Dictionary of Revolutionary Marxism

—   Th   —

THAILAND — Communist Party of Thailand
The Communist movement in Thailand (still called Siam until 1939) had a slow and confused development, partly because of the complex ethnic make-up of the country. Initially it was composed mostly of ethnic Chinese and there were very few Communists of Thai ethnicity. Though this imbalanced diminished over time, it remained a major problem throughout the party’s history. The CPT was also primarily an urban party until the 1960s when, under repressive government attacks, it retreated to the forests and began an armed struggle. During the 1970s it rapidly expanded its revolutionary army (the People’s Liberation Army of Thailand), which reached a peak of between 12,000 and 20,000 soldiers by early 1979. There were guerrilla zones in more than 40 provinces, with CPT influences in thousands of villages with a total population of more than 3 million people.
        However, the CPT and PLAT then fell to pieces, primarily because of internal ideological and organizational weaknesses and poor leadership, and weak ties with the non-Chinese masses throughout much of the country. The rapidly developing revisionism in China after Mao’s death led to much less support and sympathy for the revolution in Thailand. During the period of hostility and conflict between China and Vietnam (1978-9 and later), the weapons supplied by China to the Thai national army to resist an expected Vietnamese invasion (which never occurred) were actually used against the PLAT revolutionaries. Because of poor leadership and ideological confusion the PLAT soldiers began surrendering to the government, often en masse. By the mid-1980s the revolutionary war was abandoned and the CPT itself disappeared from view. It will be up to a new generation of Thais to recreate a revolutionary communist party and carry out the still desperately needed social revolution in that country.
        For further information see: Pierre Rousset’s article on the Communist Party of Thailand at:
http://links.org.au/node/1247 or http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article14956

Early Greek philosopher of the
Ionian School, often called the “first philosopher”. In addition to that, he was credited by Aristotle with being the founder of physical science; he may have been the first person in recorded history to put forth materialist speculations about the physical nature of the world. (He believed that the most basic substance, and the ultimate constituent of all things, was water.) He is said to have predicted the solar eclipse on May 28, 585 BCE, and to have introduced the study of geometry to Greece from the Middle East.

The ideology and policies associated with the reactionary bourgeois politician Margaret Thatcher, who was Prime Minister of Britain from 1979 to 1990. She was an advocate of
supply-side economics, which meant many of the same pro-corporation, anti-worker policies that were encompassed by Reaganomics in the U.S. at the same time. These included lowering taxes for corporations and the rich, anti-labor legislation and attacks on labor unions, cutbacks of social welfare programs, and a general laissez-faire ideological fanaticism. In addition, since Britain had a significant nationalized state-capitalist sector, it also meant the privatization in those industries (at bargain prices for the capitalist buyers). Thatcherism, together with Reaganomics, constituted the beginning of the new neoliberalist period in contemporary world capitalism, a period of trying to drive down the working class as a means of keeping corporate profits high during the continued development of the world capitalist overproduction crisis.
        In 1983, Thatcher’s economic policies, including her monetarist tightening of the money supply to try to keep inflation low, led to the worst unemployment figures in Britain since 1923—even worse than during the Great Depression of the 1930s! And while Thatcher claimed to favor “smaller government”, she promoted the vigorous expansion of state power in the police, military and “security” areas.

A reactionary Chinese movie, the criticism of which played an important role in getting the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution underway. This motion picture was begun by the Guomindang’s [Kuomintang’s] Central Film Studio, but remained unfinished when the GMD was forced out of power in the great Chinese Revolution in 1949. The film was then completed and promoted by the revisionists Zhou Yang [Old style: Chou Yang] and Hsia Yen within the CCP after the victory of the Revolution. Zhou Yang, Liu Shaoqi’s leading agent in the field of culture, called it “one of the best Chinese films” and journalists inside and outside the Party were ordered to write hundreds of articles praising it.
        Wu Xun (or Wu Hsun) (1838-1896), himself, was born into a very poor family in Shandong. He had no education and worked in semi-slavery for landlords, and later became a beggar. But he diligently saved and invested his money and through astute business dealings eventually became a rich man and a landlord himself. While he was known for his philanthropy, the portion of his riches that he gave away of course came from his own much larger exploitation of peasants and workers. Thus a film glorifying such a person is hardly something that a real communist would make or promote. [See: PHILANTHROPY]
        Chiang Kai-shek and the GMD highly praised the deeds of Wu Xun from 1934 on, as part of their cultural indoctrination efforts called the “New Life Movement”. Wu’s story was told in comic books, and statues were erected to him in many primary schools around the country. And even after the Liberation of the country, when this film about Wu Xun was finished, the newspapers were filled with articles praising the movie and lauding Wu Xun for his philanthropy and portraying him as a model for the masses.
        Mao himself initiated the first major criticism of this film in his editorial in Renmin Ribao [People’s Daily] entitled “Give Serious Attention to the Discussion of the Film The Life of Wu Hsun” (May 20, 1951):

“The questions raised by The Life of Wu Hsun are fundamental in character. Living in the era of the Chinese people’s great struggle against foreign aggressors and the domestic reactionary feudal rulers towards the end of the Ching Dynasty, people like Wu Hsun did not lift a finger to disturb the tiniest fragment of the feudal economic base or its superstructure. On the contrary, they worked fanatically to spread feudal culture and, moreover, sedulously fawned upon the reactionary feudal rulers in order to acquire the status they themselves lacked for spreading feudal culture. Ought we to praise such vile conduct? Can we ever tolerate such vile conduct being praised to the masses, especially when such praise flaunts the revolutionary flag of ‘serving the people’ and is underlined by exploiting the failure of the revolutionary peasant struggle? To approve or tolerate such praise means to approve or tolerate reactionary propaganda vilifying the revolutionary struggle of the peasants, the history of China, and the Chinese nation, and to regard such propaganda as justified....
        “Is it not a fact that reactionary bourgeois ideas have found their way into the militant Communist Party? Where on earth is the Marxism which certain Communists claim to have grasped?” —Quoted in “The Class Struggle in China’s Ideological Sphere” [PDF: 872 KB], in Peking Review, issue #37, Sept. 7, 1969.

But that was way back in 1951. How did it come about that this episode served in part to help initiate the Cultural Revolution in the mid-1960s? It was because the revisionists did not really change their ways. Further reactionary works, such as the historical drama “Hai Rui Dismissed From Office”, continued to appear, and formed a definite reactionary pattern. When Yao Wenyuan, at the urging of Mao and Jiang Qing, criticized “Hai Rui Dismissed...” in 1965, this opened a floodgate of revolutionary criticism against all such reactionary cultural works, going back to the founding of the People’s Republic. And it led eventually to the criticism of those at the top (led by Liu Shaoqi) who had promoted and protected this sinister current.




“[T]heology is petrified dogmatism...” —Engels, speaking specifically of the period before the great French Revolution, in his “Notes on Germany”, online at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/art/notes-germany.htm

THEORIES OF SURPLUS VALUE   [“Volume IV of Capital”]
A major part of the economic manuscripts left by Marx at his death which was intended to become volume IV of his great work
Capital. Although the fourth volume of Capital that Marx hoped to publish was expected by him to be primarily historical, the actual manuscripts he left of TSV include many passages of great importance to the theory of Marxist political economy. TSV is thus an extremely important, though often neglected, part of Marx’s writings on political economy. It contains many points not fully elaborated in the first three volumes, as well as a detailed history and criticism of the crucially important topic of surplus value as it was originally developed by classical bourgeois economists.
        TSV was not published, even in German, until the first decade of the 20th century. The first of the three volumes of TSV, which were all edited (poorly and tendentiously!) by Karl Kautsky, appeared in 1904, the second in 1905, and the third not until 1910. Prior to their publication other Marxist writers on political economy—including Lenin—did not have access to Marx’s complete theory on a number of key topics, most notably with regard to Marx’s criticism of “Say’s Law”. More accurate editions of the three volumes of TSV, based on Marx’s original manuscripts, were published in German in 1956, 1959 and 1962. The versions of these three volumes in English translation (from Progress Publishers in Moscow) did not appear until 1963, 1968 and 1971, respectively. The late publication of TSV, the dubious reliability of its first German edition, and its relative neglect even since its proper publication, have all created serious problems for Marxist political economy, especially in Britain and the United States.

“First, a manuscript entitled Zur Kritik der politishen Oekonomie, ... written in August 1861 to June 1863. It is the continuation of a work of the same title, the first part of which appeared in Berlin, in 1859.... The themes treated in Book II [volume II of Capital] and very many of those which are treated later, in Book III [volume III of Capital], are not yet arranged separately. They are treated in passing, to be specific, in the section which makes up the main body of the manuscript, viz., pages 220-972 (Notebooks VI-XV), entitled ‘Theories of Surplus-Value.’ This section contains a detailed critical history of the pith and marrow of Political Economy, the theory of surplus-value and develops parallel with it, in polemics against predecessors, most of the points later investigated separately and in their logical connection in the manuscript for Books II and III. After eliminating the numerous passages covered by Books II and III I intend to publish the critical part of this manuscript as Capital, Book IV. This manuscript, valuable though it is, could be used only very little in the present edition of Book II.” —Engels, Preface to Marx’s Capital, Vol. II, (International: 1967), p. 2. [Engels died before he was able to follow through with this plan to publish TSV as volume IV of Capital.]

[Speaking of Kautsky’s edition of TSV in 1904-1910:] “In this edition the basic principles of the scientific publication of a text were violated and there were distortions of a number of the tenets of Marxism.” —Note 36, Lenin: Selected Works, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress, 1967).

THEORISTS (Revolutionary)
[Intro material to be added... ]

“What kind of theorists do we want? We want theorists who can, in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method, correctly interpret practical problems arising in the course of history and revolution and give scientific explanations and theoretical elucidations of China’s economic, political, military, cultural and other problems.” —Mao, “Rectify the Party’s Style of Work” (Feb. 1, 1942), SW 3:38.



“Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie
         Und grün des Lebens goldner Baum.”
         [Gray, dear friend, is all theory
         And green the golden tree of life.]
              —Goethe, Faust, Part I, Mephisopheles speaking to a student.
         [Lenin liked to repeat this aphorism, as for example in his “Letters on Tactics” (April 1917), LCW 24:45. He did not mean that theory is to be generally ignored or rejected, but merely that theory is never as rich, complex and fully appropriate as life is itself. Just before quoting Goethe, Lenin says “It is essential to grasp the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognisance of real life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only outlines the main and the general, only comes near to embracing life in all its complexity.” Good theories are a general guide to action, but should not be taken as an absolute dogma regardless of the actual situation. —S.H.]

A grossly grandiose name for some future scientific theory which will (presumably) cover all our knowledge in particle physics, and specifically include the force of gravity along with the other three known
forces of nature. Of course such a theory, while it would surely be an important advance in physics, would by no means cover all of scientific knowledge! Just to give a few examples, it would not include the vast bulk of information in the biological sciences, or in geophysics, linguistics, historical materialism, and all the other major spheres of science beyond particle physics. Therefore the name proposed for this theory, the “Theory of Everything”, is the height of arrogance.
        The right half of the figure here shows the names of different theories which have been developed to encompass more and more forces in physics. This trend of combining apparently separate forces into a unified theory actually began way back in the 19th century with Maxwell’s unification of electricity and magneticism into the theory of electromagnetism. (Strangely, this first unification is not shown in the diagram.) Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman and others later reconstructed the theory of electromagnetism into a relativistic quantum field theory known as quantum electrodynamics (QED). In the next step, the weak nuclear force (which governs radioactivity) and the electromagnetic force were combined into the electroweak theory, which describes these two apparently very different forces as aspects of a single force. Meanwhile, quarks were discovered as the internal components of protons and neutrons, and the theory of quantum chromodynamics was developed to explain how gluon particles of force allow quarks to interact with each other. Quantum chromodynamics and the electroweak force were then combined into what is known as the Grand Unified Theory of particle physics. This forms the theoretical basis for the current Standard Model in particle physics, and is where things stand today. However, there is one more very well known force, gravitation, which has not yet been unified with the other three forces. The first step towards doing this is thought to be the development of a quantum theory of gravity—which has not yet been accomplished. Then the goal will be to combine all four known forces into one supposedly final “Theory of Everything”. But there is also another possible complication; there may in fact be other as yet unknown forces to be discovered. The recent cosmological discovery that the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing speed can apparently not be explained without adding at least one new force of nature to the mix.

The branch of philosophy which is concerned with the nature and extent of human knowledge, how we come to know things, the reliability of what we know, and so forth. Also known as
epistemology in more pretentious language.

Various related revisionist theories whose central dogma is that the establishment of socialism and then communism depends entirely, or at least to a very large degree, upon the prior expansion of the
productive forces to a very advanced level, under some form of capitalism. (Whether that is to be Western-style monopoly capitalism; or state capitalism of a form like that in the Soviet Union during the revisionist period; or some type of so-called “market socialism”; or whatever.)
        The productive forces are the material means of production (factories, machinery, raw materials, etc.) together with human labor of an appropriate quality and capability. Thus certainly the productive forces must have reached some reasonable level of development before socialism (let alone communism) can first be established. No sensible person imagines that genuine socialism (in the modern Marxist sense) could have been established in ancient times, for example, or before the capitalist era.
        But the “theory of productive forces” goes well beyond that recognition; it insists that even in the present world, after centuries of capitalist production, socialism (and communism) are still not possible unless the productive forces are further expanded to a major degree. The essence of this reactionary theory, therefore, is that, “at least in our country”, 1) the productive forces have not yet been developed to the point where socialism can be successfully established; and 2) that the productive forces cannot be further and rapidly developed under any sort of socialism which can be established at the present time. In other words, those who uphold this revisionist theory view the continuation of capitalism as still essential “at the present time”.
        This theory has been especially prominent among revisionists in poorly developed countries (the “Third World”). But it has even been championed by some people in the more advanced capitalist countries. The theory, after all, first developed at the end of the 19th century in one of the leading capitalist countries, Germany, where it was championed by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky among others.

“The renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi consistently advocated the reactionary ‘theory of productive forces.’ According to this fallacy, socialist revolution is impossible and the socialist road cannot be taken in any country where capitalism is not highly developed and the productive forces have not reached a high level. Before the seizure of political power by the proletariat, he advocated this theory to forbid the proletariat from rising to make revolution and seizing political power. After the seizure of power, he raised it to oppose socialist transformation in a futile effort to lead China on the road of capitalism. When the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production was completed in the main, he continued to advocate this theory in a clandestine attempt to restore capitalism.” —Hung Hsueh-ping, “The Essence of ‘Theory of Productive Forces’ is to Oppose Proletarian Revolution”, Peking Review, #38, Sept. 19, 1969.

“Bernstein first put forward this fallacy in 1899 in his book The Premises of Socialism and the Tasks of the Social-Democracy. He maintained that with the highly developed social productive forces, capitalism would grow into socialism peacefully. Therefore, he said, revolution by armed force would become a meaningless phrase. He arbitrarily declared that the victory of socialism could only depend on the general social progress, especially on the increase of social wealth or the growth of social productive forces accompanied by the maturity of the working class in terms of knowledge and morality. He concluded: As for the capitalist system, it should not be destroyed but should be helped to further develop.” —Kao Hung, “From Bernstein to Liu Shao-chi”, Peking Review, #38, Sept. 19, 1969.

Shorthand, often used in Maoist China, for the dialectical viewpoint that within any thing or any process there are two contradictory aspects which are simultaneously opposites and a unity, and that one of these aspects is principal and the other secondary. It is opposed to the “one-point” theory (which fails to recognize any internal contradiction within the thing) and also to the
theory of equilibrium which does not distinguish the principal aspect of a thing from its non-principal aspect.
        See also: ONE-INTO-TWO

[To be added...]

“THESES ON FEUERBACH”   [Notes by Marx]
A set of 11 short theses (or principles) set down by Marx in the spring of 1845. They were just his own notes at the time. But they are so profound, and so concisely summarize the fundamental principles of the Marxist approach to philosophy and to social practice that they have become justly famous. Engels first published them in 1888 as an appendix to his book
Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy.
        The central theme in the “Theses on Feuerbach” is an elaboration of a scientific understanding of practice (social activity). Among the many important concepts and principles which may be found in an early and only partially developed form in the Theses is that of the mass line method of revolutionary leadership and having a mass perspective.
        But rather than read about the “Theses on Feuerbach”, people should just go read them! They are online at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm. See also: FEUERBACH, Ludwig

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” —Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”, Thesis XI.

THIERS, Louis Adolphe   (1797-1877)

“A reactionary bourgeois politician, traitor to his country and butcher who suppressed the Paris Commune uprising in French history. Minister of Internal Affairs in 1834, he stamped out the people’s uprising in Lyon. Immediately after becoming head of the bourgeois government in February 1871, he sent reactionary troops to disarm the Paris people. Following the armed uprising by the proletariat of Paris on March 18, he fled to Versailles. Colluding with Bismarck and mustering reactionary forces, he strangled the Paris Commune revolution. Marx referred to Thiers as ‘a master in small state roguery, a virtuoso in perjury and treason, a craftsman in all the petty strategems, cunning devices, and base perfidies of parliamentary party-warfare; never scrupling, when out of office, to fan a revolution, and to stifle it in blood when at the helm of the state.’” —Explanatory note accompanying an article on the Paris Commune, Peking Review, vol. 14, #13, March 26, 1971.

A nominally non-government institute which engages in political advocacy with respect to government policies in areas such as social issues, economics, international imperialist strategy, military issues, the best political strategy for the ruling class within the country (or often the best strategy for just for one section of that ruling class), and so forth, and which prepares “research studies” to support the views and policies it favors. Think tanks are therefore, and with only the rarest exceptions, operations run by and for the capitalist ruling class, or one of its contending sections. The government itself supports these think tanks in many ways, including through providing them with lucrative contracts for “research”, and by exempting them from paying taxes by calling them non-profit organizations (even when they openly work to promote greater profits for capitalist corporations). Sometimes the government will directly set up a think tank, or provide it with ongoing general funding under one pretext or another.
        One of the earliest think tanks was the Institute for Defence and Security Studies founded in London in 1831. But think tanks have truly mushroomed as key parts of the system of bourgeois rule mostly since World War II, and especially in the United States. The term “think tank” itself originated in American slang in World War II and came into general consciousness in the U.S. in the 1950s. The archetypical, and one of the most prominent think tanks, is the RAND Corporation, which was founded under the sponsorship of the U.S. Air Force as an offshoot of the Douglas Aircraft Corporation shortly after World War II. During the Cold War, and since then, the number of think tanks in the U.S. and around the world has skyrocketed; by 2006 there were at least 4,500 them in the world, mostly focused on international affairs, foreign policy, and “security” matters (military issues and how to keep the restless population under control).
        Some of the many prominent U.S. bourgeois think tanks include:
        •   American Enterprise Institute — A right-wing counterpart to the slightly “left”-wing Brookings Institution. One of the loudest proponents of
        •   Brookings Institution (one of the oldest U.S. think tanks, founded in 1916) — Quintessentially an “establishment” institution which describes itself as non-partisan, but which sometimes seems to lean toward the Democratic Party.
        •   Cato Institute — Promotes dogmatic libertarian “free market” doctrines and policies.
        •   Center for American Progress — Promotes more politically liberal bourgeois policies than most think tanks.
        •   Heritage Foundation — Promotes right-wing “conservative” doctrines and policies.
        •   RAND Corporation — In effect this has been a major research arm of the U.S. government, focused especially on military and “security” matters, but extending far beyond that scope.


In feudal France (before the great
French Revolution of 1789) society was characterized as being composed of three “estates”: The First Estate was the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church; the Second Estate was the nobility (the class of the feudal landlords); and the Third Estate was everyone else, including peasants, workers and capitalists (or bourgeoisie). However, it was the rising new class, the bourgeoisie, that dominated this Third Estate politically (though certainly not numerically). The Estates-Generales was a weak and very intermittent French national assembly that represented these three estates. In 1789 it was convened (after 175 years!) in order to deal with a major financial crisis of the state. But from the perspective of the ruling nobility, this assembly got quite out of hand! The bourgeois leaders of the Third Estate demanded much more power, and this precipitated the French Revolution.


A term introduced by the French economist Alfred Sauvy in 1952 to refer collectively to all the non-industrial nations of the world. Due to the
Cold War, many people soon reinterpreted the “Third World” to mean those countries which were aligned neither with the Western imperialist bloc (headed by the United States) nor with the “Socialist bloc” (headed by the Soviet Union). Under this interpretation the “Third World” became nearly synonymous with “non-aligned countries”. It was later during this Cold War period that the Communist Party of China put forward the largely incorrect “Three Worlds” Theory, in which the term the “Third World” was contrasted to the “First World” (the two superpowers) and the “Second World” (the other imperialist or advanced capitalist countries). This moved the term back closer to its original meaning, but not quite completely so—since it was then also a political term as well as an economic designation. Since the explicit and enthusiastic promulgation of the “Three Worlds” Theory by the Chinese revisionists beginning soon after Mao’s death, most revolutionary Marxists have rejected that theory (at least in its usual notorious form). But because of its association with that erroneous theory, the term “Third World” was also shunned by many revolutionary Marxists for a long period.
        However, since the collapse of the revisionist Soviet Union and its bloc, and the end of the Cold War, the term “Third World” has shifted back to something even closer to its original meaning: Those countries which are largely undeveloped economically. There have been attempts (by bourgeois writers) to replace the term “Third World” with the euphemistic term “developing countries”, but most such countries are not really “developing” economically very much at all, since they remain so greatly under the control of and exploitation by the imperialist nations. The term “undeveloped countries” would be better, but it also has some possible implications that these countries are culturally undeveloped which is totally false and slanderous. Thus many people are once again using the term “the Third World” to mean these economically undeveloped countries. Unfortunately, other people still use the term in somewhat different ways, which means that it remains somewhat ambiguous.
        The term “semicolonial countries” is better, but somewhat outdated; more appropriate today would be “neocolonial countries”. But in many countries these terms are not widely understood by the masses.
        In short, there are difficulties in picking the most appropriate short terms or phrases to replace the “Third World” in the sense of meaning those countries which are largely undeveloped economically, or in the closely related sense of those countries which are exploited and oppressed by imperialism. Perhaps the most appropriate phrases today, depending on the precise sense we mean, are: 1) “the economically undeveloped countries”; 2) “the exploited and oppressed countries”; 3) “the neocolonies” or “the neocolonial countries”. When we do use the term “Third World” we should be sure that our audience understands it in the same way we do.
        We should also be aware that there can be intermediate or transitional forms, between imperialist countries and countries exploited and oppressed by imperialism. China today, for example, is both still exploited by foreign imperialism and at the same time a rising new imperialist power which exploits other countries itself. It was once a “Third World” country; but though large sections of the population are still very poor, with the massive expansion of industry in China and the shift of so much world production to that country, that characterization no long seems at all appropriate.

[To be added...]


The religious/philosophical school of thought based on the doctrines, concepts and methods of “Saint”
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), still the dominant theologian and philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church.

THOMSON, George Derwent   (1903-1987)
An English classical scholar (specializing in ancient Greek drama and poetry), a scholar of the Irish language (which he mastered from the people of the Blasket Islands off the west coast of Ireland), and a revolutionary Marxist who remained true to the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and who also embraced Mao. He is best known to us Marxists for a series of 3 short books which served as a fine introduction to Marxism: From Marx to Mao Tse-tung (1971); Capitalism and After (1973); and The Human Essence (1974).
        George Thomson joined the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1936. He achieved wide recognition in intellectual circles for his works Aeschylus and Athens and Marxism and Poetry (1945). He pioneered in the Marxist interpretation of Greek drama, arguing for a connection between work songs and poetry, and that ancient songs were connected to social rituals.
        Thomson was a member of the CPGB Cultural Committee and also its Executive Committee. In 1951 he was the only member of that Executive Committee to vote against the Party’s programme (known as The British Road to Socialism) because “the dictatorship of the proletariat was missing”. Thomson was profoundly affected by the Chinese Revolution of 1949, which eventually led to his split with the CPGB and involvement in efforts to replace that revisionist party with a new revolutionary one. “He never lost his political beliefs. He was committed to working class education, including giving lectures to factory workers at Birmingham’s Austin car plant.” [Wikipedia article]
        Thomson’s works available online:
From Marx to Mao Tse-tung
http://www.bannedthought.net/MLM-Theory/MLM-Intro/Marx2Mao.pdf   [9,790 KB];
Capitalism and After http://www.bannedthought.net/MLM-Theory/MLM-Intro/CapitalismAndAfter-GeorgeThomson-1973.pdf   [11,007 KB];
The Human Essence http://www.bannedthought.net/MLM-Theory/MLM-Intro/TheHumanEssence-GeorgeThomson-1974.pdf   [8,694 KB]

The act or process of thinking, or a particular result of that process in a specific case.

“It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks.” —From a summary of the philosopher Hobbes’ materialist views, prepared by Marx & Engels in their early book, The Holy Family (1845), MECW 4:129. Engels reprints this sentence with apparently approval, and puts it in italics, in his “Introduction to the English Edition” of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, April 20, 1892, in the 1975 Peking edition of that pamphlet, p. 17; and in MECW 27:284. [This understanding of thought appears to be in accord with the modern materialist and functionalist understanding of the mind and mental phenomena, and coming as it did that far back is remarkably prescient. —Ed.]

“THOUGHT” (As a system of political ideology, as in “Mao Tse-tung Thought”)
[To be added... ]

A thought experiment is a theoretical consideration based on known or presumed facts and theories which is designed to generate implied consequences which either support those theories and presumed facts, or else bring them into serious question. Conceiving of specific thought experiments is thus one important means of testing and rationalizing scientific theories. Thought experiments have played an important role in the development of physics and other sciences.
        Galileo, for example, probably did not actually perform the famous experiment often attributed to him, of simultaneously dropping two equally sized balls of different weights off the Tower of Pisa to see if the heavier one would fall faster than the lighter one. Instead he used a thought experiment to convince himself that they would fall equally fast. One variation of this thought experiment is to imagine first two balls of equal weight dropping beside each other, and then the absurdity of thinking that they would both fall faster if a string or hook held them close together and made them into a “single system” with twice the weight. Other famous thought experiments in physics include
Schrödinger’s Cat and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Thought Experiment, both being attempts to help us correctly understand quantum mechanics.
        In the case of Galileo’s thought experiment about gravity an actual physical experiment could have easily been carried out instead (or in addition), but in other cases of thought experiments, it is impractical, or impossible, or perhaps morally wrong to actually perform them in the real world. For example we may try to determine theoretically what the climate consequences of a worldwide thermonuclear war might be (such as a “nuclear winter”), but actually purposefully performing the “physical experiment” of having such a war to test the theory is totally out of the question.
        There is a very important role for thought experiments in revolutionary politics. As much as possible, the leaders of the masses need to know what the actual effects of promoting certain mass actions will be before they start to actually promote them! They need to think through, as best as possible, what the results of various policy alternatives might be (with respect to promoting both the immediate and long term interests of the people).
        Thus, in using the mass line method of leadership, we gather as many ideas from the masses as we can about how to advance the revolutionary struggle. For each of these ideas we perform a thought experiment, trying to imagine the results of the particular proposal, in light of everything we know (including MLM theory and the objective situation). The most promising “social thought experiment” is the one we pick to actually attempt to implement among the masses. Then, whether or not our ideas about what would happen actually proved correct, we begin the whole process again but with further knowledge and experience.
        See also: INTUITION PUMP

Vicious, murderous policy of “kill all, burn all, loot all” which was employed by the Japanese military invaders during at least the last four years of their long and horrifying imperialist war against China (1937-1946).

“Though the absolute number of Japanese troops in occupied China seems high, they were actually spread thin in so vast a territory. Japanese policy was to control strategic points, especially along China’s railroads, and to set up local administrations by inducing local Chinese to collaborate with them. This made them susceptible to enemy infiltration, resistance, and guerrilla action, in central and south China, by armed bands under Nationalist control and more famously in the north by forces belonging to the Communist Eighth Route and Fourth Route armies. Years after the war, Japanese veterans testified that starting in 1942, in an attempt to cope with this difficult situation, Japan carried out what came in China to be termed the ‘Three Alls’ policy—kill all, burn all, loot all—which meant savage reprisals against villages for harboring guerrillas and against any individuals suspected of opposing Japanese rule. Japanese scholars have estimated that 2.7 million Chinese were killed as a result of that policy. Herbert Bix, Emperor Hirohito’s most recognized American biographer, concludes that the atrocities carried out as a result of the Three Alls policy were ‘incomparably more destructive and of far longer duration than either the army’s chemical and biological warfare or the “rape of Nanking”’ in 1938.” —Richard Bernstein, China 1945 (2014), pp. 75-76. [Bernstein is an bourgeois American historian. The number of deaths because of this genocidal policy against the Chinese was probably much higher than the Japanese scholars referred to have admitted. —Ed.]

A mass movement launched by the Communist Party of China in 1951 focused against corruption, waste, and bureaucratic obstructionism within the Party, the People’s government and the economy.

A term used in Maoist China, and especially during the period of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, to refer to the following three articles by Mao: “Serve the People”, “In Memory of Norman Bethune”, and “The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains”. These three articles were no doubt given special emphasis because they strongly promote the basic proletarian moral principles of selflessly helping others and working for the collective welfare of the people. Another, less common term for these same articles was “the three good old articles”.

A term used in Maoist China (which in Chinese is written in three phrases and eight additional characters), for a manner of political work which consists of:
        A firm, correct political orientation;
        A plain, hard-working style;
        Flexibility in strategy and tactics; and
        Unity, alertness, earnestness and liveliness. (Note that despite the “three” and “eight” numbers in common, this is not the same thing as the

A provisional form of revolutionary rule developed in China in 1968 during the
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, when political power was re-captured from the revisionists and capitalist-roaders within the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government. The three-in-one revolutionary committees consisted of a combination of revolutionary cadres, representatives of the People’s Liberation Army and representatives of the revolutionary masses.

“In every place or unit where power must be seized, it is necessary to carry out the policy of the revolutionary ‘three-in-one’ combination in establishing a provisional organ of power which is revolutionary and representative and enjoys proletarian authority. This organ of power should preferably be called the Revolutionary Committee.” —Mao, quoted in Peking Review, #43, Oct. 25, 1968, p. 21.

“There are three elements in the basic experience of the revolutionary committee: It embraces representatives of the revolutionary cadres, representatives of the armed forces and representatives of the revolutionary masses, constituting a revolutionary ‘three-in-one’ combination. The revolutionary committee should exercise unified leadership, eliminate duplication in the administrative structure, follow the the policy of ‘better troops and simpler administration’ and organize a revolutionized leading group which links itself with the masses.” —Mao, quoted in Peking Review, #43, Oct. 25, 1968, p. 21.

These are rules of conduct that members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army were required to follow during the Mao era, and which helped the PLA to truly serve the interests of the masses and win their support during the Chinese Revolution. The three main rules of discipline were:
        1) Obey orders in all your actions;
        2) Don’t take a single needle or piece of thread from the masses;
        3) Turn in everything captured.
The eight points for attention were:
        1) Speak politely;
        2) Pay fairly for what you buy;
        3) Return everything you borrow;
        4) Pay for anything you damage;
        5) Don’t hit or swear at people;
        6) Don’t damage crops;
        7) Don’t take liberties with women;
        8) Don’t ill-treat captives.
(Despite the use of the same numbers, this is not the same thing as the
“THREE-EIGHT WORKING STYLE” described in an entry above.)

“THREE OURS”, The (Of the RCP.)
This refers to the following set of three slogans formerly prominently promoted by the RCPUSA in its newspaper and on its web site:
        “Our ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism,
        Our vanguard is the Revolutionary Communist Party,
        Our leader is Chairman Avakian.”
There are obviously some serious problems with these slogans. The second, for example, proclaimed the RCP as the “vanguard”, when in fact it had not even begun to lead the American working class toward revolution in any noticeable way. And the third slogan set up Bob Avakian as the permanent and unchallengeable leader of the Party, which is both anti-scientific and anti-democratic. But strangely enough, it was discomfort about the first slogan that led the RCP to quietly drop the “Three Ours”, circa 2008. Instead of calling the science of revolution “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism”, as they formerly did, they now call it simply “communism”.
        The explanation for this change offered by Party members is that this does not mean that “Mao is being demoted”, but rather that this has to do with breaking with “religious trends in the ICM” that supposedly led communists to uncritically uphold Marx, Lenin and Mao, and never admit they made any errors. (This is quite ironic in light of the religious cult of personality around Avakian which the RCP has created, and their refusal to admit that Avakian ever makes any errors!) In addition, the RCP thought that the first slogan somehow implied that we don’t need to further develop our revolutionary science, while they believe that with the defeat of China we are in a new stage of development of communism as a science. The strong suspicion among some of those not in the RCP is that Avakian made this change because he knew they could not get away with calling his supposed “new synthesis” “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Avakianism”. This calls to mind the old principle of bourgeois success: “It is not enough that I am honored and raised up; others must also be knocked down!”

A term popularized in China’s
People’s Liberation Army during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which referred to the important tasks of the PLA to: 1) Support China’s industry; 2) Support its agriculture; 3) Support the broad masses of the Left in the ongoing political struggle; 4) Military control (maintaining proper control of the military); and 5) Political and Military training in the PLA.

The name given to several related versions of a geo-political theory, some of which are mostly correct (or innocuous), but the worst versions of which are very wrong and dangerous indeed! This theory starts from the straightforward recognition that the countries of the world in the 1970s could be analyzed as consisting of three distinct groups: The First World, consisting of the two superpowers, the United States and the revisionist Soviet Union, both of which were imperialist countries seeking to totally dominate and exploit the world in their own interests; the Second World, consisting of the other junior imperialist or advanced capitalist countries; and the Third World, consisting of all the other countries, including most of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, which were dominated and exploited by imperialism, especially by the two superpowers. So far there is nothing very contentious in this theory, and pretty much every sophisticated person (except for the supporters of one or the other superpower) understood the world situation in roughly this way at the time. Mao, for example, is quoted as saying to a leader of some unidentified Third World country in February 1974:

“In my view, the United States and the Soviet Union form the first world. Japan, Europe and Canada, the middle section, belong to the second world. We are the third world.... The third world has a huge population. With the exception of Japan, Asia belongs to the third world. The whole of Africa belongs to the third world, and Latin America too.” —Mao, quoted in Peking Review, #45, Nov. 4, 1977, p. 11.

The important question, however, is exactly what use was (or is) to be made of this 3-way analysis? Mao sought to make use of it to help create a united front of Third World countries against the two superpower imperialist countries. That was no doubt reasonable and correct. But some subsidiary views and uses of this theory, that Mao certainly didn’t agree with or approve of, are quite another matter!
        The countries of the “second world” were viewed as having a dual nature. On the one hand they shared in the exploitation of the Third World, but on the other hand they were also pushed around (to various degrees) by the two superpowers. This led to the notion that at least some of these “second world” countries might be won over to joining a united front against the two superpowers, at least on some matters. This was unrealistic with regard to most issues, however. The first goal of all imperialist countries is to defend the imperialist system.
        This notion of being able to enlist the support of some “second world” junior imperialist countries in a united front against imperialism had as much persuasiveness as it did at that time only because there were then two superpowers in the “first world”, and the real goal was more and more to unite all other countries, imperialist or not, against just one of those superpowers, the revisionist
social-imperialist Soviet Union. In effect the “three worlds theory” actually became a “four worlds theory”: one enemy superpower, one lesser-evil superpower, other junior imperialist countries, and all the other countries of the world—the “third world”. Given that the Soviet Union was on the verge of a military attack on China at the time it was understandable that China should look at things this way. But this was still not the basis for a revolutionary strategy of the people of the world against imperialism in general.
        Much worse, however, was the tendency to support reactionary Third World regimes (as part of building a “united front” against the superpowers) instead of supporting the revolutionary masses in those countries in their efforts to overthrow those regimes! In theory, both of these rather contradictory things could be done simultaneously, but somehow even in revolutionary China the former seemed often to take precedence over the later. The tendency was to refrain from (or soft-pedal) criticizing the crimes of these reactionary regimes against their own people, and to be excessively cozy with Third World tyrants and imperialist lackies such as the Shah of Iran and the dictator Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. While building a united front of countries against imperialism is a good idea, that idea is perverted if it only amounts to being friendly towards lacky regimes completely controlled by the imperialists.
        This in turn led to much confusion among revolutionary forces in these Third World countries. It is true that “state-to-state” relations are one thing and “party-to-party” relations are another thing. But this “Bandung spirit” of building a united front of Third World countries against imperialism seems to have helped promote seriously erroneous shifts in political line by some nominally Communist or revolutionary parties. One of the most notorious cases occurred in Indonesia where the KPI backed the bourgeois nationalist regime of Sukarno (rather than arming the masses as they should have been doing at that time), and were then destroyed in 1965 in a reactionary military coup and nationwide massacre directed by the CIA.
        The “Three Worlds Theory”, in one form or another, was part of the thinking that lay behind the de facto foreign policy of the Chinese government for decades. While Zhou Enlai was alive, he was in charge of it. Aspects of it were criticized at times by Mao, and were also criticized during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, and by the so-called “Gang of Four”. But after Mao’s death in September 1976, there was a huge burst of enthusiasm for the theory and the more anti-revolutionary policies it led to. Of course to cover themselves, the Chinese revisionists attributed this theory entirely to Mao personally, including its worst aspects and policies that Mao would have certainly opposed. The most thorough presentation of the theory by the CCP was in the long article “Chairman Mao’s Theory of the Differentiation of the Three Worlds Is a Major Contribution to Marxism-Leninism”, in Peking Review, #45, Nov. 4, 1977, online at: http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/PR1977/PR1977-45-ThreeWorldsTheory.pdf [PDF: 34 pages, 4,411 KB]. (Readers should be forewarned that some aspects of this theory as presented there sound pretty good in abstract terms; many of the disastrous problems associated with it are due to how it is actually invariably applied in practice.)
        While the revisionist Soviet Union is now long gone, something like the Three Worlds Theory still exists in various forms. One expression of it is the common (but erroneous) view among many revolutionaries around the world that U.S. imperialism, as the only remaining superpower, is the only foreign enemy to focus on in anti-imperialist or revolutionary work. A corollary view is that other imperialist countries, such as Britain and France, are of little concern in anti-imperialist work, and might even be united with and supported at times in opposition to the United States. And China is often not yet recognized as an imperialist country at all, even though in reality it is already the second most important and powerful imperialist country in the world, and is rapidly rising while U.S. imperialism is clearly declining and becoming more and more vulnerable, especially economically.
        Other views which have commonalities with the “Three Worlds” Theory are World Systems Theory, and the “Triad” conception (of Samir Amin) which also fail to recognize China as a rapidly strengthening imperialist power.
        See also: “THIRD WORLD”

“Even during the 1970-1973 period, the CCP’s view of the international situation had serious problems. Its position was that the two superpowers (the U.S. and the Soviet Union — ‘the first world’) were the principal enemies on a world scale; the Western imperialists and Japan (the ‘second world’) were part of an international united front against the superpowers; and the “peoples and countries of the third world’ were the most reliable revolutionary force in opposing the superpowers.
        “As a perspective for the world’s revolutionary movement, this analysis was flawed. It detached the U.S. and Soviet Union from the imperialist system as a whole; it downplayed the reactionary nature of the other imperialist countries in Western Europe, Japan, Canada and Oceania; and it advanced a classless conception of nationalism by lumping together the oppressed peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America with their rulers, who had limited contradictions, if at all, with one or another imperialist power.
        “Some of the problems with the ‘three worlds perspective’ were reflected in a widely quoted statement attributed to Mao, ‘Countries want independence, nations want liberation, and the people want revolution.’ Mao’s eclectic statement, which tended to place struggles of Third World countries for national independence on a par with revolutionary movements, shared some aspects of the Bandung line associated with Zhou in the 1950s and 1960s.
        “... While Mao advocated tactical unity in some areas with the U.S. in order to deal with the Soviet threat to China, after 1973 Deng and Zhou sought to implement a strategic alliance and political understanding with U.S. imperialism. This took the form of the fully developed ‘Three Worlds Theory.”....
        “As a result of the dominant position achieved by the revisionist forces after 1973, China began to withdrew support for revolutionary movements in the Third World. Parades of U.S. puppets were honored in Beijing for their contributions to ‘the struggle against Soviet hegemonism.’ In 1975, the Chinese government supported the U.S. and South African-backed UNITA in the Angolan civil war — in the name of defeating the Soviet Union’s attempts to gain a strategic foothold in Africa through its support for the MPLA.
        “In the Middle East, China’s prior support for revolutionary movements was reversed. Chinese aid to revolutionary forces in the Gulf States was dropped in favor of diplomatic ties with Oman. Another sign of this reversal of Chinese foreign policy was a speech by Foreign Minister Qiao Guanhua in 1975 in which he said that China was reconciled to the existence of Israel as a ‘fait accompli.’....
        “Thus, the counter-revolutionary developments in Chinese foreign policy in the mid-1970s were a direct outgrowth of the Three Worlds Theory and the revisionists in the CCP who spawned it. This threw many Maoist parties and organizations around the world into a tailspin, from which most never recovered.” —Excerpts from pages 30-34 of the excellent article, “Chinese Foreign Policy during the Maoist Era and its Lessons for Today”, by the MLM Revolutionary Study Group in the U.S. (January 2007), online at http://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/article/74/ChForPol-Final-4-09.pdf

“An important weakness of the ‘three worlds perspective’ was that it did not make a correct analysis of the imperialist system as a whole. This theoretical framework sowed confusion about the nature of the ‘Second World’—the other Western imperialist powers–and exaggerated their conflicts with the U.S. This perspective was reshaped by Deng and other revisionists into the Three Worlds Theory, which asserted that the West European and Asian imperialist powers played a progressive role in the world by defending their national independence against the Soviet Union, the “most dangerous” imperialist superpower. This essentially called on revolutionary and Maoist forces, especially in Western Europe, to support, or stop opposing, their own bourgeoisies and various oppressor regimes which opposed the Soviet Union.” —Ibid., p. 38.

A weapon planted [by police] at a crime scene in order to mislead investigation, especially in situations where deadly force would only have been justified if the victim were armed. Also an untraceable weapon kept in readiness for such use. [From the online Wiktionary.]

Dictionary Home Page and Letter Index