[In the fall of 1972, a group broke away from the Swedish Maoist group, Marxist-leninistiska Kampförbundet
Struggle
(MLK - Marxist-Leninist League) after a lengthy period as an internal oppositional force. An entire district of the MLK membership left with the group. The former Maoists have now joined the Fourth International's sympathizing group in Sweden, Revolutionära Marxisters Förbund (RMF - League of Revolutionary Marxists).
[Martin Fahlgren, a leader of the former 1 former Maoists who have now joined the RMF, was interviewed for Intercontinental Press during April in Sweden. The translation is by Intercontinental Press.]
Question. How did you come to the point of breaking with Maoism?
Answer. The opposition in the MLK did not begin by completely calling into question Stalinism and Maoism. Rather, the opposition arose by questioning the MLK's policy in the workplace, its propaganda, agitation, etc. Subsequently came the right turn in China's foreign policy (Ceylon, Pakistan, Iran, Ethiopia, the Common Market, etc.), which the MLK leadership naturally was able to react to only by copying the latest resolution adopted by the Chinese Communist party. We opposed this policy of tailending and demanded that the league an independent analysis of make China's foreign policy.
The response of the MLK leadership to our opposition was the usual Stalinist one: There was an attempt to isolate the opposition, publication of the opposition's material was held up, the district representative of the league leadership was removed (for completely nonpolitical reasons), etc.
This bureaucratic method of handling differences only caused the differences to deepen. We began to research history in order to find an explanation of why we were being dealt with in this way. In the process, we began to discover falsifications of May 7, 1973
Leader history and other hallmarks of Stalinism.
Meanwhile, the Chinese party continued its open swing to the right. In order to understand this, we were also compelled to look into history.
By the spring of 1972, the differences had developed to the point that they involved virtually every question: China's foreign policy, democratic centralism, party-building, revolutionary strategy and tactics, approach toward the workplace, the relationship to the trade-union movethe che app ment, anti-imperialist work, the approach to take toward the Common Market, the nature of the Soviet Union, the Comintern, the Stalin-Trotsky dispute, ete.
In the fall of last year, the entire district was expelled from the MLK, and after a few months we felt that we were ready to join the world Trotskyist movement.
Q. Why did you decide to join the Fourth International?
A. The struggle inside the MLK led us to break with Stalinism. Study of the history of the revolutionary movement made it clear to us that only the world Trotskyist movement has the correct basis for developing a correct strategy and tactics for the three sectors of the world revolution: the colonial countries (permanent revolution), the industrialized countries, and the workers states (political revolution).
The world Trotskyist movement is today the only significant revolutionary force on an international scale —in Europe, the United States, Latin America, Japan, etc. Maoism, which arose as a reaction to the reformism of the pro-Moscow parties, is on the verge of collapse throughout Europe for lack of a truly revolutionary theory and under the blows of increasingly blatant betrayals of the world revolution by the Chinese bureaucracy. Consistent revolutionists within the Maoist movement are discovering that the principles they believe that they are fighting for have nothing to do with the Stalinist tradition they are frequently linked to. They are also discovering that the Chinese leadership is in no way capable of providing revolutionary inspiration. Maoists are faced with a very clear choice: either to follow Maoism into a swamp, or to break with Stalinism and Maoism and link up with revolutionary Marxism. We chose the latter alternative.
Q. The newspaper the Guardian in the United States has set itself the task of attempting to build a new Maoist party. What do you think the future holds for Maoism?
A. As I already said, Maoism is falling apart on an international scale. In Europe, there are only three coun tries in which it still has any influence worth mentioning - Sweden, Norway, and to a certain extent West Germany. In Italy, there are still Maoist groups of some importance, but they are of a more spontanéist type, as well as being anti-Stalinist and not uncritical of the new course in Chinese foreign policy. Under the pressure of the reality of the class struggle, the Maoist organizations undergo splits because of their lack of a clear ideological foundation, their lack of a revolutionary strategy, etc.
In Sweden it is clear that Maoism is on the decline. The four groups that exist here have already begun to fall apart, and increasing numbers of their members are coming around to Trotskyism. The disintegration of the one we belonged to has continued: Every week we are contacted by members and sympathizers of the MLK who have begun to turn away from Mao-Stalinism. A similar situation exists in other Mao-Stalinist groups.
So in a sense it is surprising that groups are now appearing in the United States that are trying to carry on with Maoism. In my opinion, this reflects the relatively low level of the class struggle in the United States, compared to other countries in the industrialized world. As the class struggle sharpens in the United States, Maoism will be swept away. Besides, I'd be surprised if the
Guardian succeeded in bringing together in the same organization the heterogeneous groups it is staking its hopes on. The only thing they are agreed on is a senile approach of defending every counterrevolutionary
Fourth International maneuver of the Chinese leadership. This can hardly constitute the basis for a revolutionary party. Quite the contrary! The attitude appears to have more to do with the searching of the petty bourgeois for something to hold onto, something to believe in, in order to screen out the harshness of reality.
considerably less
Maoism has chance of surviving than its predecessor, Stalinism. The traditional Stalinist parties had a certain base in the working class that they had acquired during the revolutionary period of the Comintern. During that period, a party apparatus had also been successfully built up, which funetioned in a stable fashion. The Maoist groups have never been able to achieve this. They are therefore much more unstable than the traditional Communist parties.
This, together with the aspirations of the Maoist groups, has led to splits and disintegration within them and will ultimately bring about the complete demise of Maoism in the industrialized world.
the state set up and guarantee a regular Lapp school in Karasjok. We must have our own building or else have a right to use the existing school. This will make it easier to deal with special "Lapp subjects."
There are also thousands of Lapps in Finland and Sweden with no opportunity to receive a good education. We ought to be given the chance to set up an all-Nordic Lapp college.