IMLR: Comrade Clark, you have argued that Trotskyism, far from being the heir to Leninism, is a form of pseudo-leftism. Would you elaborate on this point?

TC: Yes. By pseudo-leftism, I mean that Trotskyism formulates policies independently of the given concrete circumstances. On the surface, these policies appear very ‘left’ and ‘revolutionary’, but there is nothing to support them in actuality, so that if such policies are carried out, they end up serving the needs of counterrevolution. It is not fair to make this assertion without giving some clear examples, examples that show how Trotskyist policies have served the counterrevolution. So, let me list some examples to illustrate the point I am making:

1. Trotsky’s ‘Permanent revolution’ theory implies a transition from the democratic to the socialist revolution without taking into consideration the actual circumstances which made this possible, circumstances which could not have been known in the concrete beforehand. This is why Lenin regarded the theory as leftist, even if we disregard the other weak aspects of the theory such as failure to understand the significance of the role of the peasantry in the Russian revolution. Trotskyists deny this now, but it is a fact that Trotsky, and this is on record, even went so far as saying that the proletariat was the only revolutionary class, which completely ignores the role of the peasantry in the bourgeois revolution, and the role of the poor peasants in the transition to the socialist stage of the revolution.
2. Brest Litovsk. Here Trotsky’s policy of neither war or peace endangered the revolution, allowing the German army to increase their hold on Soviet territory, and strengthened and encouraged the counterrevolution in their preparation for civil war against the working class and peasantry. It is probable that the conservative forces would have been in a much weaker position to fight a civil war if the leftists, which included Bukharin at the time, had not fought Lenin on the question of concluding an immediate peace.
3. The Trade Union debates of 1920-21. Here Trotsky’s bureaucratic command method, if pursued, would have alienated the working class no end, bringing about a split between the working class and the communists. Indeed, Lenin took the view the Trotsky’s political line threatened the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin did not rule out coercion, but saw that in the relationship between coercion and persuasion, the latter, in the transition to peaceful construction, should be given precedence. Trotsky failed to take into account the new political conditions following the end of the civil war.
4. Industrialisation and collectivisation. Stalin was not opposed to this but disagreed with the timing. Trotsky wanted to pursue these policies when the hold of the communist in the countryside, in a vast country was virtually non-existent. Trotsky failed to take this into account. In addition, he failed to understand the need to bring out a sufficient class polarisation between the rich and the poor peasants, and the need to neutralise the middle peasants.

I think this is enough to prove the point of the pseudo-left nature of Trotskyism.

IMLR: Trotskyists argue that their theories predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union and that this has been vindicated by recent historical experience. Do you consider that this, at least, is a question where Trotskyist analysis has proved correct?

TC: Lenin predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union if the revolution failed to spread. For Lenin socialism in one country was part of the world revolutionary process, not opposed to it. It was precisely because the revolution did spread that the Soviet Union lasted for so long, which in fact confounded Trotskyist expectations and led to splits in the Trotskyist movement, such as it was.

IMLR: The Trotskyist analysis of the Soviet Union, after Lenin’s death, asserts that a Soviet bureaucracy took power in the Soviet Union. Indeed, Trotsky himself argued that the implementation of ‘socialism in one country’ reflected the narrow interests of a Soviet bureaucracy, which had become conservative. Do you reject this thesis, or should it be accepted as an accurate view of the Soviet Union after Lenin?

TC: When we examine the situation concretely we see that there was a constant struggle between the bureaucracy and the working class as represented by its most class conscious elements in the party. So one cannot accurately say that the bureaucracy took power, certainly not in the period of Stalin’s tenure. All the facts point against this Trotskyist thesis. This was a very complicated situation for Marxist-Leninists, who had to use the bureaucracy and fight against it at the same time. Too much privilege was allowed the bureaucracy, to keep it on the side of socialism, but it certainly did not have political power in the Stalin period. As far as the counterrevolution is concerned, Trotskyists say this was led by the bureaucracy. However, bureaucracy does not lead, it is a follower, even if at times a reluctant one. Where the counterrevolution is concerned, Marxist-Leninists speak of leadership of the ‘revisionists’ not the bureaucracy as such. To say that the bureaucracy led the counterrevolution is to conceal the role of the revisionists, to let them of the hook, so to speak, and this leads to supporting the revisionists as many Trotskyists did. The Trotskyists have always joined with the revisionists in attacking Stalin.

IMLR: Along with other Marxist-Leninists, you have a negative view of the role of Trotsky. Do you consider that he made a contribution to a Marxist understanding of the problem of bureaucracy under socialism?

TC: From its earliest days the Russian revolution was beset with the problems of bureaucracy. Indeed, the very first shots against bureaucracy, fired by Lenin, were aimed at Trotsky himself. Volume 32 of Lenin’s Collected Works proves this quite clearly. This was where Trotsky’s ‘militarisation of labour’ policy was leading. The policy of the Marxist-Leninists was that the struggle against bureaucracy should be based on a long-term perspective. Trotsky thought otherwise. Eventually he called for a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy, obviously seeing this as the quickest rout back to power. Did not Lenin warn against those who wanted to promote an anti-Bureaucratic platform? Lenin said and permit me a quote: ‘It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words’. (See Lenin: Collected Works Volume 32; pp.56-57)

Here the Trotskyists will usually point out that Lenin was only speaking of bureaucratic practices, whereas Trotsky was referring to a caste of officials developing in contradiction to the interests of the working class. Marxist-Leninists however, do not deny the possibility of a contradiction developing between the working class and bureaucracy; the question is whether such a contradiction should be treated as antagonistic or non-antagonistic. It is this which determines, in a particular concrete situation, how to approach the question of combating bureaucracy. Therefore, to answer your question I do not think we can find in Trotskyism a Marxist understanding to the problem of bureaucracy under socialism. The solution that Trotsky offers is of a pseudo-left nature, entirely in keeping with Trotskyism.

IMLR: In your article, you raise the question that Trotsky was wrong about the origins of the theory of ‘socialism in one country’. Are you suggesting that this was a conscious falsification on Trotsky’s part?

TC: Yes. Because Trotsky was a very well read individual. He must have known that Lenin was the first to put forward this theory on the basis of his study of the new stage of capitalism, i.e., imperialism.

Indeed, we find Trotsky taking up Lenin’s position in 1915 well before the 1917 revolution. It is really dishonest and opportunist to ascribe the theory to Stalin out of factional considerations. As far as the theoretical history of communism goes Trotsky has won himself first place in the falsification of Leninism, and this is incontrovertible.

IMLR: In the same article you explain that Lenin developed the theory concerning the possibility of socialism in several, or even in one capitalist country alone, in opposition to the opportunists and Social Chauvinists of the Second International. Many people have been unaware of Lenin’s work on this matter. How do you account for this?

TC: Well, in my view, unless you have studied the theoretical history of Bolshevism very closely, it is not possible to be aware of everything. In addition, a person’s previous ideological mind-set can act as an obstacle to understanding what he is in fact studying. It is here that different levels of political and theoretical consciousness comes into play. These different levels of consciousness determine what you know and consequently who or what school of thought you are likely to support.

IMLR: In the Trotskyist view, the Soviet policy of peaceful co-existence was an opportunist policy, the outcome of the theory of socialism in one country. How do you, as a Marxist-Leninist, respond to this argument?

TC: Somewhere I read that Trotsky was one of the first to support this policy, although I cannot remember where. I remember thinking this was at least one point in Trotsky’s favour. I know it was early on in the revolution. J. N. Westwood in his work ‘Endurance and Endeavour-Russian History 1812-1986; The Short Oxford History of the Modern World Series; p. 410, speaks of ‘Lenin’s term peaceful coexistence…’ But the other work I read suggested that Trotsky was, or may have been the first to coin the term. Anyway, the point is that Trotskyists later designated this policy as a ‘Stalinist’ policy, ignorant of its origins with either Lenin or Trotsky. I am speaking here of the actual term ‘peaceful co-existence’ because the communists pursued a policy of peace from the time of the revolution. It was the slogan of peace, bread, and land, which mobilised the masses to overthrow the imperialist provisional government. So the Trotskyist argument that peaceful co-existence was the logical policy of a Soviet bureaucracy is absolute nonsense. Later, when the struggle against revisionism in the international communist movement began, those in the anti-revisionist camp exposed the Khrushchevite distortion of peaceful co-existence in the direction of right-opportunism, while some pseudo-left elements in the fight against Soviet revisionism soon began to reject it out of hand, failing to distinguish Leninist peaceful co-existence from revisionist co-existence. This means that in fighting against right-opportunism, the pseudo-left elements must be constantly combated. If the latter are not exposed this leads to the strengthening of right-opportunism and the victory of revisionism, as happened in the Soviet Union.

IMLR: In your article, you say that Trotsky’s political line was the line of the bourgeoisie and the Mensheviks. But Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks and this would suggest a complete rejection of Menshevism. How did his political line serve the interests of the counterrevolution?

TC: The struggle for socialism is like a war. If you are in a war, the last thing you want is people spreading defeatism in your camp. If the war is on the side of progress, arresting such elements is entirely legitimate. In a struggle you must have clear aims. In the case of the Russian revolution, the aim was socialism. After the failure of the revolution to spread in the more advanced countries, or more correctly, after such revolutions were defeated, the only thing left to do was to defend the revolution in the Soviet union and support the policy of building socialism as part of the world revolutionary process. The bourgeoisie and their Menshevik stooges preached that socialism was not possible in one country. This found a leftist echo in the Trotskyist movement. Separating the building of socialism from the world revolutionary process and claiming it was not possible in one country in the concrete conditions of the Soviet Union, a view which finds no support in Lenin’s writings, means ending up in the camp of the bourgeoisie and the Mensheviks. This is why Marxist-Leninists argue that the position of Trotskyism served the interests of the bourgeois counterrevolution. Under a leftist guise, Trotskyism became a fifth column in the communist movement for spreading demoralisation in the ranks of the communists and working class that socialism was impossible in one country. These arguments, without a doubt, served, in the most direct manner, the interests of the bourgeois counterrevolution.

IMLR: There are those who argue that Trotsky was among the first to argue for the industrialisation of the Soviet Union, which was a necessary condition for socialism. This, they would argue, is at odds with the view that Trotskyism played a counter-revolutionary role.

TC: The need to industrialise the Soviet Union is not the issue here. Everyone was agreed on this point, even the bourgeoisie. The issue was what was such industrialisation for. For socialism or for capitalism; for the working people or the capitalists. If it was for the former, the working people, this would only make sense if it led to socialism. By making sense, I mean the legitimisation of communist government. You could not say to the working people, 'we must industrialise, but it will not lead to socialism'. Only the perspective of socialism could mobilise the masses. If you say to the working people 'your efforts will not lead to socialism', you have lost. The only thing left to do is to turn power over to the bourgeoisie and the Mensheviks. Those who went about telling the working class that socialism wasn’t possible in the Soviet Union were, in fact, objectively making a call for counterrevolution, they were strengthening the confidence of the counterrevolution while weakening the confidence of the working class and its allies. The Mensheviks represented the 'right' face of this activity, while the Trotskyists represented its ‘left’ face. Both, from different directions, led to counterrevolution. Both were spreading defeatism, which served the interests of the bourgeoisie.

IMLR: In what you write, your view of Stalin’s contribution seems universally a positive one, yet some left writers criticise Stalin. For example, some have been critical of his role in the Second World War. Do you consider that Stalin never made a mistake?

TC: Stalin would not be human if he made no mistakes. Arguably one mistake was to allow the Trotskyists to stay in the Soviet Communist Party for so long to spread the poison about the impossibility of socialism in the Soviet Union, which in the view of Marxist-Leninists could only serve the purpose of the bourgeois counterrevolution. It is possible to be very critical of Stalin here because the building of socialism, the revolution, is a kind of struggle in which defeatists represent the kiss of death. However, you are referring to Stalin’s role in the Second World War. In every war, mistakes are made, so I cannot take those arguments seriously about Stalin’s mistakes. One favourite Trotskyist and revisionist argument is to criticise Stalin for not knowing the exact time, day and hour of the Nazi attack against the Soviet Union in operation ‘Barbarossa’. But how do you expect any Marxist-Leninists to take such arguments seriously? They point out that Stalin was constantly warned by Churchill and his own intelligence services and so on. It is easy for us to know with hindsight what was happening, but who was Stalin to believe, Churchill, a long-time enemy of the Soviet Union, or the intelligence services riddled with double agents. Sorting out disinformation from information is not an easy task in this situation, especially when even loyal people can be fed disinformation by the enemy.

Marxist-Leninists do not start by asking whether Stalin, or for that matter Trotsky, made mistakes. It is not humanly possible never to make mistakes. For Marxist-Leninists, the question to ask is whether the general line of a particular leadership is correct, or not. It is on the basis of the general line that we can examine all the other partial questions. We start with the general first, not the partial questions.

IMLR: There are writers who regularly refer to ‘Stalinist’ revisionism. Do you consider that there were deviations from socialism under Stalin?

TC: I would refer back to the question of the ‘general line’. The struggle for socialism does not take place in a vacuum. So even if you put forward a correct general line, a deviation from a correct general line is always possible. There were certainly deviations from the correct general line under Stalin, and Stalin himself mentions several of them. This leads to a struggle by Marxist-Leninists against either a right-deviation, or a left deviation, perhaps both. But the argument that Stalin made departures from Marxism-Leninism, which would warrant the claim of ‘revisionism’, is totally unfounded. Those who refer to ‘revisionism’ when speaking of Stalin should substantiate their claims on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, or frankly speaking, shut up.

IMLR: Stalin is often criticised for his role in the Comintern. For instance his role in the following cases: the British 1926 General Strike; the defeat of the Chinese revolution in 1927; the victory of fascism in Germany in 1933, and also the defeat of the Spanish Republic in the 1936-1939 civil war. Do you consider the Trotskyist critique, in each of these cases, to possess any validity?

TC: I can only reply to these questions, in an interview, at a general level because replying to each of them in detail would require a number of essays. Before I answer the first question let me make it clear that revolutions in various countries of the world could not be led by a leadership in Moscow. In fact, all an international leadership is able to do is give general guidelines, and this in consultation with the national leaderships. I am not a believer in an international leadership leading the concrete struggle for power in individual countries. To repeat, the international leadership represents general guidelines while the national leadership represents the concrete application of Marxism-Leninism in each particular case. Can anyone imagine a leadership in, say, London, directing in concrete detail the struggle for power in Russia in 1917? Yet it is quite common in pseudo-left Trotskyist circles to blame Stalin for defeats of revolution in far away places like Britain, China, Germany and Spain. In general terms let us examine each of these cases in turn.

Britain: in the case of the 1926 general strike, the Comintern’s position of a united-front with the reformist trade unions was a correct position. If we look for a mistake in this situation, it certainly cannot be found on the ground of the Comintern’s general line. We should rather look for it in the concrete application of this general line by the CPGB. The leadership in Britain advanced the slogan of ‘All Power to the General Council’. However, the General Council betrayed the strike, and would have done so even if the Communists in Britain had a different position. The trade union leadership is correctly denounced for betraying the strike and criticism should be levelled at the CP’s slogan, but it doesn’t follow that the united-front between the communists and the reformist trade unions was wrong. Does not Marxism-Leninism teach that the Communists must make alliances even with vacillating, unreliable and transitory partners, while not losing sight of their unreliable nature?

China: the defeat of the Chinese revolution in 1927 was a greater Tragedy. As was the case in Britain, we are dealing here with what was essentially an inexperienced communist party. Again, the general line of the Comintern was correct. This line stood for a united-front with the national bourgeoisie in the period of the anti-imperialist and national revolution. The Trotskyists ignore the anti-imperialist character of the Chinese revolution, seeking to impose their theory of ‘permanent revolution’ on Chinese events. There is no way that the small Chinese working class, in this period, could have simultaneously defeated the following: the various western imperialists, the Japanese imperialists, the Chinese Warlords, the Kulak elements of the peasantry, the comprador bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. Defeating all these would have been necessary if anyone was foolish enough to pursue Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution.

The form of the anti-imperialist united-front between the communists and the national bourgeoisie was determined by Chinese conditions. Chiang Kai-Shek’s coup and turn against the Communists would have occurred regardless of whether the Communists had left the Kuomintang or not. This was a case of forming an alliance with an unreliable partner, a partner that is liable to betray the revolution at a certain stage. So the 1927 defeat in China stems, in my opinion, from the inexperience Chinese leadership at the time.

To blame Stalin for this defeat reflects an inability to think concretely about concrete events. Trotskyist pseudo-leftists conceal very well, by the way, that Trotsky had not opposed the entry of the Communists into the Kuomintang to begin with.

Germany: the case of the victory of fascism in Germany is quite controversial. The defeat of the working class in Germany resulted mainly from the treachery of Social Democracy. It is clear that the defeat of fascism in Germany would have opened the road to the German revolution. Now, it was not the theory of social-fascism, which divided the German working class. Marxism-Leninism teaches that the working class is already divided. The split in the working class is a central tenet of Leninism. On the other hand, the theory of social-fascism served to impede the development of a united-front between communism and social democracy. Nevertheless, the Communists had called for a united-front from below, arguably a more realistic policy than promoting a united-front between the Communists and the right-wing leaders of German Social Democracy. Having said this, there is no denying the fact that the theory of social-fascism contributed to the defeat of the German working class movement. Who was responsible for this theory? If Stalin was the author of this theory we would expect to find reference to it in his collected works, but we do not. Even if such references had been ‘edited out’ the revisionists would have surely dug them up from somewhere and used it against Stalin.

This absence of evidence that Stalin was responsible for this theory seems to confirm the view that Stalin had from the late twenties been removed from Comintern work, or at least had been effectively marginalised. This view is difficult to grasp for people who accept the views of bourgeois historiography that Stalin was an omnipotent dictator who controlled everything that went on in the Soviet Union and the Comintern. So, although the Comintern must share some of the blame for the defeat in Germany, by this time Stalin had been marginalised and cannot be made to bear responsibility for the triumph of German fascism.

Spain: pseudo-left circles also blame the defeat of the Spanish Republic on Stalin, but this again is quite ridiculous. The Republican side was defeated, in the final analysis, by superior discipline and unity in the nationalist camp and the aid given to the latter by the German and Italian fascists. No serious, unbiased account of the Spanish civil war repudiates this view. The position of the Spanish Communist Party was that the most important issue was to win the civil war. This was undoubtedly the correct position in my view, bearing in mind the national and international situation. The Trotskyists were calling for social revolution first. This would have meant not only German and Italian fascists aiding the nationalist camp, but the latter being aided directly by British, French and U.S. imperialism directly. Such aid would have far outweighed the aid given to Spanish democracy by the Soviet Union.

Here I would like to point out that in my view, the general line of the Comintern was correct. This line was for a popular, or people’s front against fascism, a line which pseudo-left theorists continually condemn. This condemnation is not only because this general line in some cases was concretely applied in an opportunist way, but also because the pseudo-lefts fail to understand that the class struggle is made up of defensive and offensive battles as in regular warfare. Pseudo-leftism opposes cross-class alliances. In China, they reject the alliance between the Communists and the national bourgeoisie in the anti-imperialist revolution, and in Spain, they reject the popular front to defend Spanish democracy. The struggle against fascism is a defensive struggle, which calls for the broadest alliance, an alliance between the working class and the middle strata. The transformation of a defensive into an offensive struggle for power and socialism may lead to desertion by sections of the middle strata, but under conditions more favourable for the working class.

IMLR: Stalin was also heavily castigated by the Trotskyists for suggesting that fascism and Social democracy are ‘twins’, a theory which, Trotskyists charge, led to the theory of social fascism, which in turn facilitated the defeat of the German workers movement. What is the Marxist-Leninist response to this criticism?

TC: By saying that fascism and Social Democracy are twins, Stalin meant that both are opposed to communism; both are opposed to the socialist revolution. Can anyone seriously deny this? Of course not. As far as opposing communism goes, Social Democracy and fascism are indeed twins in this respect. But people should remember that Stalin never said they were ‘identical’ twins. In fact, they are non-identical twins opposing the proletarian revolution. By suggesting that fascism and Social Democracy are twins when it comes to opposing the revolution is not to imply that Communists should refuse united action with Social Democracy to defend basic democratic rights from fascism.

IMLR: The Trotskyists have nothing positive to say about Stalin’s leadership. They argue, for instance, that the Moscow trials were frame-ups designed to get rid of Stalin’s enemies, or any alternative leadership centre. These views are widely held by many on the left. What is your view on this?

TC: Karl Marx wrote that the ruling ideas of any epoch are those of the dominant, ruling class. The ideological and academic representatives of the bourgeoisie claim that the Moscow trials were frame-ups, so naturally these ideas become the dominant, ruling ideas, uncritically accepted by most people, including the left. The Moscow trials were part of the struggle to expose and break up the Soviet fifth column. I take the view of those legal professionals who were in attendance and who accepted the authenticity of the trials. A good example is Joseph. E. Davies, the US Ambassador to Moscow and a former Corporation lawyer. With years of legal experience behind him, he accepted the validity of the trials. Davies went on to say of Vyshinsky: ‘He conducted the treason trial in a manner that won my respect as a lawyer’. This US Ambassador wrote in a confidential dispatch to the then Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, that: ‘I talked to many, if not all, of the members of the diplomatic corps here and, with possibly one exception, they are all of the opinion that the proceedings established clearly the existence of a political plot and conspiracy to overthrow the government’. These views were, however, hidden from the public. In March 1937, Davies wrote in his Moscow diary that

‘Another diplomat, Minister…. made a most illuminating statement to me yesterday. In discussing the trial, he said that the defendants were undoubtedly guilty; that all of us who attended the trial had practically agreed upon that; that the outside world, from the press reports, however, seemed to think that the trial was a put-up job (façade as he called it); that while he knew it was not, it was probably just as well that the outside world should think so’.

This, then, was the considered opinion of the representatives of imperialism in Moscow. The trials were genuine, but the western press seemed to think they were frame-ups, and in the interest of imperialism, no attempt should be made to disabuse them of this opinion. In other words, the frame-up theory served the interest of imperialism and the counterrevolution. I find it unacceptable that legal experts and diplomatic representatives who attended these trials could have been so easily deceived. It is clear, therefore, that the frame-up theory served the interest of anti-communism. Anti-communists argue that the Moscow trials were frame-ups and are able to convince people who are not aware of what was the political situation, the political dimension of these trials. The oppositionists, or certain of their leaders, were charged with treason, that is plotting to overthrow the government, and having secret negotiations with foreign intelligence services. The politics of the Moscow trial were quite simply that the oppositionists were convinced that under the leadership of Stalin the Soviet Union would be led to defeat. It was, for instance, an article of faith for Trotsky that in any clash with German fascism the Soviet Union would fall. Neither Trotsky, nor for that matter anyone in the West, believed that the Soviet Union could survive a war with German fascism. Now, if you are convinced that the Soviet Union will lose the war with Germany, there is nothing strange in trying to come to some deal with the future victors. In addition, we are not speaking only about Germany in the West but also another highly industrialised fascistic power, Japan in the East, with the Soviet Union in the middle. You don’t have to be too imaginative to be able to see how opposition leaders would secretly conduct negotiations through third parties, behind the backs of their followers, if they were convinced, as indeed they were, that Stalin would lose the war. The view that the Moscow trials were frame-ups is the view of anti-communism, the view, in other words, of those who are the conscious or unconscious agents of imperialism.

IMLR: For the Trotskyists and for the bourgeois intelligentsia, Stalin can be criticised because his leadership, it is suggested, was too harsh and repressive. Stalin’s ‘left’ opponents or critics argue that, because of ‘Stalinism’, socialism lost its appeal, and they accuse Stalin of bringing opprobrium upon socialism. How do you reply to this accusation?

TC: Revolutions, Engels once wrote, are the most authoritarian of acts. One class imposes its will upon another class. The question is not whether Stalin was harsh or repressive in the abstract. The real question is a class question. Who was this harshness and repression directed against? Between 1924 until 1927, Stalin debated with the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition. It was only when Trotsky broke rank and led anti-government demonstrations on the anniversary of the revolution in 1927 that action was set in motion to expel him from the Communist Party. This hardly seems like harshness and repression to me. The Trotskyists are in no position to accuse Stalin of harshness or repression; compared to them Stalin was a softy, because if you are a member of a Trotskyist organisation and you disagree with their sectarian leaders you are isolated and kicked out without mercy.

IMLR: Do you consider that Lenin’s theory of the world revolutionary process, as upheld by J.V. Stalin, is relevant to the contemporary world?

TC: For me to answer yes or no in this situation would turn me into a pseudo-leftist. But in this case both answers would have little practical significance. We should always support the building of socialism in several or one country as part of the world revolutionary process wherever the revolution comes to power. However, I would regard it as unlikely that revolution will come to power in any country today and then be isolated for decades. The next period of revolution will probably affect all countries.

IMLR: This leads me to my last question. Do we see world revolution approaching, the world approaching new revolutionary upheavals, and if so how do you think Marxist-Leninists, all those who favour change should prepare for it?

TC: Revolution is certainly approaching. I am not saying this because I want to end on an up-beat note. Revolution is approaching. Capitalism faces unprecedented crisis. Francis Fukuyama, who said that history was over and that the highest stage attainable for society was liberal capitalism has been cruelly mocked by history itself. He tried to save his position by saying it was not socialism which is challenging the ‘West’ but reactionary Islam. This view is just as superficial as his first view, and no doubt will bite the dust as well. A handful of terrorists cannot bring an end to capitalist and imperialist exploitation. Only the masses, the working class in an alliance with a section of the middle strata can bring about a successful revolution. Marxism, in the next few years, will get its greatest validation as a science that explains how history works. Marxist-Leninists must unite in a single party, with a plain programme for the working class, a programme that makes it clear that social ownership must replace private exploitation, which is destroying untold millions of lives and our planet besides. There are those who are either too blind, or too greedy and selfish to see this; some of them are already in the camp of the counterrevolution.

IMLR: Thank you, Comrade.