The barbarism exhibited by American imperialism in the latest wave of bombing attacks on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam brings home even more strongly a point which has become increasingly obvious since 1968. It is a fact which many revolutionaries in Western Europe and North America, reflecting the strength and power of bourgeois control of the means of communication, often tend to underestimate or ignore. It can be stated in the following way: the struggle waged by the indochinese peoples [illegible] U.S. imperialism for the last decade is without doubt the most heroic struggle ever waged by an oppressed peoples against their oppressors since the advent of modern capitalism. The whole history of imperialist butchery and tyranny has not known anything like what the most powerful, industrialised capitalist nation has inflicted on a largely agrarian society for the last twelve years in order to prevent the success of a social revolution.
The Russian masses led by Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik Party did not have to contend with such heavy odds either before, during or after the Russian Revolution. The war of imperialist intervention against the Russian Revolution took place at a time when the imperialist world had weakened itself by a viciously contested inter-imperialist war and where its military apparatus was completely underdeveloped technologically. In addition the upsurge of working class struggles and insurrections in Western Europe further helped to shield the Russian Revolution. The Yugoslav Revolution took place during the "anti-fascist struggles" and Tito and his partisans exploited fully the conflict between German and British imperialism. Of course the Nazis committed many atrocities against the partisans, but they do not compare in scale or in effect to the practices of U.S. imperialism in Vietnam today. The Chinese revolution certainly had to face the power of Japanese imperialism, but again in conditions of heightened inter-imperialist conflict which were reflected in the local bourgeoisie represented by the Koumintang being forced to participate reluctantly in a United Front with the Chinese Communist Party against the Japanese intervention. Even if we leave that aside, the bombing by the Japanese of Shanghai and Canton was a relatively mild affair in comparison to what Hanoi and Haiphong have had to suffer, in one week alone in December '72. The Cuban revolutionaries were successful in overthrowing Batista and unleashing a process of permanent revolution without any foreign intervention. The Bay of Pigs fiasco can hardly be regarded as a serious intervention by imperialism when compared even to the invasion of Santo Domingo, leave alone Indochina. Only if we view the struggle of the Indochinese revolutionaries in a broad historical perspective can we really appreciate the epic character of the struggle the Vietnamese have carried out and the importance of this process for the world revolution.
Resistance to American imperialism over the last ten years did not develop out of thin air. It was organised — both militarily and politically — and led by the Vietnamese Communist Party. To believe otherwise would be to fall prey to spontaneist illusions. It has been the strategy and tactics adopted by this party and its fighting organisations such as the NLF which have prevented an imperialist victory in Indochina. We do not intend to discuss the origins, history and development of this party in this article, but will do so in a future issue of International. What is worth stressing, however, is that the conduct of the war both militarily and politically reveals quite clearly that the Vietnamese have learnt some lessons from the Geneva Agreements and the role played by both the imperialists and by the Soviet Union and China at that time. That is why we see that the North Vietnamese press has in recent months been critical, though, of course in its own allegorical style of the role played by Peking and Moscow in recent months. In addition one of the leading theoreticians of the Vietnamese C.P., the General Secretary, Le Duan has constantly since the beginning of the 60's used formulations in his writings which have totally rejected the Menshevik theory of "revolution by stages" and analysed differences inside the international communist movement as being "different attitudes towards the question whether or not to make the revolution, whether or not to struggle for the interests of the toiling people and the oppressed and exploited masses, and whether or not to be determined to liquidate imperialism and capitalism." (Le Duan, Some Problems Concerning the International Tasks of Our Party, Hanoi, 1963, authors emphasis).
It would appear that the Vietnamese have been forced to make some concessions at the negotiating table. This fact reflects not on them, but on their two major allies, Russia and China, who used the Vietnamese struggle to engage in diplomatic games with Nixon and ended up by enormously strengthening the latter's hand inside Indochina by allowing him to blockade Haiphong and carry out the heaviest bombing attacks in the history of mankind against a "fraternal, socialist, country." No revolutionist can on Principle be opposed to negotiations. They are determined by the national and international relationship of forces. The Vietnamese militants are therefore [illegible] entitled both to negotiate and to make concessions in order to gain a breathing space. The task of revolutionaries in imperialist countries, while fully supporting and engaging in solidarity actions with the Vietnamese, is nevertheless not to accept the right of imperialism to demand or gain these concessions. That is why the British section of the Fourth International has been opposed to the solidarity movement making demands related to the negotiations such as "Sign Now" the main focus of the anti-imperialist struggle. This is not based on any iron principles, but on an analysis of the negotiating terms. If we study the position of the NLF over the last twelve years we can see that they have changed their positions from "The NLF is obviously the sole genuine representative of the South Vietnamese people: it must have a decisive voice and a decisive role in any settlement of the Vietnam question," (1960), through the 19 point programme of 1960, to the 5 point declaration of the NLF in 1965, via the "Program of Action of the Provisional Revolutionary Government" of 1969 which pledged itself to "abolish the disguised colonial regime established by the US imperialists in South Viet Nam; to overthrow the entire structure of the puppet administration;. ... . " to the present negotiating position which accepts participation in a coalition government with the [illegible] puppet regime. Concessions have been made on paper and that is precisely the reason why we are not in favour of tying down the solidarity movement to a piece of paper the Vietnamese comrades feel compelled to sign. Why? Because unless the PRG decided to disarm the NLF and lay down its arms (an extremely unlikely variant) a situation of dual power will continue in Southern Vietnam. Two armed forces will continue to confront each other. Moreover a ceasefire is very likely to bring about a new rise of the mass movement in the cities which the Thieu puppet regime will not be able to tolerate. To imagine therefore that there can be a stable or semi-permanent situation even if a "peace treaty" is ultimately signed is to live in a world of illusions. Hence we have to engage in solidarity actions (and today even more so that in '67 — '68) based on the understanding that the war will continue albeit in a different form. Therefore anti-imperialist militants have to be prepared to explain the process of permanent or uninterrupted revolution which will begin to take shape in the event of an American withdrawal and a ceasefire.
We have commented many times on the insufficient support provided to the Indochinese revolution by both Peking and Moscow. The Soviet leadership has supplied more military aid to the wretched regime of Sadat in Egypt over the last year (worth $350,000,000) than it has to Vietnam ($100,000,000). China has given Nixon important political support which has enabled the latter to both defuse the antiwar movement and get himself re-elected. The latter occasion being welcomed by Chou en Lai "because he played a role in improving relations between the United States and China." During the Xmas bombing of '72 it was Swedish social-democracy which reacted more vigorously to the terror bombing (comparing them to Nazi crimes and atrocities!) than the bureaucrats in Moscow and Peking. It has been the attitude of the two principal allies of the Vietnamese people which enabled Nixon to escalate the war In the first place, starting with the blockade of Haiphong. That is why solidarity is needed more urgently today than ever before to break the international isolation of the revolution which Nixon has achieved in collusion with Messrs Brezhnev and Chou en Lai.
The Fourth International and all its sections throughout the world have made solidarity with the Indochinese struggle a key plank of their programme of action for many years now. Today it is even more vital than ever before. The seamen of Australia, the dockers of Genoa, the workers in Sweden have put to shame large sections of the "revolutionary" left in Britain, which boycotted the Indochina Solidarity Conference held in the first week of December '72. Even British social democracy, trying to forget its ignominious role when in government, has begun to make noises of protest. We once again appeal to the International Socialists and the Socialist Labour League to discard their Anglocentric economism and to participate in united actions of solidarity in the coming months. These comrades should remember that any major defeat suffered by the Indochinese revolutionaries will be a setback for the entire world revolutionary process and will modify the international relationship of forces in favour of imperialism.
1 January 1973.