MIM holds that in contrast with the studies of Marx and Engels on a country such as England in 1850, today, the vast majority of class struggle happens through national forms and outside the West. That is to say there are national units (countries) in conflict with each other which guise or mediate class struggles of underlying populations. So for example, the Palestinian Fatah and Hamas organizations make their demands against I$rael. The people doing the negotiating resemble the trade union bureaucrats of old, rich and lording it over the people they represent. Meanwhile, the trade union bureaucrats in the rich countries are generally from the same bourgeoisie as the members they represent; although, that was not the case 150 years ago.

The discussion of a "handful of tops" selling out the interests of the proletariat no longer applies to imperialist country unions, but it does apply to many government leaders in the Third World. The reason for this is that the reformist class struggle succeeded in a nationalist and racist sense in the West and created a petty-bourgeoisie out of what was once a working class. The reformist struggle did not make everyone in the world petty-bourgeoisie, hence its racist nature.

Whether they like it or not, the leaders of Fatah such as Mahmoud Abbas represent disproportionately exploited people.(1) Such leaders may come to adopt the views of the managers at the World Bank instead of the Palestinians they represent. That is the kind of tension that used to exist between union leaders and "the rank-and- file" in the rich countries. Today, people with access to legal working rights in the Western imperialist countries and Japan may join a union, but only to conduct intra-bourgeois struggle. The old role of the trade union leader is now played by the Third World government leader facing off against imperialists in political and economic negotiations and wars.

MIM arose to draw a more systematic picture of the class content of national conflicts. In the article above published in 1977, the "Communist Party of China" refers to the so-called "Gang of Four" very unfavorably. Hua Guofeng published the above after arresting the "Gang of Four" in the coup that led a capitalist restoration in 1976. Nonetheless, the pamphlet above is 80% correct, and the first 20 pages are especially correct.

At the height of the Cultural Revolution, the most advanced class struggle so far, Hua Guofeng blew it. Hua represented the bourgeoisie in the party. Though he mishandled the bourgeoisie in the party question, his understanding of the class content of diplomatic struggles was much better.

Since there is no socialist state anymore, it is obvious that what Hua said about the Three Worlds Theory is principal in the class struggle, not the bourgeoisie in the party question. That is to say this pamphlet looks especially good relative to the ebb we are in right now and that is why MIM urges study of the 1977 document as background to the MIM line, which is more developed.

If MIM were in a situation of several socialist states and large imperialist country parties about to overthrow capitalism in all the imperialist countries, then this pamphlet might not look so good. The Hua line on Three Worlds Theory looked bad in 1977, because the arrest of the "Gang of Four" had just happened, and the proletariat was hoping for a quick and overwhelming counter-attack which never happened, but most of the message in the pamphlet looks good in 2008.

The Cultural Revolution struggle and anti-revisionism proved to be very difficult, so difficult it ended up in the hands of a handful. The underlying question was really the theory of economic development. MIM has said success relied on the scientific advance and bourgeois integrity of objectively bourgeois people--the handful. It's not a good place to be in in the class struggle, but that has to do with the deck of cards material conditions dealt the international class struggle. By comparison with Mao's theory of continuous revolution, the class struggle unleashed by Mao with his Three Worlds Theory is more widely understood in the world. It is understood intuitively by large sections of people. The reason is that bourgeois leaders have assisted in spreading Mao's Theory of the Three Worlds; even though, it mostly benefits the international proletariat. Mao precisely identified those members of the global bourgeoisie most likely to struggle on the proletariat's side.

The political struggle over the Three Worlds Theory

Various pseudo-communist writers have criticized Mao for why he supported the Three Worlds Theory--supposedly for his narrow nationalist interests. They do not get into the class content of the theory except in the most superficial and linear fashion.

Western writers jumped into the geopolitics as the be-all-and-end-all of the Three Worlds Theory, especially the orientation toward the Soviet Union as the main hegemonist as described in the 1977 document above. That is why we wish that Mao had gone deeper into the theoretical aspect of the Three Worlds Theory before jumping into geo-political implications, which are merely strategic.

Specifically, what the Chinese needed to do was review the economic mechanisms by which finance capital was exploiting whole countries. One example would be currency manipulation by which even the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation suffers imperialist exactions. When we say that U.$.-based multinational corporations go to a country to hire labor at 50 cents or $1.50 an hour, that is only true, after translation of an artificially low exchange rate. So to say that multinational corporate hiring occurs independently of the national unit that creates separate currenices such as the dollar, pound, peso, won, yuan etc.--that is false. Most class struggle is mediated by the national unit and that is more important than ever as imperialism has penetrated ever more deeply into the global economy.

Currency manipulation also plays a role in trade. A U.$. corporation need not hire labor in a country, if currency rates are set so that it is cheap to buy goods produced by a country's own corporations. In other words, finance capitalists can manipulate the economic world so that one country's capitalists extract surplus-value, but another country's capitalists share in it.

The reason that Mao did not do more to lay out the details of super-exploitation is that he had never been to an imperialist country to conduct investigations. He leaned heavily on the Progressive Labor Party and similarly minded organizations. Originally, Mao had internationalist faith that PLP would do thorough investigations of its own. Mao would live long enough to regret that assumption. Although most of Mao's writing is correct, there is a large hole in it, because he prioritized the method of having thorough investigation of the imperialist countries, and he did not have such investigations in his hands, and he knew it, which is why there was no international party and also no Mao-recognized communist party in the united $tates when Mao died. The message was clear to the Amerikans, that they had to get on the job. To expect that Mao's own works would not have a hole in them in that situation is just not to understand that Maoism is not just a collection of analyses but also a method. Ironically we have those saying to us that Mao should have done better against u.$. imperialism, when it is clear that Mao himself knew he did not have a counterpart in the united $tates to work with.

The newly minted anti-revisionist organizations such as PLP had yet to master Mao's method of investigating class structure. Mao spent many years overcoming Wang Ming dogmatism and only won because armed struggle weeded out failed analytical assumptions by getting people killed. In the West, our Wang Mingists spread luxuriantly, because we do not have an ongoing armed struggle that weeds out the totally delusional among us. If only we could have even just one brief but serious armed struggle where the delusional revisionists had to rely on the people they call a white proletariat, they would all end up dead from having defense forces that did not show up on the battlefield. After lessons paid for in blood, the MIM line would triumph and there would be no more crap about an objectively revolutionary plurality or 51%.

Other than MIM, we do not have any communists in the imperialist countries yet who know that Mao's method is more decisive to Maoism than his concrete statements about various conditions that might change or various strategies which could have had alternatives. The bunglers and bought-off count quotes from the 1850s on the imperialist countries or follow post-modernist method in reading texts, because that is the dogmatic or post-modernist method. What Maoist method is can be repeated many times, but bourgeois prejudice blocks its implementation.

From a discussion of mechanisms open to finance capital to exploit whole countries simultaneously and not just the proletariat in those countries, Mao should have turned to the question of the portion of the imperialist countries that is bourgeois. Once we contrast the portion of the united $tates that is bourgeois with the portion in a country like Indonesia, we have the real economic basis for why the Three Worlds Theory is true and leads to superior strategy-building.

Instead, when Mao backed Lin Biao to say that the main force is in the Third World, (and those who read the struggle against Wang Ming know what methodological analogy is being made there) Progressive Labor Party polemicized against Mao for "hate whitey." Soon after PLP left Mao and went off to a semi- Trotskyist future.

Later, when Mao again put forward the politics of the MIM line with the Three Worlds Theory, the imperialist country parties and their appendages almost universally objected.(2) By contrast, the response was mostly favorable in the authentic communist parties of the Third World, such as the very large Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist).

Both Lin on People's War and the Three Worlds Theory stemmed from the same economic and political analysis. However, Mao put forward the general political conclusions while awaiting parties to arise to replace the PLP analysis. He soon found the Black Panthers, but no corresponding parties in other countries. Then Mao ran out of time as his physical capacity declined and the Black Panthers quickly disappeared as a revolutionary force.

Mao's last years and the Three Worlds Theory

The first signs of a MIM line appeared decades before with a man literally named Dr.Pepper. According to Trotsky, Stalin dumped the Pepper line as a concession to Trotsky. However, MIM line on the so-called white working class had appeared at the highest levels of the Comintern as we pointed out in MIM Theory #10.

Then in the early 1960s, we had some statements in the Beijing Review about the Black Panthers and other Black leaders. The Panthers learned before anyone else that Lin had been purged, but again the Lin Biao line fit together with the MIM line. So this was the second major historical hint.

The fact that Mao put forward the Three Worlds Theory in has last years, and after Lin was already gone, proves that Mao was the true precursor to the MIM line all along.

There is no official statement saying anywhere that the "Gang of Four" opposed Mao's Three Worlds Theory. Even if the "Gang of Four" did oppose it, we would have a hard time figuring out what parts of it it opposed. Hua Guofeng's pamphlet above issues swear words against the "Gang of Four" in passing and says it opposes the Three World's theory, but the mention is in passing, and in 1977 it was custom to name the "Gang of Four," if for instance the toilet got clogged.

What we do have officially is that the Four opposed Deng Xiaoping as a capitulator to U.$. imperialism. That appears in documents published before Mao died. We also have the Four republishing old PLP-style analyses of the united $tates--not that they were the original authors.

The Germans said they themselves put the "Gang of Four" under pressure in Mao's last years, and the Black Panthers were dead as a scientific communist party long before 1974, not to mention 1976. So when Mao said the Third World was the main force of revolution, there were no Western parties supporting him. There was no MIM.

This is important, because Mao did take his lumps for the Three Worlds Theory. Yes, that theory does have a grain of class collaboration, as we have always admitted. Mao said the international proletariat should try to help out the Third World government puppet leaders, to be more independent. This tiny stratum earned class collaboration via Mao's theory. There is no denying that.

What can be denied is that that class collaboration was more intensive than that of the exploited rank-and-file with a bourgeois union leader. In other words, in all class struggles, the battles never line up in such a way as all the bourgeoisie goes to one side and all the proletariat on the other, as even Bob Avakian has pointed out. The real question is to put together an approach which minimizes class collaboration that is fatal to advance. There will always be some class collaboration in class struggle as it actually happens. MIM has gone further for theoretical purposes and says that at this time all leaders of the proletariat are structurally bourgeois. The test is that a real leader that can glue together a major segment of the proletariat always gets offered bribes. If that were not true, then MIM's theory on that could be dropped. So we would say even Mao was a structural bourgeois, because the imperialists would have bribed him substantially if the chance arose.

Once we pit the labor aristocracy problem of the West against the class collaboration with the Abbases of the world, we know which is worse. The spokespeople of the international proletariat are structurally bourgeois at this time, whether they know it or not. The genius of the Three Worlds Theory is that it recognizes that the interests of the exploited do work their way through their bourgeois leaders, whether anyone likes it or not.

Mao did not live to see MIM. There was no one coming to him with a properly investigated study of the imperialist country class structure. He himself did not do it, and so he sidestepped it while still drawing the overall picture mostly accurately.

Because Lin Biao advanced the People's War theory and elevated Maoism to a universal principle for the world, he played a contributing role in Maoism. Zhou Enlai gets a mention in the 1977 pamphlet available at the top of this document. Zhou Enlai was in charge of the foreign ministry, while Lin had been in charge of the military.

Lin Biao's son represented the interests of the military. What he did not like about Mao's Three World's Theory was that Mao cared about the world outside China. Instead of giving aid to Third World countries, Lin Biao's son wanted Mao to concentrate resources on defending China. A logical extension of that would be that the military might also argue about what foreign policy was easiest to defend China with. For these people, China's class character might have mattered, but they could argue from inside a country with a growing industrial working class.

Given the choice between two imperialist powers, the Soviet Union and the United $tates, Mao preferred shaking hands with Nixon over Brezhnev, because he knew that Brezhnev confused the ranks of the international proletariat while Nixon never could. Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were for shaking Nixon's hand, but the problem was that Deng Xiaoping was going to use the anti-Soviet line as an excuse for economic "opening" to the united $tates in such a way as to turn China into a factory for the united $tates. What we know is that the "Gang of Four" opposed what Deng Xiaoping did manage to do eventually.

When we look in the 1977 document above, no where does it mention economic opening to the West to increase the super-profits of Amerika by hundreds of billions a year. Yet that may have been the real underlying argument within the leadership. We do have that officially from the Four, while we do not have more than that about the Four in any document. The key question is to what extent the would-be compradors of U.$. imperialism hid behind the bid to attack Soviet revisionism and hegemonism.

This is another reason that it was so key that there was no MIM at the time. The Deng Xiaoping line needed to be defeated at the theory of productive forces level, at the theoretical level first. Because Deng Xiaoping was still in the fight after the consideration of theory, he was able to wait out his turn in a strategic battle where he had 50-50 chances. He used the strategic battle over Soviet revisionism as an excuse to open to the West the way that he did.

Mao needed to make the battle over the theory of productive forces and super- profits cardinal to exclude Deng Xiaoping's view of how economic development occurred. Yet Mao had no one from the West to back him up. There were no Western comrades saying that Deng's theory should be excluded as exploiter theory favoring the labor aristocracy, because they all bought the linear argument that the West had exploited workers just like the East. Some even believed that Western workers are more exploited than Eastern workers, and parenthetically, that would also be why the West had a greater level of economic development. It was this sort of pride in their own people, a nationalist pride in Amerikans or a racist pride in whites that led again and again to wrong results.

The Three World's Theory was good for China's foreign ministry in most respects. It was the unstated uses of the theory that were bad. Zhou Enlai favored aid to Third World struggles, so we cannot say that Zhou's use of Three World's Theory was all bad and Lin Biao's struggle against Zhou was all good. Zhou represented the interests of the foreign ministry and the Three World's Theory was a good product of such interests.

Lin Biao had military department reasons for supporting Mao. Zhou Enlai had foreign ministry reasons to support Mao. The "Gang of Four" was Mao's domestic politics section advancing the struggle against the bourgeoisie in the party. What Mao did not have was a party to obliterate the PLP line from top to bottom. Yet Mao's own priority on method taught him not to dump the PLP line without another investigation of more thorough quality. That is why he says in passing that he does not mean to deny that there are exploited Western workers, just that they are not at the forefront of struggle like the Third World. Today if a Mao arose, he could go further and point to MIM's investigations of concrete conditions.

The Four knew that Deng represented the bourgeoisie in the party and wanted to make China a super-profit factory for the united $tates. The Four also knew that it wanted Deng purged. Far from appreciating the difficulties, the Western parties exerted pressure on Mao from an incorrect direction. They all ended up criticizing the Three Worlds Theory for class collaborationism, when as a matter of fact that Three Worlds Theory was milder than it could have been. Pressure from Western parties in turn made it harder to unite with the good in the Zhou Enlais and Lin Biaos. Underlying the difficulty was the fact that the Western parties represented exploiters called labor aristocracy, thus their hostility to the Three Worlds Theory, which was far from Trotsky's theory that advanced Western workers would rise up and liberate the whole world before more backward Third World brethren rose up.

The proper order of struggle would have been to toss both Deng Xiaoping and the Western parties at the level of theory and class analysis. Both Deng and the Western parties shared the underlying belief that Western workers are more "productive" than Third World workers, based on a variant of the theory of the productive forces. After purging Deng and the Western parties, then among forces remaining, those should have had a vote on strategic questions. Doing otherwise and allowing strategic tail to wag theoretical dog is pragmatism.

What ended up happening was that Mao succeeded in opening a very hot strategic question, which Deng used to divide the camp of the exploited. Mao got his way in the sense that Soviet revisionism did pass away because of the Chinese opening to the united $tates, but then Deng Xiaoping killed the class struggle with the same underlying Soviet revisionism, but from a different angle. With better theoretical and analytical preparation, Mao could have kept more of the good of Lin (and hence the military) and Zhou Enlai (and hence the foreign ministry).

In the West, we also have pragmatism that leads to dividing the exploited at the strategic level. So many enemies have attacked MIM by starting at the strategic level. They say revolution by the population inside imperialist countries must be possible now in the imperialist countries and they use this delusional sense of the balance of forces to sidestep theory questions and divide the exploited. These pragmatists set the worst example for the Third World leaders who might soon find themselves in a position tempted by the Deng Xiaoping line. The real leaders of this strategic delusion are in the KKK. It again is just pure pride, not a real movement to sum up.

We communists are no longer at that advanced level as we were in 1976. What we can do now is defeat the labor aristocracy line and flesh out the Three Worlds Theory-- develop it further. By developing the Three Worlds Theory further, new strategic questions will appear and we will be able to divide the enemy instead of what happened with Deng Xiaoping dividing the exploited.

We are fortunate that Mao left us the Three Worlds Theory, that Deng supported, because it stil1 works even without the level of advance seen in the Cultural Revolution. We no longer have advanced "Gang of Four" style struggles over the bourgeoisie in the party, but we still have struggles to support the independence of the exploited and oppressed nations.

In our current context, Kim Jong Il is in fact one of the more advanced Third World leaders. He is not on board with "Gang of Four" class struggle, but then again no one is who has state power, so we have to compare Kim Jong Il with what exists. Kim Il Sung had his context, and Kim Jong Il has his. Kim Jong Il's self-reliance is exemplary. We would not say so if we had several socialist states and imperialist country parties about to overthrow their states. We say so only by evaluating the political forces of our time. It is very difficult to say anything against Kim Jong Il when most of the pro-Stalin and pro-Mao organizations in the united $tates dissolved into the Democrats. How can we compare Democrats with Kim Jong Il? Just think about what one is saying about underlying class forces when one does that! Kim Jong Il has to get his due in this ebb period of the international class struggle, especially now that I$rael found it necessary to bomb Syria because of alleged Korean plutonium. If the imperialist criticisms are true, then Kim carried out exactly the kind of Third World unity Mao had in mind with the Three Worlds Theory. If the Syrian bourgeoisie and a Korean bourgeoisie in the party had a hand in getting Syria plutonium, then good, all the worse for the alleged Western workers and their leaders, to look bad compared with some bourgeoisie!

Second World vs. USSR

Because the Western parties never grasped Mao's method of thorough investigation and his prioritization of that within Maoism, and because Western parties never had the self-interest in doing a thorough job on the super-profits question, the debate over the Three World's Theory has been on distracting side points--the strategic questions.

Supposedly Mao invented the whole Three Worlds Theory to defend China against Soviet attack. When we hear such criticisms, we have to understand right away that we are talking with pragmatists, not scientific communists. There is a whole historical and theoretical analysis in Mao's Three World's Theory, but some people skip right to strategic questions, either because they are incapable of method and or theory or because they are other kinds of pragmatists.

What such criticisms leave out is that the united $tates had its Navy and Air Force backing Taiwanese reactionaries and Mao had national self- interest reasons to value Taiwan much more highly than some desolate islands disputed with Russia.

Also left out is that the reality of the Second World at that time was that every member in that category feared the Soviet Union more than the united $tates. Japan, Eastern Europe and Western Europe all feared the Soviet Union more than Uncle $am. They all supported Mao for his strategic choice.

The attack on Mao's motivations pleased Anglo ears, because Anglo-Saxons are used to psychologizing people instead of handling the substance of an argument. So left out is that even if Mao did come to his conclusions for Chinese nationalist motivations, that is not proof that the Three Worlds Theory is not beneficial to the international proletariat. He could have had the wrong motivations and still have been right overall.

Strategic questions are only strategic questions. It is possible to be wrong on them while having good method and analysis. MIM is not going to dispute that Uncle $am oppressed the greater portion of the Third World, but with help from Zhou, Mao defeated the military's line opposing aid to the Third World armed struggles, so Mao only went so far in making the Soviet Union the number one enemy. No one can factually dispute that Mao gave out such aid to the Third World, only that he gave it out too indiscriminately if we listened to the Soviet revisionists of the time, as in the case of Angola.

It was the Trotskyist habit of saying Stalin did everything for bourgeois nationalist reasons. Such an attack always goes over well in the West, because the Western labor aristocracy wants to be counted as equal with the international proletariat, so it can use the exploited to gain a greater share of super-profits through bogus "class struggle." Both Stalin and Mao were threatening to the Western labor aristocracy, because the labor aristocracy wanted all nationalism to be created equal just as all workers were supposedly united including the labor aristocracy with the proletariat.

Thus, the labor aristocracy has its own reasons for opposing the Three Worlds Theory. The Three Worlds Theory clearly follows Lenin in not equating the nationalism of the West with the nationalism of the East.

Double standards and evaluating revolutionary movements

Guarding against racism is part of the scientific method, not an ideological imperative. If we do not prioritize method and then theory ahead of strategy and tactics, we always risk racism and national chauvinism. The reason is that if we stay "down to earth" too much, after we are done with all our "down to earth" activities, surprise, surprise, we find we had a racist pattern seep in. So, that's OK for William James and Anglo-Saxon individualists, but it has never been OK for Marxists, the scientific communists.

In the West, we have many people who believed it wise that the Soviet Union signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler. Yet, the same people attacked Mao for the Three Worlds Theory.

Likewise, in World War II, the Communist Party-USA opposed strikes in the armaments industry. However, many objected to the 1977 pamphlet on the Three Worlds, because it urged Western workers to boost military budgets against the Soviet Union.

As long as comrades opposed both the Non-Aggression pact and Mao, we had no objection qua racism and likewise, Mao had even better reason for writing off Amerikan workers in 1975, than Stalin and the CP-USA had in 1945. It's the people who supported one thing when the USSR and Western parties said it and another thing when Mao said it that we call out as racists.

The strategy that the 1977 Three Worlds document suggested basically implied that Amerikan workers did not have much potential for revolution. Hence, the contribution they could make would be to increase intra-imperialist contradictions via support for military budgets. Left unstated for why there was such a low aim was the underlying economics that PLP never investigated, the same way exploiters generally turn a blind eye to their own exploitation of others.

Obviously MIM has never supported U.$. military budgets, but it's an example of the kind of thinking Mao wanted us to start doing. Maybe we could not make a truly great contribution in 1975, but maybe Amerikan communists could do something that would ease revolution elsewhere.

The Three Worlds Theory was not mostly a statement of imminent revolution for the Western imperialist countries. Its thrust was an emphasis on division strategies. It pitted European and Japanese imperialism against both the USSR and United $tates. It pitted the USSR against the United $tates. Then it even said that no revolution was imminent, so Amerikan so-called workers might as well join in in the division strategy. It was saying that was what we could realistically get out of a labor aristocracy, without calling it that. The danger of such opportunist politeness was that Deng Xiaopings would arise saying that Western living standards arose from hard work, but the danger in setting things straight at the time was that no Western party had said it yet, so it would be Mao imposing the analysis from outside, when Mao himself believed Wang Ming had done that same thing to the Chinese communist movement. So Mao defended his own method by leaving a hole in his writings.

If we use the idealist method where there are Kantian ideals and strategies and then disallowed tactics, then one would suspect there is never a way to justify supporting the U.$. armaments industry or U.$. military budgets. The four step procedure of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is different. It's not "reformism" to pursue division strategies if the most possible is division of enemies success. Unlike the idealists, we have both method and theory. We do not allow idealist racism to creep into our method. Opposing pragmatism is not done best by taking up Kant; although, undoubtedly the struggle against pragmatism will often have Kantian or religious allies. We oppose pragmatism best by prioritizing method and theory over strategy and tactics and teaching people how to do that. Otherwise, when people fail with their lofty goals, they come crashing to the ground in racism and national chauvinism even worse than they ever would have imagined, as Lu Xun pointed out.

In political terms, when a strategy is overlooked because of an implicit overestimation of revolutionary strength, we speak of an ultraleft deviation. So those saying we do not need Mao's Three Worlds Theory, because the Western so- called workers are about to rise up any minute can be guilty of ultra-leftism. In the U.$. case, they will be joined from the right economist side by those wanting to put the priority on health-care for Amerikan so-called workers first. Both ultra-leftists and reformists can unite in Amerikkkan nationalism.

On September 20, 2008, the U.$. "RCP" finally admitted that its now purged internal majority including its newspaper editor of decades was reformist. It was a perfect example of how an ultra-leftist line could cover for a Democratic Party line, how occasional Kantianism is no way to defeat pragmatism.

The crap we hear from some about there being "two revolutionary streams," one in the imperialist West and one in the East is another example of racist strategic level nonsense. There is no historical record of a revolutionary movement in the West comparable to the stream in the oppressed nations since 1945. Learning from practice does not mean learning from what makes a few pseudo-communists in the West happy. Unwillingness to speak the truth for fear of hurting a few Western pseudo-communists' feelings is idealism and inevitably leads to racism and national chauvinism. The Third World comrades have to learn when they are deferring to the West because of a history of violent repression.

Learning from practice means noticing the lack of socialist revolutions in the West since World War II. In the days of Marx and Engels, Western workers were at the barricades and were the world's most advanced force. Saying so today is wrong. One could only talk about two streams of revolution and oppose the Three Worlds Theory from a scientific communist angle by a racist weighing of the evidence. Had there actually been a socialist revolutionary stream in the West and a new democratic revolutionary stream in the East, then it would have been quite correct to speak of two revolutionary streams with different objectives and timings. Since there is no revolutionary stream in the West, continuing to say there is one encourages racism at the highest level, at the methodological level, right in the science production of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. That's an example of how science has to displace ideology, in this case, racist ideology guised as communism.

Today there is one revolutionary stream, all in the oppressed nations. People who say otherwise are the same kind of discriminatory people who will degrade contributions of wimmin and national minorities. This is a far more serious problem than even a racist attitude or lifestyle. Racism allowed in at the methodological level goes to strategic and political questions and is forfeiting the whole ballgame, while individual lifestyle errors and attitudes may not necessarily defeat the whole struggle. Racism at the theoretical and strategic level flows from methodological problems and is absolutely fatal compared with racism at the tactical level. It would be better to deal with people who sometimes call Blacks "niggers," but who acknowledge that the overall imperialist country situation is decadent, than to deal with people who never use the "nigger" word but who spread nonsense about "two revolutionary streams." Such people are infected at the highest level most systematically with racism. In the West, we have racism at the highest reaches of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, because fakes have claimed Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as their own.

Notes:
1. Some instinctively opposed Mao's theory with Palestine in mind. "The maoist trends that oppose the three worlds theory are also not immune from influence. The gross overestimation of the nationality question with respect to the class question, which is peculiar to the armed strugglers in India is a breeding ground for Saidean theories. The only way to fight the influence of Said is to show that the national bourgeoisie of Palestine is going to stop short of socialism; this means showing the limitations of the theories themselves vis a vis revolution. On the question of the role of the industrial proletariat of the advanced industrial countries, Said has very little to say. This can be disastrous for the Palestinian movement. " http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/corresp.htm

2. Albanians saw it as "splittest activity" http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/3-8-104.shtml

TW theory trashed
http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/27cMao3Worlds.html

"Black Bolshevik Harry Haywood targeted as the fundamental cause of the movement's demise. Haywood wrote: "While many problems contributed to the crisis of the new communist movement, the underlying cause of its collapse was the incorrect strategic line of the Three Worlds Theory which our part of the party building movement uncritically adopted from the Chinese." http://freedomroad.org/content/view/233/64/lang,en/

"There was a logic inherent in the Three Worlds theory which pushed it in the direction of class collaboration and an underestimation of U.S. imperialism.... the belief that capitalism has been restored in the Soviet Union essentially comes from an idealistic concept of socialism..." (Guardian, April 11, 1984)" [The Guardian was for assorted Marxist-Leninists and radicals not yet together in one U.$. party.]

"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 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. http://www.csrp.org/rim/rimdec.htm