[PRWC Party Documents] Pomeroy's Portrait: Revisionist Renegade, April 22, 1972

Pomeroy's Portrait: Revisionist Renegade

Counter-guerrila views

IV. On "Peaceful Coexistence" And Accommodation With U.S. Imperialism

Basahin sa Pilipino

Amado Guerrero

April 22, 1972

Revolutionary School of Mao Tse Tung Thought, Communist Party of the Philippines

After distorting and opposing the revolutionary statement of the great communist leaders, Pomeroy makes a quotation from Khrushchov calculated to make this revisionist buffoon look like a glandiloquent advocate of revolutionary armed struggle among the oppressed peoples. But Pomeroy echoes from him all the lies about "peaceful coexistence" being the general line of the world revolution.

It was during the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1961 that the general line of "peaceful coexistence" was formally systemartized by the Khrushchov revisinist in violation of Marxism-Leninism. The main content of this erroneous line was "peaceful coexistence", "peaceful competition" and "peaceful transition". In addition, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the party of the proletariat were misrepresented in bourgeois populist terms as the "state of the whole people" and the "party of the whole people", respectively. The erroneous general line of "peaceful coexistence" was drawn to oppose proletarian internationalism as the most fundamental principles in the external relations of socialist countries and Marxist-Leninist parties. It was drawn to distort the Leninist polivy of peaceful coexistence in the relations between socialist countries and other countries with different social systems.

The People's Republic of China has consistently placed the policy of peaceful coexistence in its correct Leninist context. It is one of the three aspects of a proletarian foreign policy and ranks third after such aspects as the development of relations if friendship, mutual assistance and cooperation with socialist countries on the principle of proletarian internationalism and support and assistance for the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed people and nations. The policy of peaceful coexistence is as good as it serves to strenghten the socialist countries and the revolutionary movements in various countries. It has also been put by China on the basis of the Five Principles of a) mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, b) mutual non-aggression, c) mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs, d) equality and mutual benefit, and e)peaceful coexistence.

According to Pomeroy, the concept of "peaceful coexistence" is based on the "realities" of the world in transition from capitalism to socialism. There are four "realities" which he keeps harping on in his entire book.

First, the people of the world have been confronted by imperialism "with the imminence of history's most terrible form of violence, nuclear war". In this regard, Pomeroy pictures the Soviet revisionists as the savior of the world for having nuclear power. They are made to appear as having brought U.S. imperialism to the "realization that it cannot expand a suppressive war without risking a total war of nuclear annihilation". Thus, the Soviet Union and the United States, because they are both nuclear superpowers, are supposed to be able to decide between themselves alone the fate of mankind of the destiny of every people, nation and country. We have explained before that it is not weapons that decide history but people aroused and mobilized under correct revolutionary theoretical and practical guidance. U.S. imperialism and Soviet modern revisionism have consistently tried to monopolize nuclear weapons so as to blackmail the people and advance their respective imperialist interests.

Second, "the aggressive nature of U.S. imperialism is changing". In support of this revisionist contention. Pomeroy claims that U.S. imperialism has a "peace-loving wing" (which he sometimes calls "realistic") and a "war mongering wing" (which he sometimes calls "aggressive") among its policy-makers. He claims that the Khrushchovite line of "peaceful coexistence" is favored by a definite section of the bourgeoisie of the developed countries, which takes a sober view of the relationship of forces and of the dire consequences of modern war". Our view is that the general line of "peaceful coexistence" serves U.S. imperialist aggression and puts hope on the big bourgeoisie in the United States rather than on the American people.

Third, "almost all newly independent countries" (like India, Ghana, etc.) are taking a "policy of non-alignment" endorsing the idea of "peaceful coexistence and giving "full attention to peaceful economic and social development". In this regard, the Soviet Union is supposed to have opened for these countries "the paths to non-capitalist development in peace". Our view is that these paths have been specially suited for the oppression and exploitation of the people by U.S. imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism and the local reactionaries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Fourth, the "peace movement" in voriuos countries is making U.S. imperialism "less aggressive". In this regard, Pomeroy shows what kind of "peace movement" he has in mind. According to him, it is one which endorses Johnson's slogan, "war on poverty"; which begs for "civil rights" instead of exposing and opposing the imperialist state; and which considers the "test ban" treaty (a flimsy camoufage for strategic nuclear stockpiles) a part of the campaign for peace and disarmament as much as the demand for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. Our view is that the militant masses of workers, peasants, youth and intellectuals now engaged in various forms of anti- imperialist protest can certainly laugh at the shallowness of the revisionist Pomeroy.

Concerning Khrushchov's policy on Cuba in late 1962, Pomeroy writes: The stand of the Soviet Union in this instance, placing itself resolutely on the side of Cuba with its missile strength, halted the mounting campaign of imperialist intervention on Cuba and contributed greatly to impressing upon American imperialism the permanence of the Cuban revolution.

It is convenient for Pomeroy to forget that it was the revolutionary unity and courage of the Cuban people that isolated and destroyed the U.S. invasionary force at Playa Giron and that served notice to U.S. imperialism that any other invasion would meet the same fate. It is also convenient for Pomeroy to forget that Khrushchov was adventurist in putting up nuclear missiles in Cuba and was capitulationist in withdrawing these as soon as the U.S. imperialist chieftain Kennedy made counter-threats against the Soviet Union. The revisionist buffoon capitulated to U.S. imperialism to the extent of agreeing to the latter's demand for "inspection" of Cuban territory in contravention of the sovereignty of the Cuban people. In the final analysis, it was the revolutionary unity of the Cuban people that stopped U.S. imperialism from the gravest acts of aggression.

In commenting upon the level of U.S. military intervention in South Vietnam in 1964, Pomeroy would rather imagine that his "forces of peace" are compelling or persuading U.S. imperialism to retreat than present the actual balance of forces and the victories of the revolutionary forces over a series of counter-insurgency plans of U.S. imperialism. Also, he would rather engage in word-play on that he imagines as the "aggressive sectors" and "peaceful sectors" of U.S. imperialism than analyze Johnson's scheme of aggression and the basic character of U.S. imperialism. Pomeroy dishonestly tries to spread the belief that "the imperialists are forced more and more toward abandonment of preparation for a major war". Now that the Vietnam war has expanded into the Indochinese war, we can definitely laugh with derision at Pomeroy's convoluted analysis below:

... the expressed desire of the more rabid wing of American imperialism, of winning in South Vietnam by spreading the war to all the liberated countries of Asia, is a realization of the tremendous encouragement given the people of the South Vietnam by the vicories of the socialist countries and the national liberation movement elsewhere. At the same time, the enability of American imperialism to carry out such a scheme is evidence of the strength of the forces of peace that make imperialism hesitate to embark on such aggression.

It is best to be guided by Chairman Mao's teaching: "With regard to the question or war, there are but two possibilities: One is that war will give rise to revolution and the other is that a revolution will prevent war." In his solemn May 20th Statement, Chairman Mao declares: "The danger of a new world war still exists and the people of all countries must get prepared. But revolution is the main trend in the world today."

Lenin also pointed out long ago that imperialism means war "... imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic system as long as as private property in the means of production exists." Lenin further pointed out: "Imperialist war is the eve of a socialist revolution." These scientific theses are by no means out of date. It is utterly counter-revolutionary for Pomeroy to insist that the transition from capitalism to socialism is peaceful.

Pomeroy's Guerrilla and Counter-Guerrilla Warfare is a pack of revisionist lies all leading to the counter-revolutionary idea that the revolutionary forces should seek unprincipled accommodation with U.S. imperialism. This idea is most clearly expressed in the book's final paragraph:

An adjustment by United States imperialism to the realities that confront it in all parts of a world that is undergoing the drastic changes that accompany the transition from capitalism to socialism would increase the possibility fof that transition to be accomplished in a relatively peaceful manner. The struggle between colonialists and anti-colonialists, between the imperialists and anti-imperialists between imperialism and the forces of socialism would continue bitterly on all fronts, but the likelihood would be greater that it would involve other forms of struggle, less costly and more peaceful, than the guerrilla warfare that has featured the contemporary period.

The title of Pomeroy's book should have been "The Counter-Guerrilla Views of a "Revisionist Renegade". Pomeroy is against guerrilla warfare and is for "other forms of struggle less costly and more peaceful".

Pomeroy believes that U.S. imperialism can be persuaded to act against its own nature and interests on tha basis of "realities". He claims that in the past 20 years (since 1944) history ha provided imperialism with "all necessary lessons in regard to colonial liberation movements" to become peaceful. He cites France and Britain as having been "compelled to swallow these bitter truths and in number of instances have abandoned attempts to suppress liberation movements when the cost has become too great and when more extensive losses were threatened".

So, Pomeroy wishes U.S. imperialism to take the path of France and Britain. But he confuses his wishes for the nature of things. As it in the nature of U.S. imperialism to race with France and Britain towards becoming peaceful? And is to be accepted now that the two latter imperialist countries have lost their own violent nature? Peoples directly oppressed by these countries would certainly protest Pomeroy's presumptions. With regard to U.S. imperlialism, it is clearly common knowledge that it has stepped into the shoes of Hitlerite Germany and fascist Japan since the end of the World War II. For Pomeroy to insist that the agrressive nature of the U.S. imperialism has changed or that it is no longer the No. 1 enemy of the people of the world and the main pillar of the world capitalism and world reaction is to attack everthing positive in the 1957 Moscow Declaration and the 1960 Moscow Statement (two documents from which he quotes only to embellish a few pages of his book).

It is idle for Pomeroy to contrapose the "neo-colonial technique of dollar diplomacy" and the aggressive policy of gunboat diplomacy" only to drive in the silly point the U.S. imperialism has a "peaceful nature". It is also idle for him to prate about the development of a marked differentiation of the policy within the upper political circles of American leadership" only to cover up the essential nature of U.S. imperialism. The Fulbrights, Mansfields and "the growing number of imperialists for whom they speak" do not make aggressive U.S. imperialism any less aggressive. In employing different tactics, the imperialists and reactionaries always proceed from their counter-revolutionary nature and needs. Revolutionaries should see through the counter-revolutionary dual tactics of the enemy, counteract them tit for tat and make use of contradictions in his ranks to advance fundamental revolutionary interests. Working out an accommodation with U.S. imperialism under the revisionist terms proposed by Pomeroy can only lead to bargaining away of principles.

It is utterly wrong and treacherous for Pomeroy to insist on the following:

Whatever the orientation of the "realistic" sectors among the imperialists, any shift from armed suppression and intervention to negotiation and accommodation with liberation forces can only be viewed as defeat for aggressive imperialism and its attempts to reverse revolutionary changes in the world by means of force. It would mean that, in the effort to save themselves from a complete debacle, the imperialists would be compelled to adopt certain of the positions advocated the by the present-day peace movement, a tendency that would strengthen the movement for peace and democracy in the United States and would give a major setback to the ultra-reactionary war-making wing of imperialism.

The modern revisionists always make quite a ruckus distinguishing between the "realistic" and "war-making" wings of U.S. imperialism. Revolutionaries the world over have long seen this hairsplitting as trick to conceal the aggressive nature of U.S. imperialism and to water down the main world contradictions between the oppressed peoples and imperialism. Pomeroy overrates his "present-day peace movement" only to show how "reasonable" is U.S. imperialism and how unreasonable are the armed revolutionaries. The kind of negotiation and accommodation with U.S. imperialism that Pomeroy is trying the promote is treachery to the revolutionary masses.

As far as we are concerned, U.S. imperialism hads daily stepped up its arms expansion and war preparations and has never stopped to commit aggression, intervention, subversion and sabotage.

Pomeroy exposes himself as an agent of U.S. imperialism in saying the following:

The question of whether the peoples of the world who have long suffered under colonial conditions will gain their freedom and will maintain it by peaceful means depends largely on the attitude of the imperialists, in particular the imperialists of the United States.

Only the revisionist agents of U.S. imperialism will depend "largely" on the attitude of U.S. imperialism on the question of gaining freedom. Full initiative must always be in the hands of the revolutionary movement. The masses must be determined in employing revolutionary violence to overthrow their oppressors and exploiters. "Peaceful means" will not liberate any oppressed people from the clutches of imperialism.

The attitude of the people and all revolutionaries towards U.S. imperialism and all reactionaries is best expressed by Chairman Mao:

All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful.

Chairman Mao further said:

Riding roughshod everywhere, U.S. imperialism has made itself the enemy of the people of the world and has increasingly isolated itself. Those who refuse to be enslaved will never be cowed by the atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the U.S. imperialists. The raging tide of the people of the world against the U.S. aggressors in irresistible. Their struggle against U.S. and its lackeys will assuredly win still greater victories.