made by Mao in another context, when he categorized it as a fascist state. As we know, today there is a tendency to consider the Soviet Union as the main enemy of the people of the world, thus extending the above conclusion. In addition to these two main features, there are numerous other features that are fully in line with Mao Zedong's thought - the broad united front, the linking of national and class struggle, the definition of the main aspect of a confrontation, etc. There should not be the slightest doubt in any comrade's mind that this is indeed Mao Zedong's theory.

The Era of the Deline of Imperialism

Today's fans of the Gang of Four (Nottingham Communist Group and others) denounce the TTW as an anti-Marxist theory and label those who accept it as revisionists indistinguishable from Eurocommunists. These super-revolutionaries regard the TTW as reactionary and a call for capitulation to imperialism.

The reason for this view is that the NCG, like Trotskyist groups in general, rejects Lenin's thesis of the uneven development of imperialism. This leads them to regard all imperialisms as equally dangerous and equally hostile to world progressive forces. The TTW points out not only that uneven development is a feature of imperialism, but that the two largest imperialist powers have become qualitatively different from the others. Therefore, they are called superpowers because they are so much more powerful than the others that only they can entertain the notion of world hegemony. They constitute the First World. It would be extremely difficult to deny this reality, or that the contradiction between these two superpowers is very strong indeed, despite all their attempts at collusion.

This point about the uneven development of imperialism is as important today as it was in Lenin's day. Kautsky denied this thesis and argued that there is now a single world imperialist system - ultra-imperialism - which benefits the workers and oppressed peoples of the world! We cannot deny the contradictions among the imperialists and denounce them all as a single entity. We must denounce imperialism as a system without forgetting its internal contradictions. These inter-imperialist contradictions have already dragged the world into two wars. The theory of the three worlds had this fact firmly in mind.

Lenin pointed out that in the era of imperialism, the national liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations formed a component - an essential component - of the revolutionary forces in the world. Since then, most of the colonies have achieved political independence and the Soviet Union has joined the ranks of the imperialists. In the last 30 years, it is undeniable that the fiercest struggles against imperialism and hegemonism have been in the Third World and that the imperialist powers as a whole have been weakened.

The decline of the Western European imperialists was accompanied by the rise of the US imperialists in the immediate post-war period. In recent years, we have again seen the decline of US imperialism and the rise of Soviet hegemonism. At the same time, during this whole post-war period, there has been a growing development of unity, independence and non-alignment of the countries of the Third World. In particular, the victory of the new democratic revolution in China under the leadership of the CPC dealt a mortal blow to the old-style imperialists. The Korean and Vietnamese peoples also won great victories that changed the balance of power. In Africa, Latin America and other parts of Asia, too, the imperialists suffered defeat after defeat and were irrevocably weakened.

The Main Revolutionary Force

At the same time, the struggles of the working class in the imperialist countries have not been so successful, and we have not seen the overthrow of a single imperialist state by its proletariat. Thus, the validity of the TTW's conclusion that it is the Third World that constitutes the main forces against imperialism, colonialism and hegemonism is very strong. To better understand how it is possible for such national contradictions to be the main ones in the world, we need to recall Marx's self-criticism about Ireland. Admitting that he had been mistaken in thinking that Ireland would be free only after the English revolution was won, Marx said that further study had shown him that the Irish connection had to be broken before there could be any prospect of revolution in Britain. In the era of imperialism, the struggle against national oppression is ultimately a question of class struggle: Again, the TTW carefully dissects and evaluates the forces that advance the interests of the international class struggle.

Of course, the superrevolutionaries deny the importance of the Third World and see the main contradiction in the world as between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

The Second World

This is where the complexity of the forces at work in shaping the future is most evident, and it is the most relevant part of the TTW for Britain. The Second World consists of the lesser imperialist countries of Western Europe, Canada and Japan. (The position of Ireland, Greece, Australasia and Eastern Europe is not quite clear, since they have some features of both Second and Third World countries. This difficulty does not invalidate TTW. In general, we would consider them to be Second World countries as well).

The Second World has a dual nature. On the one hand, it continues to exploit and enrich itself at the expense of Third World countries and peoples. On the other hand, the Second World faces the problem of being dominated by one or the other superpower.

This has led them to find that they have common interests on many issues, despite the contradictions that exist between them. Moreover, because of the superpower threat and their own dependence on the Third World for raw materials and markets, there is a growing community of interest between them. On the issues of Israel and the PLO, Iran. El Salvador, Kampuchea, Afghanistan, non-alignment, the new international economic order, nuclear-free zones, the Second World as a whole is taking a far more progressive stand than the two superpowers. The reason for their stance may be little more than self-interest, but the truth is that in their strategy for survival, these second-rate imperialists have had to make concessions to the Third World undreamed of in their heyday. To some extent, they too are tasting the bitterness of being overshadowed by the superpowers, who regularly make offers that seem impossible to refuse. But they are, after all, oppressor nations and imperialists, and in any anti-superpower alliance they cannot be trusted very far by the oppressed and exploited. Nevertheless, the present crisis of imperialism will be protracted, and with the continued presence of the superpowers, the Second World will need the friendship of the Third World for a long time to come.

The Proletariat

There is another aspect to understanding the TTW that must not be forgotten. There is a working class in all countries, and there are class antagonisms within each country. In the First and Second Worlds, this contradiction is great and is becoming sharper as the economic crisis deepens. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is growing on a world scale, but only here and there (e.g. Poland) does it become the main contradiction, and then only for short periods. In every country, even in Poland, the class struggle is conditioned by the power of the superpowers, which constantly interfere and subvert through the threat of their military power or the operations of their secret services or fifth columns.