Polemic on General Line of International ... - From Marx to Mao
Polemic on General Line of International ... - From Marx to Mao
Polemic on General Line of International ... - From Marx to Mao
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>From</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>Mao</strong>ML© Digital Reprints2006
THE POLEMICON THE GENERAL LINEOF THEINTERNATIONALCOMMUNIST MOVEMENTFOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESSPEKING 1965
C O N T E N T SA PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THEINTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENTThe Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> China in Reply <strong>to</strong> the Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> March 30, 1963(June 14, 1963)THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DIFFERENCESBETWEEN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CPSU AND OUR-SELVESComment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU(September 6, 1963)THE DIFFERENCES BEGAN WITH THE 20TH CONGRESSOF THE CPSUTHE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE 20TH CONGRESSOF THE CPSUTHE 1957 MOSCOW MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIESTHE GROWTH OF THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSULEADERSHIPTHE SURPRISE ASSAULT ON THE CPC BY THE LEADER-SHIP OF THE CPSUTHE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO LINES AT THE1960 MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIESTHE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIP BE-COMES SYSTEMATIZEDAN ADVERSE CURRENT THAT IS OPPOSED TO MARX-ISM-LENINISM AND IS SPLITTING THE INTERNA-TIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENTWHAT HAVE THE FACTS OF THE PAST SEVEN YEARSDEMONSTRATED?Appendix IOutline <strong>of</strong> Views <strong>on</strong> the Questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Transiti<strong>on</strong>(November 10, 1957)Appendix IIStatement <strong>of</strong> the Delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Chinaat the Bucharest Meeting <strong>of</strong> Fraternal Parties(June 26, 1960)155596770757983899399105109
Appendix IIIThe Five Proposals for Settlement <strong>of</strong> the Differences andAttainment <strong>of</strong> Unity C<strong>on</strong>tained in the Letter <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPC in Reply <strong>to</strong> the Letter <strong>of</strong> Informati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU(September 10, 1960)ON THE QUESTION OF STALINSec<strong>on</strong>d Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU(September 13, 1963)IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY?Third Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU(September 26, 1963)THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE CAPITAL IN YUGO-SLAV CITIESYUGOSLAV COUNTRYSIDE SWAMPED BY CAPITALISMTHE DEGENERATION OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY OWNEDBY THE WHOLE PEOPLE INTO CAPlTALIST ECONOMYA DEPENDENCY OF U.S. IMPERIALISMA COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SPECIAL DETACHMENTOF U.S. IMPERIALISMTHE DEGENERATION OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THEPROLETARIAT INTO THE DICTATORSHIP OF THEBOURGEOISIETHE PRINCIPLEED STAND OF THE CPC ON THE QUES-TION OF YUGOSLAVIAHAS TITO “REMOVED HIS ERRORS”? OR DOESKHRUSHCHOV REGARD TITO AS HIS TEACHER?BRIEF CONCLUSIONAPOLOGISTS OF NEO-COLONIALISMFourth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU(Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 22, 1964)ABOLITION OF THE TASK OF COMBATING IMPERIAL-ISM AND COLONIALISMPRESCRIPTIONS FOR ABOLISHING THE REVOLUTIONOF THE OPPRESSED NATIONSOPPOSITION TO WARS OF NATIONAL LIBERATIONTHE AREAS IN WHICH CONTEMPORARY WORLD CON-TRADICTIONS ARE CONCENTRATED113115139145147154161166171175177181185188193197200
DISTORTION OF THE LENINIST VIEW OF LEADERSHIPIN THE REVOLUTIONTHE PATH OF NATIONALISM AND DEGENERATIONAN EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL-CHAUVINISMAGAINST THE “THEORY OF RACISM” AND THE“THEORY OF THE YELLOW PERIL”RESURRECTING THE OLD REVISIONISM IN A NEWGUISETWO DIFFERENT LINES ON THE QUESTION OF WAR ANDPEACEFifth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU(November 19, 1963)THE LESSONS OF HISTORYTHE GREATEST FRAUDTHE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF PREVENTINGA NEW WORLD WARNUCLEAR FETISHISM AND NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL ARETHE THEORETICAL BASIS AND GUIDING POLICY OFMODERN REVISIONISMFIGHT OR CAPITULATE?THE ROAD IN DEFENCE OF PEACE AND THE ROADLEADING TO WARPEACEFUL COEXISTENCE — TWO DIAMETRICALLY OP-POSED POLICIESSixth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU(December 12, 1963)LENIN AND STALIN’S POLICY OF PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCETHE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA UPHOLDS LENIN’SPOLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCETHE GENERAL LINE OF “PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE”OF THE CPSU LEADERSTHREE DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLETHE CPSU LEADERS’ GENERAL LINE OF “PEACEFULCOEXISTENCE” CATERS TO U.S. IMPERIALISMSOVIET-U S. COLLABORATION IS THE HEART ANDSOUL OF THE CPSU LEADERS’ GENERAL LINE OF“PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE”A FEW WORDS OF ADVICE TO THE LEADERS OF THECPSU203206209212216221224230235242249254259262270275278289295300
THE LEADERS OF THE CPSU ARE THE GREATEST SPLIT-TERS OF OUR TIMESSeventh Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU(February 4, 1964)A REVIEW OF HISTORYEXPERIENCE AND LESSONSTHE GREATEST SPLITTERS OF OUR TIMESREFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF BEING ANTI-SOVIETREFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF SEIZING THELEADERSHIPREFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF FRUSTRATING THEWILL OF THE MAJORITY AND VIOLATING INTER-NATIONAL DISCIPLINEREFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF SUPPORTING THEANTI-PARTY GROUPS OF FRATERNAL PARTIESTHE PRESENT PUBLIC DEBATETHE WAY TO DEFEND AND STRENGTHEN UNITYTHE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND KHRUSHCHOV’SREVISIONISMEighth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU(March 31, 1964)A DISCIPLE OF BERNSTEIN AND KAUTSKYVIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL LAW OFPROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONOUR STRUGGLE AGAINST KHRUSHCHOV’S REVISION-ISMSOPHISTRY CANNOT ALTER HISTORYLIES CANNOT COVER UP REALITYREFUTATION OF THE “PARLIAMENTARY ROAD”REFUTATION OF “OPPOSITION TO LEFT OPPORTUN-ISM”TWO DIFFERENT LINES. TWO DIFFERENT RESULTSFROM BROWDER AND TITO TO KHRUSHCHOVOUR HOPESON KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM AND ITS HIS-TORICAL LESSONS FOR THE WORLDNinth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU(July 14, 1964)SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THEPROLETARIAT303306313318326331336341348354359362366370375382388392399403411415418
ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE EXISTIN THE SOVIET UNIONTHE SOVIET PRIVILEDGED STRATUM AND THE REVI-SIONIST KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUEREFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED STATE OF THEWHOLE PEOPLEREFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THEWHOLE PEOPLEKHRUSHCHOV’S PHONEY COMMUNISMHISTORICAL LESSONS OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THEPROLETARIATWHY KHRUSHCHOV FELL(November 21, 1964)APPENDICESTHE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSUTO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC(March 30, 1963)OPEN LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THECOMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION TO ALLPARTY ORGANISATIONS, TO ALL COMMUNISTS OF THESOVIET UNION(July 14, 1963)428436444453459467481495526
A PROPOSAL CONCERNINGTHE GENERAL LINEOF THE INTERNATIONALCOMMUNIST MOVEMENTThe Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Chinain Reply <strong>to</strong> the Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> March 30, 1963(June 14, 1963)
The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>June 14, 1963Dear Comrades,The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Chinahas studied the letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> March 30, 1963.All who have the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement at heart are deeply c<strong>on</strong>cernedabout the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Partiesand hope that our talks will help <strong>to</strong> eliminate differences,strengthen unity and create favourable c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for c<strong>on</strong>veninga meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> all the Communist andWorkers’ Parties.It is the comm<strong>on</strong> and sacred duty <strong>of</strong> the Communist andWorkers’ Parties <strong>of</strong> all countries <strong>to</strong> uphold and strengthen theunity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. The Chineseand Soviet Parties bear a heavier resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for the unity<strong>of</strong> the entire socialist camp and internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement and should <strong>of</strong> course make commensurately greaterefforts.A number <strong>of</strong> major differences <strong>of</strong> principle now exist inthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. But however seriousthese differences, we should exercise sufficient patience andfind ways <strong>to</strong> eliminate them so that we can unite our forcesand strengthen the struggle against our comm<strong>on</strong> enemy.It is with this sincere desire that the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China approaches the forthcomingtalks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties.In its letter <strong>of</strong> March 30, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU systematically presents its views <strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s that need3
<strong>to</strong> be discussed in the talks between the Chinese and SovietParties, and in particular raises the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the generalline <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. In this letterwe <strong>to</strong>o would like <strong>to</strong> express our views, which c<strong>on</strong>stitute ourproposal <strong>on</strong> the general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement and <strong>on</strong> some related questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle.We hope that this expositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> views will be c<strong>on</strong>ducive <strong>to</strong>mutual understanding by our two Parties and <strong>to</strong> a detailed,point-by-point discussi<strong>on</strong> in the talks.We also hope that this will be c<strong>on</strong>ducive <strong>to</strong> the understanding<strong>of</strong> our views by the fraternal Parties and <strong>to</strong> a full exchange<strong>of</strong> ideas at an internati<strong>on</strong>al meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternalParties.1. The general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementmust take as its guiding principle the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theory c<strong>on</strong>cerning the his<strong>to</strong>rical missi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theproletariat and must not depart from it.The Moscow Meetings <strong>of</strong> 1957 and 1960 adopted the Declarati<strong>on</strong>and the Statement respectively after a full exchange<strong>of</strong> views and in accordance with the principle <strong>of</strong> reachingunanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>. The two documents poin<strong>to</strong>ut the characteristics <strong>of</strong> our epoch and the comm<strong>on</strong> laws <strong>of</strong>socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> and socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, and lay downthe comm<strong>on</strong> line <strong>of</strong> all the Communist and Workers’ Parties.They are the comm<strong>on</strong> programme <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement.It is true that for several years there have been differenceswithin the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement in the understanding<strong>of</strong>, and the attitude <strong>to</strong>wards, the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957and the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960. The central issue here is whetheror not <strong>to</strong> accept the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong>and the Statement. In the last analysis, it is a questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> whether or not <strong>to</strong> accept the universal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, whether or not <strong>to</strong> recognize the universal significance<strong>of</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, whether or not4
<strong>to</strong> accept the fact that the people still living under the imperialistand capitalist system, who comprise two-thirds <strong>of</strong> theworld’s populati<strong>on</strong>, need <strong>to</strong> make revoluti<strong>on</strong>, and whether ornot <strong>to</strong> accept the fact that the people already <strong>on</strong> the socialistroad, who comprise <strong>on</strong>e-third <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>, need<strong>to</strong> carry their revoluti<strong>on</strong> forward <strong>to</strong> the end.It has become an urgent and vital task <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement resolutely <strong>to</strong> defend the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryprinciples <strong>of</strong> the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement.Only by strictly following the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary teachings <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the general road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>is it possible <strong>to</strong> have a correct understanding <strong>of</strong> therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statementand a correct attitude <strong>to</strong>wards them.2. What are the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong>and the Statement? They may be summarized as follows:Workers <strong>of</strong> all countries, unite; workers <strong>of</strong> the world,unite with the oppressed peoples and oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s;oppose imperialism and reacti<strong>on</strong> in all countries; strive forworld peace, nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>, people’s democracy and socialism;c<strong>on</strong>solidate and expand the socialist camp; bring theproletarian world revoluti<strong>on</strong> step by step <strong>to</strong> completevic<strong>to</strong>ry; and establish a new world without imperialism,without capitalism and without the exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> manby man.This, in our view, is the general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement at the present stage.3. This general line proceeds from the actual world situati<strong>on</strong>taken as a whole and from a class analysis <strong>of</strong> the fundamentalc<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the c<strong>on</strong>temporary world, and isdirected against the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary global strategy <strong>of</strong>U.S. imperialism.This general line is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> forming a broad united fr<strong>on</strong>t,with the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat as its5
nucleus, <strong>to</strong> oppose the imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries headedby the United States; it is a line <strong>of</strong> boldly arousing the masses,expanding the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary forces, winning over the middleforces and isolating the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary forces.This general line is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> resolute revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggleby the people <strong>of</strong> all countries and <strong>of</strong> carrying the proletarianworld revoluti<strong>on</strong> forward <strong>to</strong> the end; it is the line that mosteffectively combats imperialism and defends world peace.If the general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementis <strong>on</strong>e-sidedly reduced <strong>to</strong> “peaceful coexistence”, “peacefulcompetiti<strong>on</strong>” and “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”, this is <strong>to</strong> violatethe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the1960 Statement, <strong>to</strong> discard the his<strong>to</strong>rical missi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> proletarianworld revoluti<strong>on</strong>, and <strong>to</strong> depart from the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary teachings<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.The general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementshould reflect the general law <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> world his<strong>to</strong>ry.The revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and thepeople in various countries go through different stages andthey all have their own characteristics, but they will not transcendthe general law <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> world his<strong>to</strong>ry. Thegeneral line should point out the basic directi<strong>on</strong> for the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and people <strong>of</strong> all countries.While working out its specific line and policies, it is mostimportant for each Communist or Workers’ Party <strong>to</strong> adhere <strong>to</strong>the principle <strong>of</strong> integrating the universal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism with the c<strong>on</strong>crete practice <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>in its own country.4. In defining the general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, the starting point is the c<strong>on</strong>crete classanalysis <strong>of</strong> world politics and ec<strong>on</strong>omics as a whole and <strong>of</strong>actual world c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, that is <strong>to</strong> say, <strong>of</strong> the fundamentalc<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the c<strong>on</strong>temporary world.6
If <strong>on</strong>e avoids a c<strong>on</strong>crete class analysis, seizes at random <strong>on</strong>certain superficial phenomena, and draws subjective andgroundless c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>on</strong>e cannot possibly reach correct c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>swith regard <strong>to</strong> the general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement but will inevitably slide <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> a trackentirely different from that <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.What are the fundamental c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the c<strong>on</strong>temporaryworld? <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists c<strong>on</strong>sistently hold that they are:the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the socialist camp and the imperialistcamp;the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the proletariat and the bourgeoisiein the capitalist countries;the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and imperialism;andthe c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g imperialist countries and am<strong>on</strong>gm<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalist groups.The c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the socialist camp and the imperialistcamp is a c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between two fundamentallydifferent social systems, socialism and capitalism. It is undoubtedlyvery sharp. But <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists must not regardthe c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the world as c<strong>on</strong>sisting solely and simply<strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the socialist camp and the imperialistcamp.The internati<strong>on</strong>al balance <strong>of</strong> forces has changed and hasbecome increasingly favourable <strong>to</strong> socialism and <strong>to</strong> all the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the world, and most unfavourable<strong>to</strong> imperialism and the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries.Nevertheless, the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s enumerated above still objectivelyexist.These c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s and the struggles <strong>to</strong> which they giverise are interrelated and influence each other. Nobody canobliterate any <strong>of</strong> these fundamental c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s or subjectivelysubstitute <strong>on</strong>e for all the rest.It is inevitable that these c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s will give rise <strong>to</strong>popular revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, which al<strong>on</strong>e can resolve them.7
5. The following err<strong>on</strong>eous views should be repudiated <strong>on</strong>the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the fundamental c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the c<strong>on</strong>temporaryworld:a. the view which blots out the class c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>between the socialist and the imperialist campsand fails <strong>to</strong> see this c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> as <strong>on</strong>e between statesunder the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and states underthe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalists;b. the view which recognizes <strong>on</strong>ly the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> betweenthe socialist and the imperialist camps, while neglectingor underestimating the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s between the proletariatand the bourgeoisie in the capitalist world, betweenthe oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and imperialism, am<strong>on</strong>g the imperialistcountries and am<strong>on</strong>g the m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalist groups, andthe struggles <strong>to</strong> which these c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s give rise;c. the view which maintains with regard <strong>to</strong> the capitalistworld that the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the proletariat andthe bourgeoisie can be resolved without a proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>in each country and that the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> betweenthe oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and imperialism can be resolved withoutrevoluti<strong>on</strong> by the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s;d. the view which denies that the development <strong>of</strong> theinherent c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the c<strong>on</strong>temporary capitalist worldinevitably leads <strong>to</strong> a new situati<strong>on</strong> in which the imperialistcountries are locked in an intense struggle, and asserts thatthe c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the imperialist countries can berec<strong>on</strong>ciled, or even eliminated, by “internati<strong>on</strong>al agreementsam<strong>on</strong>g the big m<strong>on</strong>opolies”; ande. the view which maintains that the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> betweenthe two world systems <strong>of</strong> socialism and capitalismwill au<strong>to</strong>matically disappear in the course <strong>of</strong> “ec<strong>on</strong>omiccompetiti<strong>on</strong>”, that the other fundamental world c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>swill au<strong>to</strong>matically do so with the disappearance <strong>of</strong> thec<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the two systems, and that a “world8
without wars”, a new world <strong>of</strong> “all-round co-operati<strong>on</strong>”,will appear.It is obvious that these err<strong>on</strong>eous views inevitably lead <strong>to</strong>err<strong>on</strong>eous and harmful policies and hence <strong>to</strong> setbacks andlosses <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e kind or another <strong>to</strong> the cause <strong>of</strong> the people and<strong>of</strong> socialism.6. The balance <strong>of</strong> forces between imperialism and socialismhas underg<strong>on</strong>e a fundamental change since World WarII. The main indicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this change is that the world nowhas not just <strong>on</strong>e socialist country but a number <strong>of</strong> socialistcountries forming the mighty socialist camp, and that the peoplewho have taken the socialist road now number not twohundred milli<strong>on</strong> but a thousand milli<strong>on</strong>, or a third <strong>of</strong> theworld’s populati<strong>on</strong>.The socialist camp is the outcome <strong>of</strong> the struggles <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alproletariat and working people. It bel<strong>on</strong>gs <strong>to</strong> theinternati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and working people as well as <strong>to</strong> thepeople <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries.The main comm<strong>on</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the countriesin the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat andworking people are that all the Communist and Workers’ Partiesin the socialist camp should:adhere <strong>to</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line and pursue correct<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist domestic and foreign policies;c<strong>on</strong>solidate the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and theworker-peasant alliance led by the proletariat and carry thesocialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> forward <strong>to</strong> the end <strong>on</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omic, politicaland ideological fr<strong>on</strong>ts;promote the initiative and creativeness <strong>of</strong> the broadmasses, carry out socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> in a planned way,develop producti<strong>on</strong>, improve the people’s livelihood andstrengthen nati<strong>on</strong>al defense;strengthen the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp <strong>on</strong> the basis<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and support other socialist countries<strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism;9
oppose the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war,and defend world peace;oppose the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>arypolicies <strong>of</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries;andhelp the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed classesand nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the world.All Communist and Workers’ Parties in the socialist campowe it <strong>to</strong> their own people and <strong>to</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariatand working people <strong>to</strong> fulfil these demands.By fulfilling these demands the socialist camp will exerta decisive influence <strong>on</strong> the course <strong>of</strong> human his<strong>to</strong>ry.For this very reas<strong>on</strong>, the imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries invariablytry in a thousand and <strong>on</strong>e ways <strong>to</strong> influence thedomestic and foreign policies <strong>of</strong> the countries in the socialistcamp, <strong>to</strong> undermine the camp and break up the unity <strong>of</strong> thesocialist countries and particularly the unity <strong>of</strong> China and theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. They invariably try <strong>to</strong> infiltrate and subvertthe socialist countries and even entertain the extravagant hope<strong>of</strong> destroying the socialist camp.The questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> what is the correct attitude <strong>to</strong>wards thesocialist camp is a most important questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> principle c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>tingall Communist and Workers’ Parties.It is under new his<strong>to</strong>rical c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s that the Communistand Workers’ Parties are now carrying <strong>on</strong> the task <strong>of</strong> proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alist unity and struggle. When <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>esocialist country existed and when this country was facedwith hostility and jeopardized by all the imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>ariesbecause it firmly pursued the correct <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistline and policies, the <strong>to</strong>uchst<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismfor every Communist Party was whether or not itresolutely defended the <strong>on</strong>ly socialist country. Now there is asocialist camp c<strong>on</strong>sisting <strong>of</strong> thirteen countries, Albania, Bulgaria,China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German DemocraticRepublic, Hungary, the Democratic People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> Korea,10
M<strong>on</strong>golia, Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the DemocraticRepublic <strong>of</strong> Viet Nam. Under these circumstances, the<strong>to</strong>uchst<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism for every CommunistParty is whether or not it resolutely defends the whole<strong>of</strong> the socialist camp, whether or not it defends the unity <strong>of</strong>all the countries in the camp <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismand whether or not it defends the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist lineand policies which the socialist countries ought <strong>to</strong> pursue.If anybody does not pursue the correct <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistline and policies, does not defend the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialistcamp but <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary creates tensi<strong>on</strong> and splits within it,or even follows the policies <strong>of</strong> the Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, tries<strong>to</strong> liquidate the socialist camp or helps capitalist countries <strong>to</strong>attack fraternal socialist countries, then he is betraying theinterests <strong>of</strong> the entire internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and the people<strong>of</strong> the world.If anybody, following in the footsteps <strong>of</strong> others, defends theerr<strong>on</strong>eous opportunist line and policies pursued by a certainsocialist country instead <strong>of</strong> upholding the correct <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line and policies which the socialist countries ought<strong>to</strong> pursue, defends the policy <strong>of</strong> split instead <strong>of</strong> upholding thepolicy <strong>of</strong> unity, then he is departing from <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismand proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.7. Taking advantage <strong>of</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong> after World War II,the U.S. imperialists stepped in<strong>to</strong> the shoes <strong>of</strong> the German,Italian and Japanese fascists, and have been trying <strong>to</strong> erect ahuge world empire such as has never been known before.The strategic objectives <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism have been <strong>to</strong> graband dominate the intermediate z<strong>on</strong>e lying between the UnitedStates and the socialist camp, put down the revoluti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> theoppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s, proceed <strong>to</strong> destroy the socialistcountries, and thus <strong>to</strong> subject all the peoples and countries <strong>of</strong>the world, including its allies, <strong>to</strong> dominati<strong>on</strong> and enslavementby U.S. m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital.11
Ever since World War II, the U.S. imperialists have beenc<strong>on</strong>ducting propaganda for war against the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> andthe socialist camp. There are two aspects <strong>to</strong> this propaganda.While the U.S. imperialists are actually preparing such a war,they also use this propaganda as a smokescreen for their oppressi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the American people and for the extensi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theiraggressi<strong>on</strong> against the rest <strong>of</strong> the capitalist world.The 1960 Statement points out:“U.S. imperialism has become the biggest internati<strong>on</strong>al exploiter.”“The United States is the mainstay <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism <strong>to</strong>day.”“U.S. imperialism is the main force <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war.”“Internati<strong>on</strong>al developments in recent years have furnishedmany new pro<strong>of</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the fact that U.S. imperialism is the chiefbulwark <strong>of</strong> world reacti<strong>on</strong> and an internati<strong>on</strong>al gendarme, thatit has become an enemy <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> the whole world.”U.S. imperialism is pressing its policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> andwar all over the world, but the outcome is bound <strong>to</strong> be theopposite <strong>of</strong> that intended — it will <strong>on</strong>ly be <strong>to</strong> hasten theawakening <strong>of</strong> the people in all countries and <strong>to</strong> hasten theirrevoluti<strong>on</strong>s.The U.S. imperialists have thus placed themselves in oppositi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the whole world and have becomeencircled by them. The internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat must andcan unite all the forces that can be united, make use <strong>of</strong> theinternal c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the enemy camp and establish thebroadest united fr<strong>on</strong>t against the U.S. imperialists and theirlackeys.The realistic and correct course is <strong>to</strong> entrust the fate <strong>of</strong> thepeople and <strong>of</strong> mankind <strong>to</strong> the unity and struggle <strong>of</strong> the worldproletariat and <strong>to</strong> the unity and struggle <strong>of</strong> the people in allcountries.C<strong>on</strong>versely, <strong>to</strong> make no distincti<strong>on</strong> between enemies, friendsand ourselves and <strong>to</strong> entrust the fate <strong>of</strong> the people and <strong>of</strong>mankind <strong>to</strong> collaborati<strong>on</strong> with U.S. imperialism is <strong>to</strong> lead peo-12
ple astray. The events <strong>of</strong> the last few years have explodedthis illusi<strong>on</strong>.8. The various types <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the c<strong>on</strong>temporaryworld are c<strong>on</strong>centrated in the vast areas <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa andLatin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under imperialistrule and the s<strong>to</strong>rm-centres <strong>of</strong> world revoluti<strong>on</strong>dealing direct blows at imperialism.The nati<strong>on</strong>al democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement in theseareas and the internati<strong>on</strong>al socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movementare the two great his<strong>to</strong>rical currents <strong>of</strong> our time.The nati<strong>on</strong>al democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong> in these areas is an importantcomp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>temporary proletarian worldrevoluti<strong>on</strong>.The anti-imperialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the peoplein Asia, Africa and Latin America are pounding and underminingthe foundati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> imperialism and col<strong>on</strong>ialism,old and new, and are now a mighty force in defence<strong>of</strong> world peace.In a sense, therefore, the whole cause <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> hinges <strong>on</strong> the outcome <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> these areas, who c<strong>on</strong>stitutethe overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>.Therefore, the anti-imperialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle <strong>of</strong> thepeople in Asia, Africa and Latin America is definitely notmerely a matter <strong>of</strong> regi<strong>on</strong>al significance but <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> overallimportance for the whole cause <strong>of</strong> proletarian world revoluti<strong>on</strong>.Certain pers<strong>on</strong>s now go so far as <strong>to</strong> deny the great internati<strong>on</strong>alsignificance <strong>of</strong> the anti-imperialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles<strong>of</strong> the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and,<strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> breaking down the barriers <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>ality,colour and geographical locati<strong>on</strong>, are trying their best <strong>to</strong> effacethe line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong> between oppressed and oppressor nati<strong>on</strong>sand between oppressed and oppressor countries and <strong>to</strong>hold down the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the peoples in these13
areas. In fact, they cater <strong>to</strong> the needs <strong>of</strong> imperialism andcreate a new “theory” <strong>to</strong> justify the rule <strong>of</strong> imperialism inthese areas and the promoti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> its policies <strong>of</strong> old and newcol<strong>on</strong>ialism. Actually, this “theory” seeks not <strong>to</strong> break downthe barriers <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>ality, colour and geographical locati<strong>on</strong>but <strong>to</strong> maintain the rule <strong>of</strong> the “superior nati<strong>on</strong>s” over theoppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s. It is <strong>on</strong>ly natural that this fraudulent“theory” is rejected by the people in these areas.The working class in every socialist country and in everycapitalist country must truly put in<strong>to</strong> effect the fightingslogans, “Workers <strong>of</strong> all countries, unite!” and “Workers andoppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the world, unite!”; it must study the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryexperience <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica, firmly support their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary acti<strong>on</strong>s and regardthe cause <strong>of</strong> their liberati<strong>on</strong> as a most dependable supportfor itself and as directly in accord with its own interests. Thisis the <strong>on</strong>ly effective way <strong>to</strong> break down the barriers <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>ality,colour and geographical locati<strong>on</strong> and this is the <strong>on</strong>lygenuine proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.It is impossible for the working class in the European andAmerican capitalist countries <strong>to</strong> liberate itself unless it uniteswith the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and unless those nati<strong>on</strong>s areliberated. Lenin rightly said:The revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement in the advanced countrieswould actually be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle againstcapital, the workers <strong>of</strong> Europe and America were not closelyand completely united with the hundreds up<strong>on</strong> hundreds<strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> “col<strong>on</strong>ial” slaves who are oppressed by capital.1Certain pers<strong>on</strong>s in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementare now taking a passive or scornful or negative attitude <strong>to</strong>wardsthe struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s for liberati<strong>on</strong>.1V. I. Lenin, “The Sec<strong>on</strong>d C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Communist Internati<strong>on</strong>al”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow,1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 472-73.14
They are in fact protecting the interests <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital,betraying those <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, and degenerating in<strong>to</strong> socialdemocrats.The attitude taken <strong>to</strong>wards the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong>the people in the Asian, African and Latin American countriesis an important criteri<strong>on</strong> for differentiating those who wantrevoluti<strong>on</strong> from those who do not and those who are trulydefending world peace from those who are abetting the forces<strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war.9. The oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and peoples <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa andLatin America are faced with the urgent task <strong>of</strong> fighting imperialismand its lackeys.His<strong>to</strong>ry has entrusted <strong>to</strong> the proletarian parties in theseareas the glorious missi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> holding high the banner <strong>of</strong> struggleagainst imperialism, against old and new col<strong>on</strong>ialism andfor nati<strong>on</strong>al independence and people’s democracy, <strong>of</strong> standingin the forefr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymovement and striving for a socialist future.In these areas, extremely broad secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the populati<strong>on</strong>refuse <strong>to</strong> be slaves <strong>of</strong> imperialism. They include not <strong>on</strong>ly theworkers, peasants, intellectuals and petty bourgeoisie, butalso the patriotic nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisie and even certain kings,princes and aris<strong>to</strong>crats who are patriotic.The proletariat and its party must have c<strong>on</strong>fidence in thestrength <strong>of</strong> the masses and, above all, must unite with thepeasants and establish a solid worker-peasant alliance. It is<strong>of</strong> primary importance for advanced members <strong>of</strong> the proletariat<strong>to</strong> work in the rural areas, help the peasants <strong>to</strong> get organized,and raise their class c<strong>on</strong>sciousness and their nati<strong>on</strong>alself-respect and self-c<strong>on</strong>fidence.On the basis <strong>of</strong> the worker-peasant alliance the proletariatand its party must unite all the strata that can be united andorganize a broad united fr<strong>on</strong>t against imperialism and itslackeys. In order <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate and expand this united fr<strong>on</strong>tit is necessary that the proletarian party should maintain its15
ideological political and organizati<strong>on</strong>al independence and insist<strong>on</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>.The proletarian party and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people mustlearn <strong>to</strong> master all forms <strong>of</strong> struggle, including armed struggle.They must defeat counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary armed force with revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryarmed force whenever imperialism and its lackeysresort <strong>to</strong> armed suppressi<strong>on</strong>.The nati<strong>on</strong>alist countries which have recently w<strong>on</strong> politicalindependence are still c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted with the arduous tasks <strong>of</strong>c<strong>on</strong>solidating it, liquidating the forces <strong>of</strong> imperialism anddomestic reacti<strong>on</strong>, carrying out agrarian and other social reformsand developing their nati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omy and culture. Itis <strong>of</strong> practical and vital importance for these countries <strong>to</strong> guardand fight against the neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialist policies which the oldcol<strong>on</strong>ialists adopt <strong>to</strong> preserve their interests, and especiallyagainst the neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.In some <strong>of</strong> these countries, the patriotic nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisiec<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> stand with the masses in the struggle against imperialismand col<strong>on</strong>ialism and introduce certain measures <strong>of</strong>social progress. This requires the proletarian party <strong>to</strong> makea full appraisal <strong>of</strong> the progressive role <strong>of</strong> the patriotic nati<strong>on</strong>albourgeoisie and strengthen unity with them.As the internal social c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s and the internati<strong>on</strong>alclass struggle sharpen, the bourgeoisie, and particularly thebig bourgeoisie, in some newly independent countries increasinglytend <strong>to</strong> become retainers <strong>of</strong> imperialism and <strong>to</strong> pursueanti-popular, anti-Communist and counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary policies.It is necessary for the proletarian party resolutely <strong>to</strong>oppose these reacti<strong>on</strong>ary policies.<strong>General</strong>ly speaking, the bourgeoisie in these countries havea dual character. When a united fr<strong>on</strong>t is formed with thebourgeoisie, the policy <strong>of</strong> the proletarian party should be <strong>on</strong>e<strong>of</strong> both unity and struggle. The policy should be <strong>to</strong> unitewith the bourgeoisie, in so far as they tend <strong>to</strong> be progressive,anti-imperialist and anti-feudal, but <strong>to</strong> struggle against their16
eacti<strong>on</strong>ary tendencies <strong>to</strong> compromise and collaborate withimperialism and the forces <strong>of</strong> feudalism.On the nati<strong>on</strong>al questi<strong>on</strong> the world outlook <strong>of</strong> theproletarian party is internati<strong>on</strong>alism, and not nati<strong>on</strong>alism. Inthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle it supports progressive nati<strong>on</strong>alismand opposes reacti<strong>on</strong>ary nati<strong>on</strong>alism. It must always drawa clear line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong> between itself and bourgeois nati<strong>on</strong>alism,<strong>to</strong> which it must never fall captive.The 1960 Statement says:Communists expose attempts by the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary secti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie <strong>to</strong> represent its selfish, narrow class interestsas those <strong>of</strong> the entire nati<strong>on</strong>; they expose the demagogicuse by bourgeois politicians <strong>of</strong> socialist slogans for thesame purpose. . . .If the proletariat becomes the tail <strong>of</strong> the landlords and bourgeoisiein the revoluti<strong>on</strong>, no real or thorough vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the nati<strong>on</strong>aldemocratic revoluti<strong>on</strong> is possible, and even if vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> a kind is gained, it will be impossible <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate it.In the course <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressednati<strong>on</strong>s and peoples, the proletarian party must put forwarda programme <strong>of</strong> its own which is thoroughly against imperialismand domestic reacti<strong>on</strong> and for nati<strong>on</strong>al independenceand people’s democracy, and it must work independentlyam<strong>on</strong>g the masses, c<strong>on</strong>stantly expand the progressive forces,win over the middle forces and isolate the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary forces;<strong>on</strong>ly thus can it carry the nati<strong>on</strong>al democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>through <strong>to</strong> the end and guide the revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the road <strong>of</strong>socialism.10. In the imperialist and the capitalist countries, the proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat areessential for the thorough resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>capitalist society.In striving <strong>to</strong> accomplish this task the proletarian partymust under the present circumstances actively lead the work-17
ing class and the working people in struggles <strong>to</strong> opposem<strong>on</strong>opoly capital, <strong>to</strong> defend democratic rights, <strong>to</strong> oppose themenace <strong>of</strong> fascism, <strong>to</strong> improve living c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> opposeimperialist arms expansi<strong>on</strong> and war preparati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> defendworld peace and actively <strong>to</strong> support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s.In the capitalist countries which U.S. imperialism c<strong>on</strong>trolsor is trying <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol, the working class and the people shoulddirect their attacks mainly against U.S. imperialism, but alsoagainst their own m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalists and other reacti<strong>on</strong>aryforces who are betraying the nati<strong>on</strong>al interests.Large-scale mass struggles in the capitalist countries inrecent years have shown that the working class and workingpeople are experiencing a new awakening. Their struggles,which are dealing blows at m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital and reacti<strong>on</strong>,have opened bright prospects for the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause intheir own countries and are also a powerful support for therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the Asian, African and LatinAmerican peoples and for the countries <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp.The proletarian parties in imperialist or capitalist countriesmust maintain their own ideological, political and organizati<strong>on</strong>alindependence in leading revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles. Atthe same time, they must unite all the forces that can beunited and build a broad united fr<strong>on</strong>t against m<strong>on</strong>opolycapital and against the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> andwar.While actively leading immediate struggles, Communistsin the capitalist countries should link them with the strugglefor l<strong>on</strong>g-range and general interests, educate the masses in a<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary spirit, ceaselessly raise theirpolitical c<strong>on</strong>sciousness and undertake the his<strong>to</strong>rical task <strong>of</strong>the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>. If they fail <strong>to</strong> do so, if they regardthe immediate movement as everything, determine their c<strong>on</strong>ductfrom case <strong>to</strong> case, adapt themselves <strong>to</strong> the events <strong>of</strong> theday and sacrifice the basic interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, that isout-and-out social democracy.18
Social democracy is a bourgeois ideological trend. Leninpointed out l<strong>on</strong>g ago that the social democratic parties arepolitical detachments <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie, its agents in theworking-class movement and its principal social prop. Communistsmust at all times draw a clear line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong>between themselves and social democratic parties <strong>on</strong> the basicquesti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat and liquidate the ideological influence <strong>of</strong> socialdemocracy in the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement andam<strong>on</strong>g the working people. Bey<strong>on</strong>d any shadow <strong>of</strong> doubt,Communists must win over the masses under the influence<strong>of</strong> the social democratic parties and must win over those leftand middle elements in the social democratic parties who arewilling <strong>to</strong> oppose domestic m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital and dominati<strong>on</strong>by foreign imperialism, and must unite with them in extensivejoint acti<strong>on</strong> in the day-<strong>to</strong>-day struggle <strong>of</strong> the working-classmovement and in the struggle <strong>to</strong> defend world peace.In order <strong>to</strong> lead the proletariat and working people inrevoluti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties must master all forms<strong>of</strong> struggle and be able <strong>to</strong> substitute <strong>on</strong>e form for anotherquickly as the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> struggle change. The vanguard <strong>of</strong>the proletariat will remain unc<strong>on</strong>querable in all circumstances<strong>on</strong>ly if it masters all forms <strong>of</strong> struggle — peaceful and armed,open and secret, legal and illegal, parliamentary struggle andmass struggle, etc. It is wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> refuse <strong>to</strong> use parliamentaryand other legal forms <strong>of</strong> struggle when they can and shouldbe used. However, if a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Party falls in<strong>to</strong> legalismor parliamentary cretinism, c<strong>on</strong>fining the struggle withinthe limits permitted by the bourgeoisie, this will inevitablylead <strong>to</strong> renouncing the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat.11. On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism,the proletarian party must proceed from the stand <strong>of</strong>class struggle and revoluti<strong>on</strong> and base itself <strong>on</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-19
Leninist teachings c<strong>on</strong>cerning the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> andthe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Communists would always prefer <strong>to</strong> bring about the transiti<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> socialism by peaceful means. But can peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>be made in<strong>to</strong> a new world-wide strategic principle forthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement? Absolutely not.<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism c<strong>on</strong>sistently holds that the fundamentalquesti<strong>on</strong> in all revoluti<strong>on</strong>s is that <strong>of</strong> state power. The 1957Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement both clearly point out,“Leninism teaches, and experience c<strong>on</strong>firms, that the rulingclasses never relinquish power voluntarily.” The old governmentnever <strong>to</strong>pples even in a period <strong>of</strong> crisis, unless it ispushed. This is a universal law <strong>of</strong> class struggle.In specific his<strong>to</strong>rical c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin did raisethe possibility that revoluti<strong>on</strong> may develop peacefully. But,as Lenin pointed out, the peaceful development <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>is an opportunity “very seldom <strong>to</strong> be met with in the his<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>s”.As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, there is no his<strong>to</strong>rical precedent forpeaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism.Certain pers<strong>on</strong>s say there was no precedent when <strong>Marx</strong>fore<strong>to</strong>ld that socialism would inevitably replace capitalism.Then why can we not predict a peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> fromcapitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism despite the absence <strong>of</strong> a precedent?This parallel is absurd. Employing dialectical and his<strong>to</strong>ricalmaterialism, <strong>Marx</strong> analysed the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> capitalism,discovered the objective laws <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> human societyand arrived at a scientific c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>, whereas theprophets who pin all their hopes <strong>on</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>” proceedfrom his<strong>to</strong>rical idealism, ignore the most fundamentalc<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> capitalism, repudiate the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistteachings <strong>on</strong> class struggle, and arrive at a subjective andgroundless c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>. How can people who repudiate <strong>Marx</strong>ismget any help from <strong>Marx</strong>?It is plain <strong>to</strong> every<strong>on</strong>e that the capitalist countries arestrengthening their state machinery — and especially their20
military apparatus — the primary purpose <strong>of</strong> which is <strong>to</strong> suppressthe people in their own countries.The proletarian party must never base its thinking, its policiesfor revoluti<strong>on</strong> and its entire work <strong>on</strong> the assumpti<strong>on</strong>that the imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries will accept peacefultransformati<strong>on</strong>.The proletarian party must prepare itself for two eventualities— while preparing for a peaceful development <strong>of</strong> therevoluti<strong>on</strong>, it must also fully prepare for a n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful development.It should c<strong>on</strong>centrate <strong>on</strong> the painstaking work <strong>of</strong>accumulating revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strength, so that it will be ready<strong>to</strong> seize vic<strong>to</strong>ry when the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for revoluti<strong>on</strong> are ripeor <strong>to</strong> strike powerful blows at the imperialists and the reacti<strong>on</strong>arieswhen they launch surprise attacks and armed assaults.If it fails <strong>to</strong> make such preparati<strong>on</strong>s, the proletarian partywill paralyse the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary will <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, disarmitself ideologically and sink in<strong>to</strong> a <strong>to</strong>tally passive state <strong>of</strong>unpreparedness both politically and organizati<strong>on</strong>ally, and theresult will be <strong>to</strong> bury the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause.12. All social revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in the various stages <strong>of</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> mankind are his<strong>to</strong>rically inevitable and are governed byobjective laws independent <strong>of</strong> man’s will. Moreover, his<strong>to</strong>ryshows that there never was a revoluti<strong>on</strong> which was able <strong>to</strong>achieve vic<strong>to</strong>ry without zigzags and sacrifices.With <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory as the basis, the task <strong>of</strong> theproletarian party is <strong>to</strong> analyse the c<strong>on</strong>crete his<strong>to</strong>rical c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s,put forward the correct strategy and tactics, and guidethe masses in bypassing hidden reefs, avoiding unnecessarysacrifices and reaching the goal step by step. Is it possible<strong>to</strong> avoid sacrifices al<strong>to</strong>gether? Such is not the case with theslave revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, the serf revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, the bourgeois revoluti<strong>on</strong>s,or the nati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>s; nor is it the case with proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong>s. Even if the guiding line <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>is correct, it is impossible <strong>to</strong> have a sure guarantee21
against setbacks and sacrifices in the course <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>.So l<strong>on</strong>g as a correct line is adhered <strong>to</strong>, the revoluti<strong>on</strong>is bound <strong>to</strong> triumph in the end. To aband<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> thepretext <strong>of</strong> avoiding sacrifices is in reality <strong>to</strong> demand that thepeople should forever remain slaves and endure infinite painand sacrifice.Elementary knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism tells us thatthe birth pangs <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong> are far less painful than thechr<strong>on</strong>ic ag<strong>on</strong>y <strong>of</strong> the old society. Lenin rightly said that“even with the most peaceful course <strong>of</strong> events, the present[capitalist] system always and inevitably exacts countlesssacrifices from the working class”. 1Whoever c<strong>on</strong>siders a revoluti<strong>on</strong> can be made <strong>on</strong>ly if everythingis plain sailing, <strong>on</strong>ly if there is an advance guaranteeagainst sacrifices and failure, is certainly no revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary.However difficult the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s and whatever sacrificesand defeats the revoluti<strong>on</strong> may suffer, proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ariesshould educate the masses in the spirit <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>and hold al<strong>of</strong>t the banner <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> and not aband<strong>on</strong> it.It would be “Left” adventurism if the proletarian partyshould rashly launch a revoluti<strong>on</strong> before the objective c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sare ripe. But it would be Right opportunism if theproletarian party should not dare <strong>to</strong> lead a revoluti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>to</strong>seize state power when the objective c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s are ripe.Even in ordinary times, when it is leading the masses inthe day-<strong>to</strong>day struggle, the proletarian party should ideologically,politically and organizati<strong>on</strong>ally prepare its own ranksand the masses for revoluti<strong>on</strong> and promote revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles, so that it will not miss the opportunity <strong>to</strong> overthrowthe reacti<strong>on</strong>ary regime and establish a new state powerwhen the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for revoluti<strong>on</strong> are ripe. Otherwise, whenthe objective c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s are ripe, the proletarian party willsimply throw away the opportunity <strong>of</strong> seizing vic<strong>to</strong>ry.1V. I. Lenin, “Another Massacre”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1961, Vol. V, p. 25.22
The proletarian party must be flexible as well as highlyprincipled, and <strong>on</strong> occasi<strong>on</strong> it must make such compromisesas are necessary in the interests <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>. But it mustnever aband<strong>on</strong> principled policies and the goal <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> flexibility and <strong>of</strong> necessary compromises.The proletarian party must lead the masses in waging strugglesagainst the enemies, and it must know how <strong>to</strong> utilize thec<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g those enemies. But the purpose <strong>of</strong> usingthese c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s is <strong>to</strong> make it easier <strong>to</strong> attain the goal <strong>of</strong>the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles and not <strong>to</strong> liquidate thesestruggles.Countless facts have proved that, wherever the dark rule<strong>of</strong> imperialism and reacti<strong>on</strong> exists, the people who form over90 per cent <strong>of</strong> the populati<strong>on</strong> will so<strong>on</strong>er or later rise inrevoluti<strong>on</strong>.If Communists isolate themselves from the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arydemands <strong>of</strong> the masses, they are bound <strong>to</strong> lose the c<strong>on</strong>fidence<strong>of</strong> the masses and will be <strong>to</strong>ssed <strong>to</strong> the rear by the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arycurrent.If the leading group in any Party adopt a n<strong>on</strong>-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryline and c<strong>on</strong>vert it in<strong>to</strong> a reformist party, then <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistsinside and outside the Party will replace them and leadthe people in making revoluti<strong>on</strong>. In another kind <strong>of</strong> situati<strong>on</strong>,the bourgeois revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries will come forward <strong>to</strong> lead therevoluti<strong>on</strong> and the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat will forfeit itsleadership <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>. When the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary bourgeoisiebetray the revoluti<strong>on</strong> and suppress the people, an opportunistline will cause tragic and unnecessary losses <strong>to</strong> the Communistsand the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary masses.If Communists slide down the path <strong>of</strong> opportunism, they willdegenerate in<strong>to</strong> bourgeois nati<strong>on</strong>alists and become appendages<strong>of</strong> the imperialists and the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary bourgeoisie.There are certain pers<strong>on</strong>s who assert that they have madethe greatest creative c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theorysince Lenin and that they al<strong>on</strong>e are correct. But it is verydubious whether they have ever really given c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>23
the extensive experience <strong>of</strong> the entire world communist movement,whether they have ever really c<strong>on</strong>sidered the interests,the aims and tasks <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletarian movementas a whole, and whether they really have a general line for theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement which c<strong>on</strong>forms with<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.In the last few years the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementand the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement have had manyexperiences and many less<strong>on</strong>s. There are experiences whichpeople should praise and there are experiences which makepeople grieve. Communists and revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries in all countriesshould p<strong>on</strong>der and seriously study these experiences <strong>of</strong> successand failure, so as <strong>to</strong> draw correct c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s and usefulless<strong>on</strong>s from them.13. The socialist countries and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles<strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s support and assist eachother.The nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movements <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movements <strong>of</strong> the people in thecapitalist countries are a str<strong>on</strong>g support <strong>to</strong> the socialist countries.It is completely wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> deny this.The <strong>on</strong>ly attitude for the socialist countries <strong>to</strong> adopt <strong>to</strong>wardsthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>sis <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> warm sympathy and active support; they mustnot adopt a perfunc<strong>to</strong>ry attitude, or <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al selfishnessor <strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism.Lenin said, “The foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is alliancewith the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> the advanced countries and withall the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s against all and any imperialists.” 1Whoever fails <strong>to</strong> understand this point and c<strong>on</strong>siders that thesupport and aid given by the socialist countries <strong>to</strong> the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s are a burden or charity is goingcounter <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.1V. I. Lenin, “The Foreign Policy <strong>of</strong> the Russian Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXV,p. 87.24
The superiority <strong>of</strong> the socialist system and the achievements<strong>of</strong> the socialist countries in c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> play an exemplaryrole and are an inspirati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the oppressed peoplesand the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s.But this exemplary role and inspirati<strong>on</strong> can never replacethe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s.No oppressed people or nati<strong>on</strong> can win liberati<strong>on</strong> exceptthrough its own staunch revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle.Certain pers<strong>on</strong>s have <strong>on</strong>e-sidedly exaggerated the role <strong>of</strong>peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong> between socialist and imperialist countriesin their attempt <strong>to</strong> substitute peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong> for therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s.According <strong>to</strong> their preaching, it would seem that imperialismwill au<strong>to</strong>matically collapse in the course <strong>of</strong> this peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>and that the <strong>on</strong>ly thing the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>shave <strong>to</strong> do is <strong>to</strong> wait quietly for the advent <strong>of</strong> this day.What does this have in comm<strong>on</strong> with <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist views?Moreover, certain pers<strong>on</strong>s have c<strong>on</strong>cocted the strange talethat China and some other socialist countries want “<strong>to</strong> unleashwars” and <strong>to</strong> spread socialism by “wars between states”. Asthe Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960 points out, such tales are nothing butimperialist and reacti<strong>on</strong>ary slanders. To put it bluntly, thepurpose <strong>of</strong> those who repeat these slanders is <strong>to</strong> hide the factthat they are opposed <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>s by the oppressed peoplesand nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the world and opposed <strong>to</strong> others supporting suchrevoluti<strong>on</strong>s.14. In the last few years much — in fact a great deal —has been said <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peace. Our views andpolicies <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong> are known <strong>to</strong> the world, and no<strong>on</strong>e can dis<strong>to</strong>rt them.It is a pity that although certain pers<strong>on</strong>s in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement talk about how much they love peaceand hate war, they are unwilling <strong>to</strong> acquire even a faintunderstanding <strong>of</strong> the simple truth <strong>on</strong> war pointed out by Lenin.Lenin said:25
It seems <strong>to</strong> me that the main thing that is usually forgotten<strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war, which receives inadequate attenti<strong>on</strong>,the main reas<strong>on</strong> why there is so much c<strong>on</strong>troversy, and, Iwould say, futile, hopeless and aimless c<strong>on</strong>troversy, is thatpeople forget the fundamental questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the class character<strong>of</strong> the war; why the war broke out; the classes that are wagingit; the his<strong>to</strong>rical and his<strong>to</strong>rico-ec<strong>on</strong>omic c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s thatgave rise <strong>to</strong> it. 1As <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists see it, war is the c<strong>on</strong>tinuati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> politicsby other means, and every war is inseparable from thepolitical system and the political struggles which give rise <strong>to</strong>it. If <strong>on</strong>e departs from this scientific <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist propositi<strong>on</strong>which has been c<strong>on</strong>firmed by the entire his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> classstruggle, <strong>on</strong>e will never be able <strong>to</strong> understand either the questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> war or the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peace.There are different types <strong>of</strong> peace and different types <strong>of</strong>war. <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists must be clear about what type <strong>of</strong> peaceor what type <strong>of</strong> war is in questi<strong>on</strong>. Lumping just wars andunjust wars <strong>to</strong>gether and opposing all <strong>of</strong> them undiscriminatinglyis a bourgeois pacifist and not a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistapproach.Certain pers<strong>on</strong>s say that revoluti<strong>on</strong>s are entirely possiblewithout war. Now which type <strong>of</strong> war are they referring <strong>to</strong> —a war <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> or a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civil war, ora world war?If they are referring <strong>to</strong> a war <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> or arevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civil war, then this formulati<strong>on</strong> is, in effect,opposed <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary wars and <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>.If they are referring <strong>to</strong> a world war, then they are shootingat a n<strong>on</strong>existent target. Although <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists havepointed out, <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the two world wars,that world wars inevitably lead <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>, no <strong>Marx</strong>ist-1V. I. Lenin, “War and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Collected Works, Russ. ed.,State Publishing House for Political Literature, Moscow, 1949, Vol.XXIV, p. 362.26
Leninist ever has held or ever will hold that revoluti<strong>on</strong> mustbe made through world war.<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists take the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war as their idealand believe that war can be abolished.But how can war be abolished?This is how Lenin viewed it:. . . our object is <strong>to</strong> achieve the socialist system <strong>of</strong> society,which, by abolishing the divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> mankind in<strong>to</strong> classes,by abolishing all exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> man by man, and <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>enati<strong>on</strong> by other nati<strong>on</strong>s, will inevitably abolish all possibility<strong>of</strong> war. 1The Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960 also puts it very clearly, “The vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> socialism all over the world will completely remove thesocial and nati<strong>on</strong>al causes <strong>of</strong> all wars.”However, certain pers<strong>on</strong>s now actually hold that it is possible<strong>to</strong> bring about “a world without weap<strong>on</strong>s, without armedforces and without wars” through “general and complete disarmament”while the system <strong>of</strong> imperialism and <strong>of</strong> theexploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> man by man still exists. This is sheer illusi<strong>on</strong>.An elementary knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism tells usthat the armed forces are the principal part <strong>of</strong> the state machineand that a so-called world without weap<strong>on</strong>s and withoutarmed forces can <strong>on</strong>ly be a world without states. Leninsaid:Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisiewill it be able, without betraying its world-his<strong>to</strong>rical missi<strong>on</strong>,<strong>to</strong> throw all armaments <strong>on</strong> the scrap heap; and theproletariat will undoubtedly do this, but <strong>on</strong>ly when thisc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> has been fulfilled, certainly not before. 2What are the facts in the world <strong>to</strong>day? Is there a shadow<strong>of</strong> evidence that the imperialist countries headed by the1Ibid., p. 363.2V. I. Lenin, “The War Program <strong>of</strong> the Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 574.27
United States are ready <strong>to</strong> carry out general and completedisarmament? Are they not each and all engaged in generaland complete arms expansi<strong>on</strong>?We have always maintained that, in order <strong>to</strong> expose andcombat the imperialists’ arms expansi<strong>on</strong> and war preparati<strong>on</strong>s,it is necessary <strong>to</strong> put forward the proposal for generaldisarmament. Furthermore, it is possible <strong>to</strong> compel imperialism<strong>to</strong> accept some kind <strong>of</strong> agreement <strong>on</strong> disarmament,through the combined struggle <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries andthe people <strong>of</strong> the whole world.If <strong>on</strong>e regards general and complete disarmament as thefundamental road <strong>to</strong> world peace, spreads the illusi<strong>on</strong> thatimperialism will au<strong>to</strong>matically lay down its arms and tries<strong>to</strong> liquidate the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoplesand nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> disarmament, then thisis deliberately <strong>to</strong> deceive the people <strong>of</strong> the world and helpthe imperialists in their policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war.In order <strong>to</strong> overcome the present ideological c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> inthe internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>war and peace, we c<strong>on</strong>sider that Lenin’s thesis, which hasbeen discarded by the modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, must be res<strong>to</strong>redin the interest <strong>of</strong> combating the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>and war and defending world peace.The people <strong>of</strong> the world universally demand the preventi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> a new world war. And it is possible <strong>to</strong> prevent a newworld war.The questi<strong>on</strong> then is, what is the way <strong>to</strong> secure worldpeace? According <strong>to</strong> the Leninist viewpoint, world peacecan be w<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly by the struggles <strong>of</strong> the people in all countriesand not by begging the imperialists for it. World peacecan <strong>on</strong>ly be effectively defended by relying <strong>on</strong> the development<strong>of</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp, <strong>on</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and working people <strong>of</strong>all countries, <strong>on</strong> the liberati<strong>on</strong> struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>sand <strong>on</strong> the struggles <strong>of</strong> all peace-loving people andcountries.28
Such is the Leninist policy. Any policy <strong>to</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trarydefinitely will not lead <strong>to</strong> world peace but will <strong>on</strong>ly encouragethe ambiti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the imperialists and increase thedanger <strong>of</strong> world war.In recent years, certain pers<strong>on</strong>s have been spreading theargument that a single spark from a war <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>or from a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people’s war will lead <strong>to</strong> a worldc<strong>on</strong>flagrati<strong>on</strong> destroying the whole <strong>of</strong> mankind. What arethe facts? C<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> what these pers<strong>on</strong>s say, the wars <strong>of</strong>nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people’s wars thathave occurred since World War II have not led <strong>to</strong> world war.The vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> these revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary wars has directly weakenedthe forces <strong>of</strong> imperialism and greatly strengthened theforces which prevent the imperialists from launching a worldwar and which defend world peace. Do not the facts dem<strong>on</strong>stratethe absurdity <strong>of</strong> this argument?15. The complete banning and destructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> nuclearweap<strong>on</strong>s is an important task in the struggle <strong>to</strong> defend worldpeace. We must do our utmost <strong>to</strong> this end.Nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s are unprecedentedly destructive, whichis why for more than a decade now the U.S. imperialists havebeen pursuing their policy <strong>of</strong> nuclear blackmail in order <strong>to</strong>realize their ambiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> enslaving the people <strong>of</strong> all countriesand dominating the world.But when the imperialists threaten other countries withnuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s, they subject the people in their own country<strong>to</strong> the same threat, thus arousing them against nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>sand against the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> andwar. At the same time, in their vain hope <strong>of</strong> destroying theiropp<strong>on</strong>ents with nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s, the imperialists are in factsubjecting themselves <strong>to</strong> the danger <strong>of</strong> being destroyed.The possibility <strong>of</strong> banning nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s does indeedexist. However, if the imperialists are forced <strong>to</strong> accept anagreement <strong>to</strong> ban nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s, it decidedly will not bebecause <strong>of</strong> their “love for humanity” but because <strong>of</strong> the pres-29
sure <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> all countries and for the sake <strong>of</strong> theirown vital interests.In c<strong>on</strong>trast <strong>to</strong> the imperialists, socialist countries rely up<strong>on</strong>the righteous strength <strong>of</strong> the people and <strong>on</strong> their own correctpolicies, and have no need whatever <strong>to</strong> gamble with nuclearweap<strong>on</strong>s in the world arena. Socialist countries have nuclearweap<strong>on</strong>s solely in order <strong>to</strong> defend themselves and <strong>to</strong> preventimperialism from launching a nuclear war.In the view <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, the people are the makers<strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry. In the present, as in the past, man is the decisivefac<strong>to</strong>r. <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists attach importance <strong>to</strong> the role <strong>of</strong>technological change, but it is wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> belittle the role <strong>of</strong>man and exaggerate the role <strong>of</strong> technology.The emergence <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s can neither arrest theprogress <strong>of</strong> human his<strong>to</strong>ry nor save the imperialist systemfrom its doom, any more than the emergence <strong>of</strong> new techniquescould save the old systems from their doom in the past.The emergence <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s does not and cannot resolvethe fundamental c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the c<strong>on</strong>temporaryworld, does not and cannot alter the law <strong>of</strong> class struggle, anddoes not and cannot change the nature <strong>of</strong> imperialism andreacti<strong>on</strong>.It cannot, therefore, be said that with the emergence <strong>of</strong>nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s the possibility and the necessity <strong>of</strong> socialand nati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>s have disappeared, or the basic principles<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and especially the theories <strong>of</strong>proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand <strong>of</strong> war and peace, have become outmoded and changedin<strong>to</strong> stale “dogmas”.16. It was Lenin who advanced the thesis that it is possiblefor the socialist countries <strong>to</strong> practise peaceful coexistencewith the capitalist countries. It is well known that after thegreat Soviet people had repulsed foreign armed interventi<strong>on</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the Soviet Government,led first by Lenin and then by Stalin, c<strong>on</strong>sistently30
pursued the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence and that they wereforced <strong>to</strong> wage a war <strong>of</strong> self-defence <strong>on</strong>ly when attacked bythe German imperialists.Since its founding, the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China <strong>to</strong>o hasc<strong>on</strong>sistently pursued the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence withcountries having different social systems, and it is China whichinitiated the Five Principles <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Coexistence.However, a few years ago certain pers<strong>on</strong>s suddenly claimedLenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence as their own “greatdiscovery”. They maintain that they have a m<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>on</strong> theinterpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this policy. They treat “peaceful coexistence”as if it were an all-inclusive, mystical book from heaven andattribute <strong>to</strong> it every success the people <strong>of</strong> the world achieveby struggle. What is more, they label all who disagree withtheir dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s views as opp<strong>on</strong>ents <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence, as people completely ignorant <strong>of</strong> Lenin and Leninism,and as heretics deserving <strong>to</strong> be burnt at the stake.How can the Chinese Communists agree with this view andpractice? They cannot, it is impossible.Lenin’s principle <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence is very clear andreadily comprehensible by ordinary people. Peaceful coexistencedesignates a relati<strong>on</strong>ship between countries with differentsocial systems, and must not be interpreted as <strong>on</strong>e pleases.It should never be extended <strong>to</strong> apply <strong>to</strong> the relati<strong>on</strong>s betweenoppressed and oppressor nati<strong>on</strong>s, between oppressed andoppressor countries or between oppressed and oppressorclasses, and never be described as the main c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> thetransiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism, still less should itbe asserted that peaceful coexistence is mankind’s road <strong>to</strong>socialism. The reas<strong>on</strong> is that it is <strong>on</strong>e thing <strong>to</strong> practise peacefulcoexistence between countries with different social systems.It is absolutely impermissible and impossible for countriespractising peaceful coexistence <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>uch even a hair <strong>of</strong> eachother’s social system. The class struggle, the struggle fornati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> and the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialismin various countries are quite another thing. They are31
all bitter, life-and-death revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles which aim atchanging the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot replacethe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the people. The transiti<strong>on</strong>from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism in any country can <strong>on</strong>ly be broughtabout through the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat in that country.In the applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence,struggles between the socialist and imperialist countries areunavoidable in the political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic and ideological spheres,and it is absolutely impossible <strong>to</strong> have “all-round co-operati<strong>on</strong>”.It is necessary for the socialist countries <strong>to</strong> engage in negotiati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e kind or another with the imperialist countries.It is possible <strong>to</strong> reach certain agreements through negotiati<strong>on</strong>by relying <strong>on</strong> the correct policies <strong>of</strong> the socialist countriesand <strong>on</strong> the pressure <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> all countries. But necessarycompromises between the socialist countries and theimperialist countries do not require the oppressed peoplesand nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> follow suit and compromise with imperialismand its lackeys. No <strong>on</strong>e should ever demand in the name <strong>of</strong>peaceful coexistence that the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>sshould give up their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles.The applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence bythe socialist countries is advantageous for achieving a peacefulinternati<strong>on</strong>al envir<strong>on</strong>ment for socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, for exposingthe imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war and forisolating the imperialist forces <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war. Butif the general line <strong>of</strong> the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the socialistcountries is c<strong>on</strong>fined <strong>to</strong> peaceful coexistence, then it is impossible<strong>to</strong> handle correctly either the relati<strong>on</strong>s betweensocialist countries or those between the socialist countries andthe oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s. Therefore it is wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong>make peaceful coexistence the general line <strong>of</strong> the foreignpolicy <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries.In our view, the general line <strong>of</strong> the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> thesocialist countries should have the following c<strong>on</strong>tent:32
<strong>to</strong> develop relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> friendship, mutual assistance andcooperati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g the countries in the socialist camp inaccordance with the principle <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism;<strong>to</strong> strive for peaceful coexistence <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the FivePrinciples with countries having different social systemsand oppose the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war;and,<strong>to</strong> support and assist the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> allthe oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s.These three aspects are interrelated and indivisible, and nota single <strong>on</strong>e can be omitted.17. For a very l<strong>on</strong>g his<strong>to</strong>rical period after the proletariattakes power, class struggle c<strong>on</strong>tinues as an objective lawindependent <strong>of</strong> man’s will, differing <strong>on</strong>ly in form from whatit was before the taking <strong>of</strong> power.After the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, Lenin pointed out a number<strong>of</strong> times that:a. The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousandand <strong>on</strong>e ways <strong>to</strong> recover the “paradise” they have beendeprived <strong>of</strong>.b. New elements <strong>of</strong> capitalism are c<strong>on</strong>stantly and sp<strong>on</strong>taneouslygenerated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere.c. Political degenerates and new bourgeois elementsmay emerge in the ranks <strong>of</strong> the working class and am<strong>on</strong>ggovernment functi<strong>on</strong>aries as a result <strong>of</strong> bourgeois influenceand the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere <strong>of</strong> the pettybourgeoisie.d. The external c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for the c<strong>on</strong>tinuance <strong>of</strong> classstruggle within a socialist country are encirclement byinternati<strong>on</strong>al capitalism, the imperialists’ threat <strong>of</strong> armedinterventi<strong>on</strong> and their subversive activities <strong>to</strong> accomplishpeaceful disintegrati<strong>on</strong>.Life has c<strong>on</strong>firmed these c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s.33
For decades or even l<strong>on</strong>ger periods after socialist industrializati<strong>on</strong>and agricultural collectivizati<strong>on</strong>, it will be impossible<strong>to</strong> say that any socialist country will be free from thoseelements which Lenin repeatedly denounced, such as bourgeoishangers-<strong>on</strong>, parasites, specula<strong>to</strong>rs, swindlers, idlers,hooligans and embezzlers <strong>of</strong> state funds; or <strong>to</strong> say that asocialist country will no l<strong>on</strong>ger need <strong>to</strong> perform or be able<strong>to</strong> relinquish the task laid down by Lenin <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>quering “thisc<strong>on</strong>tagi<strong>on</strong>, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inheritedfrom capitalism”.In a socialist country, it takes a very l<strong>on</strong>g his<strong>to</strong>rical periodgradually <strong>to</strong> settle the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> who will win — socialismor capitalism. The struggle between the road <strong>of</strong> socialismand the road <strong>of</strong> capitalism runs through this whole his<strong>to</strong>ricalperiod. This struggle rises and falls in a wave-like manner,at times becoming very fierce, and the forms <strong>of</strong> the struggleare many and varied.The 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> rightly states that “the c<strong>on</strong>quest <strong>of</strong>power by the working class is <strong>on</strong>ly the beginning <strong>of</strong> therevoluti<strong>on</strong>, not its c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>”.To deny the existence <strong>of</strong> class struggle in the period <strong>of</strong> thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the necessity <strong>of</strong> thoroughlycompleting the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omic, politicaland ideological fr<strong>on</strong>ts is wr<strong>on</strong>g, does not corresp<strong>on</strong>d <strong>to</strong> objectivereality and violates <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.18. Both <strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin maintained that the entire periodbefore the advent <strong>of</strong> the higher stage <strong>of</strong> communist societyis the period <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> communism, theperiod <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. In this transiti<strong>on</strong>period, the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, that is <strong>to</strong> say, theproletarian state, goes through the dialectical process <strong>of</strong>establishment, c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong>, strengthening and witheringaway.In the “Critique <strong>of</strong> the Gotha Programme”, <strong>Marx</strong> posedthe questi<strong>on</strong> as follows:34
Between capitalist and communist society lies the period<strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary transformati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e in<strong>to</strong> the other.There corresp<strong>on</strong>ds <strong>to</strong> this also a political transiti<strong>on</strong> periodin which the state can be nothing but the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arydicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. 1Lenin frequently emphasized <strong>Marx</strong>’s great theory <strong>of</strong> thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and analysed the development<strong>of</strong> this theory, particularly in his outstanding work, “The Stateand Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, where he wrote:. . . the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalist society — which isdeveloping <strong>to</strong>wards communism — <strong>to</strong> a communist societyis impossible without a “political transiti<strong>on</strong> period”, andthe state in this period can <strong>on</strong>ly be the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat. 2He further said:The essence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>’s teaching <strong>on</strong> the state has beenmastered <strong>on</strong>ly by those who understand that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> a single class is necessary not <strong>on</strong>ly for every class societyin general, not <strong>on</strong>ly for the proletariat which has overthrownthe bourgeoisie, but also for the entire his<strong>to</strong>rical periodwhich separates capitalism from “classless society”, fromcommunism. 3As slated above, the fundamental thesis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Leninis that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat will inevitably c<strong>on</strong>tinuefor the entire his<strong>to</strong>rical period <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> fromcapitalism <strong>to</strong> communism, that is, for the entire period up <strong>to</strong>the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all class differences and the entry in<strong>to</strong> aclassless society, the higher stage <strong>of</strong> communist society.What will happen if it is announced, halfway through, thatthe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is no l<strong>on</strong>ger necessary?1Selected Works <strong>of</strong> Karl <strong>Marx</strong> and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1955, Vol. II, pp. 32-33.2V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II,Part 1, p. 289.3Ibid., p. 234.35
Does this not fundamentally c<strong>on</strong>flict with the teachings <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin <strong>on</strong> the state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat?Does this not license the development <strong>of</strong> “this c<strong>on</strong>tagi<strong>on</strong>,this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism”?In other words, this would lead <strong>to</strong> extremely grave c<strong>on</strong>sequencesand make any transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> communism out <strong>of</strong> thequesti<strong>on</strong>.Can there be a “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”? Is it possible <strong>to</strong>replace the state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat by a“state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”?This is not a questi<strong>on</strong> about the internal affairs <strong>of</strong> any particularcountry but a fundamental problem involving theuniversal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.In the view <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, there is no such thing asa n<strong>on</strong>-class or supra-class state. So l<strong>on</strong>g as the state remainsa state, it must bear a class character; so l<strong>on</strong>g as the stateexists, it cannot be a state <strong>of</strong> the “whole people”. As so<strong>on</strong>as society becomes classless, there will no l<strong>on</strong>ger be a state.Then what sort <strong>of</strong> thing would a “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”be?Any<strong>on</strong>e with an elementary knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismcan understand that the so-called “state <strong>of</strong> the wholepeople” is nothing new. Representative bourgeois figureshave always called the bourgeois state a “state <strong>of</strong> all thepeople”, or a “state in which power bel<strong>on</strong>gs <strong>to</strong> all the people”.Certain pers<strong>on</strong>s may say that their society is already <strong>on</strong>ewithout classes. We answer: No, there are classes and classstruggles in all socialist countries without excepti<strong>on</strong>.Since remnants <strong>of</strong> the old exploiting classes who are trying<strong>to</strong> stage a comeback still exist there, since new capitalistelements are c<strong>on</strong>stantly being generated there, and since thereare still parasites, specula<strong>to</strong>rs, idlers, hooligans, embezzlers<strong>of</strong> state funds, etc., how can it be said that classes or class36
struggles no l<strong>on</strong>ger exist? How can it be said that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat is no l<strong>on</strong>ger necessary?<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism tells us that in additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the suppressi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the hostile classes, the his<strong>to</strong>rical tasks <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat in the course <strong>of</strong> building socialismnecessarily include the correct handling <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s betweenthe working class and peasantry, the c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theirpolitical and ec<strong>on</strong>omic alliance and the creati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sfor the gradual eliminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the class difference betweenworker and peasant.When we look at the ec<strong>on</strong>omic base <strong>of</strong> any socialist society,we find that the difference between ownership by the wholepeople and collective ownership exists in all socialist countrieswithout excepti<strong>on</strong>, and that there is individual ownership<strong>to</strong>o. Ownership by the whole people and collective ownershipare two kinds <strong>of</strong> ownership and two kinds <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>in socialist society. The workers in enterprises ownedby the whole people and the peasants <strong>on</strong> farms owned collectivelybel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> two different categories <strong>of</strong> labourers in socialistsociety. Therefore, the class difference between workerand peasant exists in all socialist countries without excepti<strong>on</strong>.This difference will not disappear until the transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> thehigher stage <strong>of</strong> communism is achieved. In their present level<strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic development all socialist countries are still far,far removed from the higher stage <strong>of</strong> communism in which“from each according <strong>to</strong> his ability, <strong>to</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> hisneeds” is put in<strong>to</strong> practice. Therefore, it will take a l<strong>on</strong>g, l<strong>on</strong>gtime <strong>to</strong> eliminate the class difference between worker andpeasant. And until this difference is eliminated, it is impossible<strong>to</strong> say that society is classless or that there is no l<strong>on</strong>gerany need for the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.In calling a socialist state the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”is <strong>on</strong>e trying <strong>to</strong> replace the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory <strong>of</strong> thestate by the bourgeois theory <strong>of</strong> the state? Is <strong>on</strong>e trying <strong>to</strong>replace the state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat by astate <strong>of</strong> a different character?37
If that is the case, it is nothing but a great his<strong>to</strong>rical retrogressi<strong>on</strong>.The degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the social system in Yugoslaviais a grave less<strong>on</strong>.19. Leninism holds that the proletarian party must exist<strong>to</strong>gether with the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in socialistcountries. The party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is indispensable forthe entire his<strong>to</strong>rical period <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.The reas<strong>on</strong> is that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariathas <strong>to</strong> struggle against the enemies <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and <strong>of</strong>the people, remould the peasants and other small producers,c<strong>on</strong>stantly c<strong>on</strong>solidate the proletarian ranks, build socialismand effect the transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> communism; n<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> these thingscan be d<strong>on</strong>e without the leadership <strong>of</strong> the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Can there be a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”? Is it possible<strong>to</strong> replace the party which is the vanguard <strong>of</strong> the proletariatby a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”?This, <strong>to</strong>o, is not a questi<strong>on</strong> about the internal affairs <strong>of</strong> anyparticular Party, but a fundamental problem involving theuniversal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.In the view <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, there is no such thing asa n<strong>on</strong>-class or supra-class political party. All political partieshave a class character. Party spirit is the c<strong>on</strong>centrated expressi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> class character.The party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is the <strong>on</strong>ly party able <strong>to</strong>represent the interests <strong>of</strong> the whole people. It can do so preciselybecause it represents the interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariat,whose ideas and will it c<strong>on</strong>centrates. It can lead the wholepeople because the proletariat can finally emancipate itself<strong>on</strong>ly with the emancipati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all mankind, because the verynature <strong>of</strong> the proletariat enables its party <strong>to</strong> approach problemsin terms <strong>of</strong> its present and future interests, becausethe party is boundlessly loyal <strong>to</strong> the people and has the spirit<strong>of</strong> self-sacrifice; hence its democratic centralism and ir<strong>on</strong> discipline.Without such a party, it is impossible <strong>to</strong> maintain the38
dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and <strong>to</strong> represent the interests<strong>of</strong> the whole people.What will happen if it is announced halfway before enteringthe higher stage <strong>of</strong> communist society that the party <strong>of</strong> theproletariat has become a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” and ifits proletarian class character is repudiated?Does this not fundamentally c<strong>on</strong>flict with the teachings <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin <strong>on</strong> the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat?Does this not disarm the proletariat and all the workingpeople, organizati<strong>on</strong>ally and ideologically, and is it not tantamount<strong>to</strong> helping res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism?Is it not “going south by driving the chariot north” <strong>to</strong> talkabout any transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> communist society in such circumstances?20. Over the past few years, certain pers<strong>on</strong>s have violatedLenin’s integral teachings about the interrelati<strong>on</strong>ship <strong>of</strong>leaders, party, class and masses, and raised the issue <strong>of</strong> “combatingthe cult <strong>of</strong> the individual”; this is err<strong>on</strong>eous andharmful.The theory propounded by Lenin is as follows:a. The masses are divided in<strong>to</strong> classes.b. Classes are usually led by political parties.c. Political parties, as a general rule, are directed bymore or less stable groups composed <strong>of</strong> the most authoritative,influential and experienced members, who are elected<strong>to</strong> the most resp<strong>on</strong>sible positi<strong>on</strong>s and are called leaders.Lenin said, “All this is elementary.”The party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is the headquarters <strong>of</strong> the proletariatin revoluti<strong>on</strong> and struggle. Every proletarian partymust practise centralism based <strong>on</strong> democracy and establish astr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist leadership before it can become anorganized and battle-worthy vanguard. To raise the questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> “combating the cult <strong>of</strong> the individual” is actually <strong>to</strong> counterposethe leaders <strong>to</strong> the masses, undermine the party’s39
unified leadership which is based <strong>on</strong> democratic centralism,dissipate its fighting strength and disintegrate its ranks.Lenin criticized the err<strong>on</strong>eous views which counterpose theleaders <strong>to</strong> the masses. He called them “ridiculously absurdand stupid”.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has always disapproved <strong>of</strong>exaggerating the role <strong>of</strong> the individual, has advocated andpersistently practised democratic centralism within the Partyand advocated the linking <strong>of</strong> the leadership with the masses,maintaining that correct leadership must know how <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>centratethe views <strong>of</strong> the masses.While loudly combating the so-called “cult <strong>of</strong> the individual”,certain pers<strong>on</strong>s are in reality doing their best <strong>to</strong> defamethe proletarian party and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.At the same time, they are enormously exaggerating the role<strong>of</strong> certain individuals, shifting all errors <strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> others andclaiming all credit for themselves.What is more serious is that, under the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combatingthe cult <strong>of</strong> the individual”, certain pers<strong>on</strong>s are crudelyinterfering in the internal affairs <strong>of</strong> other fraternal Partiesand fraternal countries and forcing other fraternal Parties <strong>to</strong>change their leadership in order <strong>to</strong> impose their own wr<strong>on</strong>gline <strong>on</strong> these Parties. What is all this if not great-powerchauvinism, sectarianism and splittism? What is all this ifnot subversi<strong>on</strong>?It is high time <strong>to</strong> propagate seriously and comprehensivelyLenin’s integral teachings <strong>on</strong> the interrelati<strong>on</strong>ship <strong>of</strong> leaders,party, class and masses.21. Relati<strong>on</strong>s between socialist countries are internati<strong>on</strong>alrelati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> a new type. Relati<strong>on</strong>s between socialist countries,whether large or small, and whether more developed or lessdeveloped ec<strong>on</strong>omically, must be based <strong>on</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong>complete equality, respect for terri<strong>to</strong>rial integrity, sovereigntyand independence, and n<strong>on</strong>-interference in each other’s internalaffairs, and must also be based <strong>on</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong>40
mutual support and mutual assistance in accordance with proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alism.Every socialist country must rely mainly <strong>on</strong> itself for itsc<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>.In accordance with its own c<strong>on</strong>crete c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, every socialistcountry must rely first <strong>of</strong> all <strong>on</strong> the diligent labour andtalents <strong>of</strong> its own people, utilize all its available resourcesfully and in a planned way, and bring all its potential in<strong>to</strong>play in socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>. Only thus can it build socialismeffectively and develop its ec<strong>on</strong>omy speedily.This is the <strong>on</strong>ly way for each socialist country <strong>to</strong> strengthenthe might <strong>of</strong> the entire socialist camp and enhance its capacity<strong>to</strong> assist the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat.Therefore, <strong>to</strong> observe the principle <strong>of</strong> mainly relying<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>eself in c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> is <strong>to</strong> apply proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismc<strong>on</strong>cretely.If, proceeding <strong>on</strong>ly from its own partial interests, anysocialist country unilaterally demands that other fraternalcountries submit <strong>to</strong> its needs, and uses the pretext <strong>of</strong> opposingwhat they call “going it al<strong>on</strong>e” and “nati<strong>on</strong>alism” <strong>to</strong> preven<strong>to</strong>ther fraternal countries from applying the principle <strong>of</strong> relyingmainly <strong>on</strong> their own efforts in their c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> andfrom developing their ec<strong>on</strong>omies <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> independence,or even goes <strong>to</strong> the length <strong>of</strong> putting ec<strong>on</strong>omic pressure <strong>on</strong>other fraternal countries — then these are pure manifestati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al egoism.It is absolutely necessary for socialist countries <strong>to</strong> practisemutual ec<strong>on</strong>omic assistance and co-operati<strong>on</strong> and exchange.Such ec<strong>on</strong>omic co-operati<strong>on</strong> must be based <strong>on</strong> the principles<strong>of</strong> complete equality, mutual benefit and comradely mutualassistance.It would be great-power chauvinism <strong>to</strong> deny these basicprinciples and, in the name <strong>of</strong> “internati<strong>on</strong>al divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>labour” or “specializati<strong>on</strong>”, <strong>to</strong> impose <strong>on</strong>e’s own will <strong>on</strong> others,infringe <strong>on</strong> the independence and sovereignty <strong>of</strong> fraternalcountries or harm the interests <strong>of</strong> their people.41
In relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g socialist countries it would be preposterous<strong>to</strong> follow the practice <strong>of</strong> gaining pr<strong>of</strong>it for <strong>on</strong>eself at theexpense <strong>of</strong> others, a practice characteristic <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>gcapitalist countries, or go so far as <strong>to</strong> take the “ec<strong>on</strong>omic integrati<strong>on</strong>”and the “comm<strong>on</strong> market”, which m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalistgroups have instituted for the purpose <strong>of</strong> seizing marketsand grabbing pr<strong>of</strong>its, as examples which socialist countriesought <strong>to</strong> follow in their ec<strong>on</strong>omic co-operati<strong>on</strong> and mutualassistance.22. The 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement lay downthe principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties.These are the principle <strong>of</strong> solidarity, the principle <strong>of</strong> mutualsupport and mutual assistance, the principle <strong>of</strong> independenceand equality and the principle <strong>of</strong> reaching unanimity throughc<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> — all <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alism.We note that in its letter <strong>of</strong> March 30 the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU says that there are no “higher-ranking” and “subordinate”Parties in the communist movement, that all CommunistParties are independent and equal, and that theyshould all build their relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand mutual assistance.It is a fine quality <strong>of</strong> Communists that their deeds are c<strong>on</strong>sistentwith their words. The <strong>on</strong>ly correct way <strong>to</strong> safeguardand strengthen unity am<strong>on</strong>g the fraternal Parties is genuinely<strong>to</strong> adhere <strong>to</strong>, and not <strong>to</strong> violate, the principle <strong>of</strong> proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alism and genuinely <strong>to</strong> observe, and not <strong>to</strong> undermine,the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties— and <strong>to</strong> do so, not <strong>on</strong>ly in words but, much more important,in deeds.If the principle <strong>of</strong> independence and equality is acceptedin relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties, then it is impermissiblefor any Party <strong>to</strong> place itself above others, <strong>to</strong> interfere in theirinternal affairs, and <strong>to</strong> adopt patriarchal ways in relati<strong>on</strong>swith them.42
If it is accepted that there are no “superiors” and “subordinates”in relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties, then it is impermissible<strong>to</strong> impose the programme, resoluti<strong>on</strong>s and line<strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s own Party <strong>on</strong> other fraternal Parties as the “comm<strong>on</strong>programme” <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.If the principle <strong>of</strong> reaching unanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>is accepted in relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties, then <strong>on</strong>eshould not emphasize “who is in the majority” or “who is inthe minority” and bank <strong>on</strong> a so-called majority in order t<strong>of</strong>orce through <strong>on</strong>e’s own err<strong>on</strong>eous line and carry out sectarianand splitting policies.If it is agreed that differences between fraternal Partiesshould be settled through inter-Party c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>, then otherfraternal Parties should not be attacked publicly and by nameat <strong>on</strong>e’s own c<strong>on</strong>gress or at other Party c<strong>on</strong>gresses, in speechesby Party leaders, resoluti<strong>on</strong>s, statements, etc.; and still lessshould the ideological differences am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties beextended in<strong>to</strong> the sphere <strong>of</strong> state relati<strong>on</strong>s.We hold that in the present circumstances, when there aredifferences in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, it isparticularly important <strong>to</strong> stress strict adherence <strong>to</strong> the principlesguiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties as laid downin the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement.In the sphere <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties andcountries, the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Soviet-Albanian relati<strong>on</strong>s is an outstanding<strong>on</strong>e at present. Here the questi<strong>on</strong> is what is thecorrect way <strong>to</strong> treat a fraternal Party and country and whetherthe principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties andcountries stipulated in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement are<strong>to</strong> be adhered <strong>to</strong>. The correct soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong> is animportant matter <strong>of</strong> principle in safeguarding the unity <strong>of</strong>the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.How <strong>to</strong> treat the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist fraternal Albanian Party<strong>of</strong> Labour is <strong>on</strong>e questi<strong>on</strong>. How <strong>to</strong> treat the Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>istclique <strong>of</strong> trai<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism is quite another43
questi<strong>on</strong>. These two essentially different questi<strong>on</strong>s must <strong>on</strong>no account be placed <strong>on</strong> a par.Your letter says that you “do not relinquish the hope thatthe relati<strong>on</strong>s between the CPSU and the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong>Labour may be improved”, but at the same time you c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong>attack the Albanian comrades for what you call “splitting activities”.Clearly this is self-c<strong>on</strong>tradic<strong>to</strong>ry and in no way c<strong>on</strong>tributes<strong>to</strong> resolving the problem <strong>of</strong> Soviet-Albanian relati<strong>on</strong>s.Who is it that has taken splitting acti<strong>on</strong>s in Soviet-Albanianrelati<strong>on</strong>s?Who is it that has extended the ideological differences betweenthe Soviet and Albanian Parties <strong>to</strong> state relati<strong>on</strong>s?Who is it that has brought the divergences between theSoviet and Albanian Parties and between the two countriesin<strong>to</strong> the open before the enemy?Who is it that has openly called for a change in the AlbanianParty and state leadership?All this is plain and clear <strong>to</strong> the whole world.Is it possible that the leading comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU d<strong>on</strong>ot really feel their resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for the fact that Soviet-Albanian relati<strong>on</strong>s have so seriously deteriorated?We <strong>on</strong>ce again express our sincere hope that the leadingcomrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU will observe the principles guidingrelati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and countries and take theinitiative in seeking an effective way <strong>to</strong> improve Soviet-Albanian relati<strong>on</strong>s.In short, the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> how <strong>to</strong> handle relati<strong>on</strong>s withfraternal Parties and countries must be taken seriously. Strictadherence <strong>to</strong> the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternalParties and countries is the <strong>on</strong>ly way forcefully <strong>to</strong> rebuffslanders such as those spread by the imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>ariesabout the “hand <strong>of</strong> Moscow”.Proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism is demanded <strong>of</strong> all Partieswithout excepti<strong>on</strong>, whether large or small, and whether inpower or not. However, the larger Parties and the Parties inpower bear a particularly heavy resp<strong>on</strong>sibility in this respect.44
The series <strong>of</strong> distressing developments which have occurredin the socialist camp in the past period have harmed the interestsnot <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties c<strong>on</strong>cerned but also<strong>of</strong> the masses <strong>of</strong> the people in their countries. This c<strong>on</strong>vincinglydem<strong>on</strong>strates that the larger countries and Partiesneed <strong>to</strong> keep in mind Lenin’s behest never <strong>to</strong> commit theerror <strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism.The comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU state in their letter that “theCommunist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> has never taken andwill never take a single step that could sow hostility am<strong>on</strong>gthe peoples <strong>of</strong> our country <strong>to</strong>wards the fraternal Chinesepeople or other peoples”. Here we do not desire <strong>to</strong> go backand enumerate the many unpleasant events that have occurredin the past, and we <strong>on</strong>ly wish that the comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwill strictly abide by this statement in their future acti<strong>on</strong>s.During the past few years, our Party members and ourpeople have exercised the greatest restraint in the face <strong>of</strong> aseries <strong>of</strong> grave incidents which were in violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the principlesguiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and countriesand despite the many difficulties and losses which have beenimposed <strong>on</strong> us. The spirit <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism <strong>of</strong>the Chinese Communists and the Chinese people has s<strong>to</strong>od asevere test.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China is unswervingly loyal <strong>to</strong>proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism, upholds and defends the principles<strong>of</strong> the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement guidingrelati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and countries, and safeguardsand strengthens the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp andthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.23. In order <strong>to</strong> carry out the comm<strong>on</strong> programme <strong>of</strong> theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement unanimously agreed up<strong>on</strong>by the fraternal Parties, an uncompromising struggle mustbe waged against all forms <strong>of</strong> opportunism, which is a deviati<strong>on</strong>from <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.The Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement point out that revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,or, in other words, Right opportunism, is the main danger45
in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ismtypifies modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.The Statement points out particularly:The Communist Parties have unanimously c<strong>on</strong>demnedthe Yugoslav variety <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al opportunism, a variety<strong>of</strong> modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ist “theories” in c<strong>on</strong>centrated form.It goes <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> say:After betraying <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, which they termedobsolete, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Communists <strong>of</strong> Yugoslaviaopposed their anti-Leninist revisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme <strong>to</strong>the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957; they set the League <strong>of</strong> Communists<strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia against the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementas a whole, severed their country from the socialistcamp, made it dependent <strong>on</strong> so-called “aid” from U.S. andother imperialists. . . .The Statement says further:The Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ists carry <strong>on</strong> subversive workagainst the socialist camp and the world communist movement.Under the pretext <strong>of</strong> an extra-bloc policy, theyengage in activities which prejudice the unity <strong>of</strong> all thepeace-loving forces and countries.Therefore, it draws the following c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>:Further exposure <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>istsand active struggle <strong>to</strong> safeguard the communist movementand the working-class movement from the anti-Leninistideas <strong>of</strong> the Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, remains an essential task<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties.The questi<strong>on</strong> raised here is an important <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> principlefor the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.Only recently the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique have publicly stated that theyare persisting in their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme and anti-<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist stand in oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement.46
U.S. imperialism and its NATO partners have spent severalthousand milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> U.S. dollars nursing the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique fora l<strong>on</strong>g time. Cloaked as “<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists” and flauntingthe banner <strong>of</strong> a “socialist country”, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has beenundermining the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the world, serving as aspecial detachment <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.It is completely groundless and out <strong>of</strong> keeping with thefacts <strong>to</strong> assert that Yugoslavia is showing “definite positivetendencies”, that it is a “socialist country”, and that the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique is an “anti-imperialist force”.Certain pers<strong>on</strong>s are now attempting <strong>to</strong> introduce theYugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ist clique in<strong>to</strong> the socialist community andthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist ranks. This is openly <strong>to</strong> tear upthe agreement unanimously reached at the 1960 meeting <strong>of</strong>the fraternal Parties and is absolutely impermissible.Over the past few years, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist trend flooding theinternati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement and the many experiencesand less<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementhave fully c<strong>on</strong>firmed the correctness <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> in theDeclarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement that revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is the maindanger in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement at present.However, certain pers<strong>on</strong>s are openly saying that dogmatismand not revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is the main danger, or that dogmatism isevery bit as dangerous as revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, etc. What sort <strong>of</strong> principleunderlies all this?Firm <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and genuine <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Partiesmust put principles first. They must not barter away principles,approving <strong>on</strong>e thing <strong>to</strong>day and another <strong>to</strong>morrow,advocating <strong>on</strong>e thing <strong>to</strong>day and another <strong>to</strong>morrow.Together with all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, the Chinese Communistswill c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> wage an uncompromising struggleagainst modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism in order <strong>to</strong> defend the purity <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the principled stand <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong>and the Statement.47
While combating revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, which is the main danger inthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, Communists mustalso combat dogmatism.As stated in the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>, proletarian parties“should firmly adhere <strong>to</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong> combining . . .universal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist truth with the specific practice <strong>of</strong>revoluti<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> in their countries”.That is <strong>to</strong> say:On the <strong>on</strong>e hand, it is necessary at all times <strong>to</strong> adhere <strong>to</strong>the universal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. Failure <strong>to</strong> do sowill lead <strong>to</strong> Right opportunist or revisi<strong>on</strong>ist errors.On the other hand, it is always necessary <strong>to</strong> proceed fromreality, maintain close c<strong>on</strong>tact with the masses, c<strong>on</strong>stantlysum up the experience <strong>of</strong> mass struggles, and independentlywork out and apply policies and tactics suited <strong>to</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s own country. Errors <strong>of</strong> dogmatism will be committedif <strong>on</strong>e fails <strong>to</strong> do so, if <strong>on</strong>e mechanically copies the policies andtactics <strong>of</strong> another Communist Party, submits blindly <strong>to</strong> thewill <strong>of</strong> others or accepts without analysis the programme andresoluti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> another Communist Party as <strong>on</strong>e’s own line.Some people are now violating this basic principle, whichwas l<strong>on</strong>g ago affirmed in the Declarati<strong>on</strong>. On the pretext <strong>of</strong>“creatively developing <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism”, they cast asidethe universal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. Moreover, theydescribe as “universal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist truths” their ownprescripti<strong>on</strong>s which are based <strong>on</strong> nothing but subjective c<strong>on</strong>jectureand are divorced from reality and from the masses,and they force others <strong>to</strong> accept these prescripti<strong>on</strong>s unc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally.That is why many grave phenomena have come <strong>to</strong> pass inthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.24. A most important less<strong>on</strong> from the experience <strong>of</strong> theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement is that the developmentand vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong> depend <strong>on</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryproletarian party.There must be a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party.48
There must be a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party built according <strong>to</strong> therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theory and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary style <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.There must be a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party able <strong>to</strong> integrate theuniversal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism with the c<strong>on</strong>crete practice<strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong> in its own country.There must be a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party able <strong>to</strong> link theleadership closely with the broad masses <strong>of</strong> the people.There must be a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party that perseveres in thetruth, corrects its errors and knows how <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct criticismand self-criticism.Only such a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party can lead the proletariat andthe broad masses <strong>of</strong> the people in defeating imperialism andits lackeys, winning a thorough vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the nati<strong>on</strong>aldemocratic revoluti<strong>on</strong> and winning the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>.If a party is not a proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party but abourgeois reformist party;If it is not a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist party but as revisi<strong>on</strong>ist party;If it is not a vanguard party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat but a partytailing after the bourgeoisie;If it is not a party representing the interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand all the working people but a party representing the interests<strong>of</strong> the labour aris<strong>to</strong>cracy;If it is not an internati<strong>on</strong>alist party but a nati<strong>on</strong>alist party;If it is not a party that can use its brains <strong>to</strong> think for itselfand acquire an accurate knowledge <strong>of</strong> the trends <strong>of</strong> the differentclasses in its own country through serious investigati<strong>on</strong>and study, and knows how <strong>to</strong> apply the universal truth <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and integrate it with the c<strong>on</strong>crete practice<strong>of</strong> its own country, but instead is a party that parrots thewords <strong>of</strong> others, copies foreign experience without analysis,runs hither and thither in resp<strong>on</strong>se <strong>to</strong> the bat<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> certainpers<strong>on</strong>s abroad, and has become a hodgepodge <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,dogmatism and everything but <strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninist principle;Then such a party is absolutely inculpable <strong>of</strong> leading theproletariat and the masses in revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle, absolutely49
incapable <strong>of</strong> winning the revoluti<strong>on</strong> and absolutely incapable<strong>of</strong> fulfilling the great his<strong>to</strong>rical missi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.This is a questi<strong>on</strong> all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, all class-c<strong>on</strong>sciousworkers and all progressive people everywhere need <strong>to</strong> p<strong>on</strong>derdeeply.25. It is the duty <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists <strong>to</strong> distinguishbetween truth and falsehood with respect <strong>to</strong> the differencesthat have arisen in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.In the comm<strong>on</strong> interest <strong>of</strong> the unity for struggle against theenemy, we have always advocated solving problems throughinter-Party c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>s and opposed bringing differencesin<strong>to</strong> the open before the enemy.As the comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU know, the public polemics inthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement have been provokedby certain fraternal Party leaders and forced <strong>on</strong> us.Since a public debate has been provoked, it ought <strong>to</strong> bec<strong>on</strong>ducted <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> equality am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Partiesand <strong>of</strong> democracy, and by presenting the facts and reas<strong>on</strong>ingthings out.Since certain Party leaders have publicly attacked otherfraternal Parties and provoked a public debate, it is our opini<strong>on</strong>that they have no reas<strong>on</strong> or right <strong>to</strong> forbid the fraternalParties attacked <strong>to</strong> make public replies.Since certain Party leaders have published innumerablearticles attacking other fraternal Parties, why do they notpublish in their own press the articles those Parties havewritten, in reply?Latterly, the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has been subjected<strong>to</strong> preposterous attacks. The attackers have raised a greathue and cry and, disregarding the facts, have fabricated manycharges against us. We have published these articles andspeeches attacking us in our own press.We have also published in full in our press the Soviet leader’sreport at the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>on</strong> December12, 1962, the Pravda Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Board’s article <strong>of</strong> January 7,50
1963, the speech <strong>of</strong> the head <strong>of</strong> the CPSU delegati<strong>on</strong> at theSixth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Socialist Unity Party <strong>of</strong> Germany <strong>on</strong>January 16, 1963 and the Pravda Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Board’s article <strong>of</strong>February 10, 1963.We have also published the full text <strong>of</strong> the two letters fromthe Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU dated February 21 andMarch 30, 1963.We have replied <strong>to</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the articles and speeches inwhich fraternal Parties have attacked us, but have not yetreplied <strong>to</strong> others. For example, we have not directly replied<strong>to</strong> the many articles and speeches <strong>of</strong> the comrades <strong>of</strong> theCPSU.Between December 15, 1962 and March 8, 1963, we wroteseven articles in reply <strong>to</strong> our attackers. These articles areentitled:“Workers <strong>of</strong> All Countries, Unite, Oppose Our Comm<strong>on</strong>Enemy!”,“The Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us”,“Leninism and Modern Revisi<strong>on</strong>ism”,“Let Us Unite <strong>on</strong> the Basis <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong> andthe Moscow Statement”,“Whence the Differences? — A Reply <strong>to</strong> Thorez and OtherComrades”,“More <strong>on</strong> the Differences Between Comrade Togliatti andUs — Some Important Problems <strong>of</strong> Leninism in the C<strong>on</strong>temporaryWorld”,“A Comment <strong>on</strong> the Statement <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>the U.S.A.”.Presumably, you are referring <strong>to</strong> these articles when <strong>to</strong>wardsthe end <strong>of</strong> your letter <strong>of</strong> March 30 you accuse theChinese press <strong>of</strong> making “groundless attacks” <strong>on</strong> the CPSU.It is turning things upside down <strong>to</strong> describe articles replying<strong>to</strong> our attackers as “attacks”.Since you describe our articles as “groundless” and as sovery bad, why do you not publish all seven <strong>of</strong> these “groundlessattacks”, in the same way as we have published your51
articles, and let all the Soviet comrades and Soviet peoplethink for themselves and judge who is right and who wr<strong>on</strong>g?You are <strong>of</strong> course entitled <strong>to</strong> make a point-by-point refutati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> these articles you c<strong>on</strong>sider “groundless attacks”.Although you call our articles “groundless” and our argumentswr<strong>on</strong>g, you do not tell the Soviet people what our argumentsactually are. This practice can hardly be described asshowing a serious attitude <strong>to</strong>wards the discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> problemsby fraternal Parties, <strong>to</strong>wards the truth or <strong>to</strong>wards the masses.We hope that the public debate am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties canbe s<strong>to</strong>pped. This is a problem that has <strong>to</strong> be dealt with inaccordance with the principles <strong>of</strong> independence, <strong>of</strong> equalityand <strong>of</strong> reaching unanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g fraternalParties. In the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, no<strong>on</strong>e has the right <strong>to</strong> launch attacks whenever he wants, or <strong>to</strong>order the “ending <strong>of</strong> open polemics” whenever he wants <strong>to</strong>prevent the other side from replying.It is known <strong>to</strong> the comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU that, in order <strong>to</strong>create a favourable atmosphere for c<strong>on</strong>vening the meeting <strong>of</strong>the fraternal Parties, we have decided temporarily <strong>to</strong> suspend,as from March 9, 1963, public replies <strong>to</strong> the public attacksdirected by name against us by comrades <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties.We reserve the right <strong>of</strong> public reply.In our letter <strong>of</strong> March 9, we said that <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>suspending public debate “it is necessary that our two Partiesand the fraternal Parties c<strong>on</strong>cerned should have some discussi<strong>on</strong>and reach an agreement that is fair and acceptable <strong>to</strong> all”.* * *The foregoing are our views regarding the general line <strong>of</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and some relatedquesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle. We hope, as we indicated at thebeginning <strong>of</strong> this letter, that the frank presentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ourviews will be c<strong>on</strong>ducive <strong>to</strong> mutual understanding. Of course,comrades may agree or disagree with these views. But inour opini<strong>on</strong>, the questi<strong>on</strong>s we discuss here are the crucial52
questi<strong>on</strong>s calling for attenti<strong>on</strong> and soluti<strong>on</strong> by the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement. We hope that all these questi<strong>on</strong>s andalso those raised in your letter will be fully discussed in thetalks between our two Parties and at the meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives<strong>of</strong> all the fraternal Parties.In additi<strong>on</strong>, there are other questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern,such as the criticism <strong>of</strong> Stalin and some important matters <strong>of</strong>principle regarding the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementwhich were raised at the 20th and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, and we hope that <strong>on</strong> these questi<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong>o, there will bea frank exchange <strong>of</strong> opini<strong>on</strong> in the talks.With regard <strong>to</strong> the talks between our two Parties, in ourletter <strong>of</strong> March 9 we proposed that Comrade Khrushchov come<strong>to</strong> Peking; if this was not c<strong>on</strong>venient, we proposed that anotherresp<strong>on</strong>sible comrade <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUlead a delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> Peking or that we send a delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>Moscow.Since you have stated in your letter <strong>of</strong> March 30 thatComrade Khrushchov cannot come <strong>to</strong> China, and since youhave not expressed a desire <strong>to</strong> send a delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> China, theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has decided<strong>to</strong> send a delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> Moscow.In your letter <strong>of</strong> March 30, you invited Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tsetung<strong>to</strong> visit the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. As early as February 23,Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung in his c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong> with the SovietAmbassador <strong>to</strong> China clearly stated the reas<strong>on</strong> why he wasnot prepared <strong>to</strong> visit the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> at the present time.You were well aware <strong>of</strong> this.When a resp<strong>on</strong>sible comrade <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China received the Soviet Ambassador<strong>to</strong> China <strong>on</strong> May 9, he informed you that we would send adelegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> Moscow in the middle <strong>of</strong> June. Later, in compliancewith the request <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, we agreed <strong>to</strong> postp<strong>on</strong>e the talks between our twoParties <strong>to</strong> July 5.53
We sincerely hope that the talks between the Chinese andSoviet Parties will yield positive results and c<strong>on</strong>tribute <strong>to</strong> thepreparati<strong>on</strong>s for c<strong>on</strong>vening the meeting <strong>of</strong> all Communist andWorkers’ Parties.It is now more than ever necessary for all Communists <strong>to</strong>unite <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement unanimouslyagreed up<strong>on</strong> by the fraternal Parties.Together with <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties and revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople the world over, the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China willc<strong>on</strong>tinue its unremitting efforts <strong>to</strong> uphold the interests <strong>of</strong> thesocialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, thecause <strong>of</strong> the emancipati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s,and the struggle against imperialism and for world peace.We hope that events which grieve those near and dear <strong>to</strong> usand <strong>on</strong>ly gladden the enemy will not recur in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement in the future.The Chinese Communists firmly believe that the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, the proletariat and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people everywherewill unite more closely, overcome all difficulties andobstacles and win still greater vic<strong>to</strong>ries in the struggle againstimperialism and for world peace, and in the fight for therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the world and the cause<strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al communism.Workers <strong>of</strong> all countries, unite! Workers and oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the world, unite! Oppose our comm<strong>on</strong>enemy!With communist greetings,The Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China
THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENTOF THE DIFFERENCESBETWEEN THE LEADERSHIP OFTHE CPSU AND OURSELVESComment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(September 6, 1963)
T is more than a m<strong>on</strong>th since the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>I the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> published itsOpen Letter <strong>of</strong> July 14 <strong>to</strong> Party organizati<strong>on</strong>s and all Communistsin the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. This Open Letter, and the stepstaken by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU since its publicati<strong>on</strong>,have pushed Sino-Soviet relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> the brink <strong>of</strong> a split andhave carried the differences in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement <strong>to</strong> a new stage <strong>of</strong> unprecedented gravity.Now Moscow, Washingt<strong>on</strong>, New Delhi and Belgrade arejoined in a love feast and the Soviet press is running anendless assortment <strong>of</strong> fantastic s<strong>to</strong>ries and theories attackingChina. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has allied itself withU.S. imperialism, the Indian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and the renegadeTi<strong>to</strong> clique against socialist China and against all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties, in open betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism andproletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism, in brazen repudiati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the 1957Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement and in flagrant violati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Sino-Soviet Treaty <strong>of</strong> Friendship, Alliance and MutualAssistance.The present differences within the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement and between the Chinese and Soviet Partiesinvolve a whole series <strong>of</strong> important questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle.In its letter <strong>of</strong> June 14 <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC systematically andcomprehensively discussed the essence <strong>of</strong> these differences.It pointed out that, in the last analysis, the present differenceswithin the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement andbetween the Chinese and Soviet Parties involve the questi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> whether or not <strong>to</strong> accept the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong>the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement, whether or not<strong>to</strong> accept <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism,whether or not there is need for revoluti<strong>on</strong>, whether or57
not imperialism is <strong>to</strong> be opposed, and whether or not theunity <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement is desired.How have the differences in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement and between the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and ourselvesarisen? And how have they grown <strong>to</strong> their presentserious dimensi<strong>on</strong>s? Everybody is c<strong>on</strong>cerned about thesequesti<strong>on</strong>s.In our article “Whence the Differences?” 1 we dealt withthe origin and growth <strong>of</strong> the differences in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement in general outline. We deliberatelyrefrained from giving certain facts c<strong>on</strong>cerning this questi<strong>on</strong>,and particularly certain important facts involving the leadership<strong>of</strong> the CPSU, and left the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU someleeway, though we were ready <strong>to</strong> provide a fuller picture and<strong>to</strong> thrash out the rights and wr<strong>on</strong>gs when necessary. Nowthat the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhas <strong>to</strong>ld many lies about the origin and development <strong>of</strong> thedifferences and completely dis<strong>to</strong>rted the facts, it has becomenecessary for us <strong>to</strong> set forth certain facts in order <strong>to</strong> explainthe matter in greater detail.In its Open Letter, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUdares not state the truth <strong>to</strong> its Party members and the masses<strong>of</strong> the people. Instead <strong>of</strong> being open and above-board andrespecting the facts as <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists should, the leadership<strong>of</strong> the CPSU resorts <strong>to</strong> the cus<strong>to</strong>mary practice <strong>of</strong> bourgeoispoliticians, dis<strong>to</strong>rting the facts and c<strong>on</strong>fusing truth andfalsehood in its determined attempt <strong>to</strong> shift the blame forthe emergence and growth <strong>of</strong> the differences <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party.Lenin <strong>on</strong>ce said, “H<strong>on</strong>esty in politics is the result <strong>of</strong>strength; hypocrisy is the result <strong>of</strong> weakness.” 2 H<strong>on</strong>esty andrespect for the facts mark the attitude <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists.1Renmin Ribao edi<strong>to</strong>rial, February 27, 1963.2V. I. Lenin, “<str<strong>on</strong>g>Polemic</str<strong>on</strong>g>al Notes”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1963, Vol. XVII, p. 166.58
Only those who have degenerated politically depend <strong>on</strong> tellinglies for a living.The facts are most eloquent. Facts are the best witness.Let us look at the facts.THE DIFFERENCES BEGAN WITH THE20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSUThere is a saying, “It takes more than <strong>on</strong>e cold day forthe river <strong>to</strong> freeze three feet deep.” The present differencesin the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement did not, <strong>of</strong> course,begin just <strong>to</strong>day.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUspreads the noti<strong>on</strong> that the differences in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement were started by “L<strong>on</strong>g Live Leninism!”and two other articles which we published in April 1960.This is a big lie.What is the truth?The truth is that the whole series <strong>of</strong> differences <strong>of</strong> principlein the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement began morethan seven years ago.To be specific, it began with the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU in 1956.The 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU was the first step al<strong>on</strong>gthe road <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism taken by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.<strong>From</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>to</strong> the present, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line<strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has g<strong>on</strong>e through the process<strong>of</strong> emergence, formati<strong>on</strong>, growth and systematizati<strong>on</strong>. Andby a gradual process, <strong>to</strong>o, people have come <strong>to</strong> understandmore and more deeply the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line <strong>of</strong> the CPSUleadership.<strong>From</strong> the very outset we held that a number <strong>of</strong> viewsadvanced at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress c<strong>on</strong>cerning the c<strong>on</strong>temporaryinternati<strong>on</strong>al struggle and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementwere wr<strong>on</strong>g, were violati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. In59
particular, the complete negati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong>“combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult” and the thesis <strong>of</strong> peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism by “the parliamentary road” are grosserrors <strong>of</strong> principle.The criticism <strong>of</strong> Stalin at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwas wr<strong>on</strong>g both in principle and in method.Stalin’s life was that <strong>of</strong> a great <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist, a greatproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary. For thirty years after Lenin’s death,Stalin was the foremost leader <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and the SovietGovernment, as well as the recognized leader <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement and the standard-bearer <strong>of</strong> theworld revoluti<strong>on</strong>. During his lifetime, Stalin made some seriousmistakes, but compared <strong>to</strong> his great and meri<strong>to</strong>rious deedshis mistakes are <strong>on</strong>ly sec<strong>on</strong>dary.Stalin rendered great services <strong>to</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. Inthe article “On the His<strong>to</strong>rical Experience <strong>of</strong> the Dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the Proletariat” published in April 1956, we said:After Lenin’s death Stalin creatively applied and developed<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism as the chief leader <strong>of</strong> the Partyand the state. Stalin expressed the will and aspirati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the people, and proved himself an outstanding <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist fighter, in the struggle in defence <strong>of</strong> the legacy<strong>of</strong> Leninism against its enemies — the Trotskyites, Zinovievitesand other bourgeois agents. Stalin w<strong>on</strong> the support<strong>of</strong> the Soviet people and played an important role in his<strong>to</strong>ryprimarily because, <strong>to</strong>gether with the other leaders <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, he defendedLenin’s line <strong>on</strong> the industrializati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>and the collectivizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> agriculture. By pursuing thisline, the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> broughtabout the triumph <strong>of</strong> socialism in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> andcreated the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>in the war against Hitler; these vic<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>of</strong> the Soviet peopleaccorded with the interests <strong>of</strong> the working class <strong>of</strong> the60
world and all progressive mankind. It was thereforenatural that the name <strong>of</strong> Stalin was greatly h<strong>on</strong>ouredthroughout the world. 1It was necessary <strong>to</strong> criticize Stalin’s mistakes. But in hissecret report <strong>to</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, Comrade Khrushchovcompletely negated Stalin, and in doing so defamed the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat, defamed the socialist system, thegreat CPSU, the great Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement. Far from using a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary proletarianparty’s method <strong>of</strong> criticism and self-criticism for thepurpose <strong>of</strong> making an earnest and serious analysis and summati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rical experience <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat, he treated Stalin as an enemy and shifted theblame for all mistakes <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> Stalin al<strong>on</strong>e.Khrushchov viciously and demagogically <strong>to</strong>ld a host <strong>of</strong> liesin his secret report, and threw around charges that Stalinhad a “persecuti<strong>on</strong> mania”, indulged in “brutal arbitrariness”,<strong>to</strong>ok the path <strong>of</strong> “mass repressi<strong>on</strong>s and terror”, “knew thecountry and agriculture <strong>on</strong>ly from films” and “planned operati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>on</strong> a globe”, that Stalin’s leadership “became a seriousobstacle in the path <strong>of</strong> Soviet social development”, and so <strong>on</strong>and so forth. He completely obliterated the meri<strong>to</strong>rious deeds<strong>of</strong> Stalin who led the Soviet people in waging resolute struggleagainst all internal and external foes and achieving greatresults in socialist transformati<strong>on</strong> and socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>,who led the Soviet people in defending and c<strong>on</strong>solidating thefirst socialist country in the world and winning the gloriousvic<strong>to</strong>ry in the anti-fascist war, and who defended and developed<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.In completely negating Stalin at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, Khrushchov in effect negated the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat and the fundamental theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismwhich Stalin defended and developed. It was at that1The His<strong>to</strong>rical Experience <strong>of</strong> the Dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the Proletariat, Eng.ed., Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1964, p. 7.61
C<strong>on</strong>gress that Khrushchov, in his report, began the repudiati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism <strong>on</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle.In his report <strong>to</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, under the pretext that“radical changes” had taken place in the world situati<strong>on</strong>,Khrushchov put forward the thesis <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”.He said that the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> was “the<strong>on</strong>ly correct road in those his<strong>to</strong>rical c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s”, but that asthe situati<strong>on</strong> had changed, it had become possible <strong>to</strong> effectthe transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism “through theparliamentary road”. In essence, this err<strong>on</strong>eous thesis is aclear revisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist teachings <strong>on</strong> the stateand revoluti<strong>on</strong> and a clear denial <strong>of</strong> the universal significance<strong>of</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>.In his report, under the same pretext that “radical changes”had taken place in the world situati<strong>on</strong>, Khrushchov also questi<strong>on</strong>edthe c<strong>on</strong>tinued validity <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s teachings <strong>on</strong> imperialismand <strong>on</strong> war and peace, and in fact tampered withLenin’s teachings.Khrushchev pictured the U.S. Government and its head aspeople resisting the forces <strong>of</strong> war, and not as representatives<strong>of</strong> the imperialist forces <strong>of</strong> war. He said, “. . . the advocates<strong>of</strong> settling outstanding issues by means <strong>of</strong> war still hold str<strong>on</strong>gpositi<strong>on</strong>s there [in the United States], and . . . they c<strong>on</strong>tinue<strong>to</strong> exert big pressure <strong>on</strong> the President and the Administrati<strong>on</strong>.”He went <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> say that the imperialists were beginning<strong>to</strong> admit that the positi<strong>on</strong>s-<strong>of</strong>-strength policy had failed andthat “symp<strong>to</strong>ms <strong>of</strong> a certain sobering up are appearing”am<strong>on</strong>g them. It was as much as saying that it was possiblefor the U.S. Government and its head not <strong>to</strong> represent theinterests <strong>of</strong> the U.S. m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital and for them <strong>to</strong> aband<strong>on</strong>their policies <strong>of</strong> war and aggressi<strong>on</strong> and that they had becomeforces defending peace.Khrushchov declared: “We want <strong>to</strong> be friends with theUnited States and <strong>to</strong> co-operate with it for peace and internati<strong>on</strong>alsecurity and also in the ec<strong>on</strong>omic and cultural spheres.”62
This wr<strong>on</strong>g view later developed in<strong>to</strong> the line <strong>of</strong> “Soviet-U.S. co-operati<strong>on</strong> for the settlement <strong>of</strong> world problems”.Dis<strong>to</strong>rting Lenin’s correct principle <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistencebetween countries with different social systems, Khrushchovdeclared that peaceful coexistence was the “general line <strong>of</strong>the foreign policy” <strong>of</strong> the U.S.S.R. This amounted <strong>to</strong> excludingfrom the general line <strong>of</strong> foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the socialistcountries their mutual assistance and co-operati<strong>on</strong> as well asassistance by them <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s, or <strong>to</strong> subordinating all this <strong>to</strong>the policy <strong>of</strong> so-called “peaceful coexistence”.The questi<strong>on</strong>s raised by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU at the20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, and especially the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin and <strong>of</strong>“peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”, are by no means simply internal affairs<strong>of</strong> the CPSU; they are vital issues <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> interest forall fraternal Parties. Without any prior c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> with thefraternal Parties, the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU drew arbitraryc<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s; it forced the fraternal Parties <strong>to</strong> accept a faitaccompli and, <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult”, crudely interfered in the internal affairs <strong>of</strong> fraternalParties and countries and tried <strong>to</strong> subvert their leaderships,thus pushing its policy <strong>of</strong> sectarianism and splittism in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement.Subsequent developments show with increasing claritythat the revisi<strong>on</strong> and betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism andproletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU havegrown out <strong>of</strong> the above errors.The CPC has always differed in principle in its view <strong>of</strong> the20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, and the leading comrades <strong>of</strong> theCPSU are well aware <strong>of</strong> this. Yet the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU asserts that the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China previously gave the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress full support,that we “have made a 180-degree turn” in our evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, and that our positi<strong>on</strong> is full <strong>of</strong> “vacillati<strong>on</strong>and wavering” and is “false”.63
It is impossible for the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> shut outthe heavens with <strong>on</strong>e palm. Let the facts speak for themselves.On many occasi<strong>on</strong>s in internal discussi<strong>on</strong>s after the 20thC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, leading comrades <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPC solemnly criticized the errors <strong>of</strong> the CPSUleadership.In April 1956, less than two m<strong>on</strong>ths after the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress,in c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>s both with Comrade Mikoyan, member<strong>of</strong> the Presidium <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, andwith the Soviet Ambassador <strong>to</strong> China, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tungexpressed our views <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin. He emphasizedthat Stalin’s “merits outweighed his faults” and that it wasnecessary <strong>to</strong> “make a c<strong>on</strong>crete analysis” and “an all-roundevaluati<strong>on</strong>” <strong>of</strong> Stalin.On Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 23, 1956, <strong>on</strong> receiving the Soviet Ambassador<strong>to</strong> China, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung pointed out, “Stalin deserves<strong>to</strong> be criticized, but we do not agree with the method<strong>of</strong> criticism, and there are some other matters we do notagree with.”On November 30, 1956, <strong>on</strong> receiving the Soviet Ambassador<strong>to</strong> China, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung again pointed out that thebasic policy and line during the period when Stalin was inpower were correct and that methods that are used againstenemies must not be used against <strong>on</strong>e’s comrades.Both Comrade Liu Shao-chi in his c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong> withleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU in Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1956, and Comrade Chou Enlaiin his c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1, 1956 with the delegati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> the Eighth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPC and <strong>on</strong>January 18, 1957 with leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, also expressedour views <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin, and both criticized theerrors <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU as c<strong>on</strong>sisting chiefly <strong>of</strong>“<strong>to</strong>tal lack <strong>of</strong> an overall analysis” <strong>of</strong> Stalin, “lack <strong>of</strong> selfcriticism”and “failure <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sult with the fraternal Partiesin advance”.64
In internal discussi<strong>on</strong>s with comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, leadingcomrades <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC also statedwhere eve differed <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>.Furthermore, in November 1957 the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the CPC presented the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU witha written “Outline <strong>of</strong> Views <strong>on</strong> the Questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> PeacefulTransiti<strong>on</strong>”, comprehensively and clearly explaining theviewpoint <strong>of</strong> the CPC.In their many internal discussi<strong>on</strong>s with comrades <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, leading comrades <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPC also systematically set forth our views <strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alsituati<strong>on</strong> and the strategy <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, with direct reference <strong>to</strong> the errors <strong>of</strong> the20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.These are plain facts. How can the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUobliterate them by bare-faced lying?Attempting <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ceal these important facts, the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU in its Open Letter quotes out <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>textpublic statements by Comrades <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, Liu Shaochiand Teng Hsiao-ping <strong>to</strong> show that at <strong>on</strong>e time the ChineseCommunist Party completely affirmed the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong>the CPSU. This is futile.The fact is that at no time and in no place did the ChineseCommunist Party completely affirm the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, agree with the complete negati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin or endorsethe view <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism through the “parliamentaryroad”.Not l<strong>on</strong>g after the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, <strong>on</strong> April5, 1956, we published “On the His<strong>to</strong>rical Experience <strong>of</strong> theDicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the Proletariat”; then, <strong>on</strong> December 29, 1956,we published “More <strong>on</strong> the His<strong>to</strong>rical Experience <strong>of</strong> theDicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the Proletariat”. While refuting the anti-Communist slanders <strong>of</strong> the imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries,these two articles made an all-round analysis <strong>of</strong> the life <strong>of</strong>Stalin, affirmed the universal significance <strong>of</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> theOc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, summed up the his<strong>to</strong>rical experience <strong>of</strong>65
the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, and tactfully but unequivocallycriticized the err<strong>on</strong>eous propositi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress.Is this not a widely known fact?Since the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the Chinese CommunistParty has c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> display the portrait <strong>of</strong> Stalinal<strong>on</strong>g with those <strong>of</strong> the other great revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary leaders,<strong>Marx</strong>, Engels and Lenin. Is not this, <strong>to</strong>o, a widely knownfact?It needs <strong>to</strong> be said, <strong>of</strong> course, that for the sake <strong>of</strong> unityagainst the enemy and out <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> for the difficultpositi<strong>on</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU were in, we refrained inthose days from open criticism <strong>of</strong> the errors <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress,because the imperialists and the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> allcountries were exploiting these errors and carrying <strong>on</strong> frenziedactivities against the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, against communismand against the people, and also because the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU had not yet departed so far from <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismas they did later. We fervently hoped at the time that theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU would put their errors right. C<strong>on</strong>sequently,we always endeavoured <strong>to</strong> seek out positive aspectsand <strong>on</strong> public occasi<strong>on</strong>s gave them whatever support was appropriateand necessary.Even so, by stressing positive less<strong>on</strong>s and principles intheir public speeches, leading comrades <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPC explained our positi<strong>on</strong> with regard <strong>to</strong> the20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUasserts that in his political report <strong>to</strong> the Eighth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong>the CPC, Comrade Liu Shao-chi completely affirmed the 20thC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. But it was in this very report thatComrade Liu Shao-chi spoke <strong>on</strong> the less<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Chineserevoluti<strong>on</strong> and explained that the road <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”was wr<strong>on</strong>g and impracticable.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUasserts that in his report <strong>to</strong> the Eighth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPC<strong>on</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Party C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>, Comrade Teng66
Hsiao-ping completely affirmed the “struggle against the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult” c<strong>on</strong>ducted at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress. But it was inthis very report that Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping discussed atsome length democratic centralism in the Party and the interrelati<strong>on</strong>shipbetween leaders and masses, explained thec<strong>on</strong>sistent and correct style <strong>of</strong> work <strong>of</strong> our Party, and thus ineffect criticized the error <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress c<strong>on</strong>cerningthe “struggle against the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”.Is there anything wr<strong>on</strong>g in the way we acted? Have we notd<strong>on</strong>e exactly what a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Party ought <strong>to</strong> do bypersevering in principle and upholding unity?How can this c<strong>on</strong>sistently correct attitude <strong>of</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party <strong>to</strong>wards the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress be described asfull <strong>of</strong> “vacillati<strong>on</strong> and wavering”, as “false” and as representing“a 180-degree turn”?In making these charges against us in the Open Letter,perhaps the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU thought it coulddeny the criticisms we made because they were known <strong>on</strong>ly<strong>to</strong> a few leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, and that it could use falsehoods<strong>to</strong> deceive the broad masses <strong>of</strong> the CPSU membership andthe Soviet people. But does this not prove its own falseness?THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSUThe Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUloudly proclaims the “splendid” and “majestic results” <strong>of</strong> the20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.But his<strong>to</strong>ry cannot be altered. People not suffering from<strong>to</strong>o short a memory will recall that by its errors the 20thC<strong>on</strong>gress produced not “splendid” or “majestic results” buta discrediting <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat and <strong>of</strong> socialism and communism, and gave anopportunity <strong>to</strong> the imperialists, the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and all the67
other enemies <strong>of</strong> communism, with extremely serious c<strong>on</strong>sequencesfor the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.After the C<strong>on</strong>gress, swollen with arrogance the imperialistsand reacti<strong>on</strong>aries everywhere stirred up a world-wide tidalwave against the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, against communism andagainst the people. The U.S. imperialists saw the all-outattack <strong>on</strong> Stalin by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU as somethingthat was “never so suited <strong>to</strong> our purposes”, 1 they talked openlyabout using Khrushchov’s secret report as a “weap<strong>on</strong> withwhich <strong>to</strong> destroy the prestige and influence <strong>of</strong> the Communistmovement” 2 and they <strong>to</strong>ok the opportunity <strong>to</strong> advocate“peaceful transformati<strong>on</strong>” in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. 3The Ti<strong>to</strong>ites became most aggressive. Flaunting theirreacti<strong>on</strong>ary slogan <strong>of</strong> “anti-Stalinism”, they wildly attackedthe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the socialist system.They declared that the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU “createdsufficient elements” for the “new course” which Yugoslaviahad started and that “the questi<strong>on</strong> now is whether this coursewill win or the course <strong>of</strong> Stalinism will win again”. 4The Trotskyites, enemies <strong>of</strong> communism, who had been indesperate straits, feverishly resumed activity. In its Manifes<strong>to</strong><strong>to</strong> the Workers and Peoples <strong>of</strong> the Entire World the so-calledFourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al said:Today, when the Kremlin leaders are themselves admittingthe crimes <strong>of</strong> Stalin, they implicitly recognize that theindefatigable struggle carried <strong>on</strong> . . . by the world Trotskyistmovement against the degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the workers’state, was fully justified.The errors <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress brought great ideologicalc<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and1Radio talk by T. C. Streibert, Direc<strong>to</strong>r <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Informati<strong>on</strong>Agency, June 11, 1956.2“The Communist Crisis”, New York Times edi<strong>to</strong>rial, June 23, 1956.3J. F. Dulles, Statement at the Press C<strong>on</strong>ference, April 3, 1956.4J. B. Ti<strong>to</strong>, Speech Made in Pula, November 11, 1956.68
caused it <strong>to</strong> be deluged with revisi<strong>on</strong>ist ideas. Al<strong>on</strong>g with theimperialists, the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique, renegadesfrom communism in many countries attacked <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.Most striking am<strong>on</strong>g the events which <strong>to</strong>ok place duringthis period were the incident in Soviet-Polish relati<strong>on</strong>s andthe counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary rebelli<strong>on</strong> in Hungary. The twoevents were different in character. But the leadership <strong>of</strong> theCPSU made grave errors in both. By moving up troops inan attempt <strong>to</strong> subdue the Polish comrades by armed forceit committed the error <strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism. And atthe critical moment when the Hungarian counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>arieshad occupied Budapest, for a time it intended <strong>to</strong>adopt a policy <strong>of</strong> capitulati<strong>on</strong> and aband<strong>on</strong> socialist Hungary<strong>to</strong> counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>.These errors <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU inflated thearrogance <strong>of</strong> all the enemies <strong>of</strong> communism, created seriousdifficulties for many fraternal Parties and caused the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement great damage.In the face <strong>of</strong> this situati<strong>on</strong>, the Chinese Communist Partyand other fraternal Parties persevering in <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismfirmly demanded repulsing the assaults <strong>of</strong> imperialism andreacti<strong>on</strong> and safeguarding the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement. We insisted <strong>on</strong> the taking <strong>of</strong>all necessary measures <strong>to</strong> smash the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryrebelli<strong>on</strong> in Hungary and firmly opposed the aband<strong>on</strong>ment<strong>of</strong> socialist Hungary. We insisted that in the handling <strong>of</strong>problems between fraternal Parties and countries correctprinciples should be followed so as <strong>to</strong> strengthen the unity <strong>of</strong>the socialist camp, and we firmly opposed the err<strong>on</strong>eousmethods <strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism. At the same time, wemade very great efforts <strong>to</strong> safeguard the prestige <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.At that time the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU accepted our suggesti<strong>on</strong>and <strong>on</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 30, 1956 issued the Soviet Government’sDeclarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the Foundati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Development andFurther Strengthening <strong>of</strong> Friendship and Co-operati<strong>on</strong> Be-69
tween the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and Other Socialist Countries”, inwhich they examined some <strong>of</strong> their own past mistakes inhandling their relati<strong>on</strong>s with fraternal countries. On November1, the Chinese Government issued a statement expressingsupport for the Soviet Government’s declarati<strong>on</strong>.All this we did in the interests <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, and also in order <strong>to</strong> persuade the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> draw the proper less<strong>on</strong>s and correct theirerrors in good time and not slide farther away from <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. But subsequent events showed that the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU nursed rancour against us and regarded the CPCwhich perseveres in proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism as the bigges<strong>to</strong>bstacle <strong>to</strong> their wr<strong>on</strong>g line.THE 1957 MOSCOW MEETING OFFRATERNAL PARTIESThe 1957 Meeting <strong>of</strong> Representatives <strong>of</strong> the Communistand Workers’ Parties <strong>to</strong>ok place in Moscow after the repulse<strong>of</strong> the heavy attacks <strong>of</strong> the imperialists and the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries<strong>of</strong> various countries <strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUsays that the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU played an “immensepart” in defining the general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. The facts show the very reverse. Theerr<strong>on</strong>eous views <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>on</strong> many importantquesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle were rejected and corrected by the 1957meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties.The well-known Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957, adopted by theMoscow Meeting, summed up the experience <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, set forth the comm<strong>on</strong> fightingtasks <strong>of</strong> all the Communist Parties, affirmed the universalsignificance <strong>of</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, outlinedthe comm<strong>on</strong> laws governing socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> and socialist70
c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> and laid down the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>sam<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and countries. The comm<strong>on</strong> line <strong>of</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement which was thusworked out at the meeting embodies the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and is opposed <strong>to</strong> the err<strong>on</strong>eousviews deviating from <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism which were advancedby the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress. The principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>gfraternal Parties and countries laid down in the Declarati<strong>on</strong>are c<strong>on</strong>crete expressi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand stand opposed <strong>to</strong> the great-power chauvinismand sectarianism <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.The delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC, which was headed by Comrade<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, did a great deal <strong>of</strong> work during the meeting.On the <strong>on</strong>e hand, it had full c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>s with the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU, and where necessary and appropriate wagedstruggle against them, in order <strong>to</strong> help them correct theirerrors; <strong>on</strong> the other hand, it held repeated exchanges <strong>of</strong> viewswith the leaders <strong>of</strong> other fraternal Parties in order that acomm<strong>on</strong> document acceptable <strong>to</strong> all might be worked out.At this meeting, the chief subject <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>troversy betweenus and the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPSU was the transiti<strong>on</strong> fromcapitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism. In their original draft <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong>the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU insisted <strong>on</strong> the inclusi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the err<strong>on</strong>eous views <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>on</strong> peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>. The original draft said not a word about n<strong>on</strong>peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>, menti<strong>on</strong>ing <strong>on</strong>ly peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>;moreover, it described peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> as “securing amajority in parliament and transforming parliament from aninstrument <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois dicta<strong>to</strong>rship in<strong>to</strong> an instrument<strong>of</strong> a genuine people’s state power”. In fact, it substitutedthe “parliamentary road” advocated by the opportunists <strong>of</strong>the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al for the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>and tampered with the basic <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory <strong>on</strong>the state and revoluti<strong>on</strong>.The Chinese Communist Party resolutely opposed thewr<strong>on</strong>g views c<strong>on</strong>tained in the draft declarati<strong>on</strong> submitted by71
the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. We expressed our views <strong>on</strong> thetwo successive drafts put forward by the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU and made a c<strong>on</strong>siderable number <strong>of</strong> majorchanges <strong>of</strong> principle which we presented as our own reviseddraft. Repeated discussi<strong>on</strong>s were then held between the delegati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the Chinese and Soviet Parties <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong>our revised draft before the Joint Draft Declarati<strong>on</strong> by theCPSU and the CPC was submitted <strong>to</strong> the delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> theother fraternal Parties for their opini<strong>on</strong>s.As a result <strong>of</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong> efforts <strong>of</strong> the delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> theCPC and the other fraternal Parties, the meeting finallyadopted the present versi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong>, which c<strong>on</strong>tainstwo major changes <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> fromcapitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism compared with the first draft putforward by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. First, while indicatingthe possibility <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>, the Declarati<strong>on</strong> alsopoints <strong>to</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> and stresses that“Leninism teaches, and experience c<strong>on</strong>firms, that the rulingclasses never relinquish power voluntarily”. Sec<strong>on</strong>dly, whilespeaking <strong>of</strong> securing “a firm majority in parliament”, theDeclarati<strong>on</strong> emphasizes the need <strong>to</strong> “launch an extra-parliamentarymass struggle, smash the resistance <strong>of</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>aryforces and create the necessary c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for peaceful realizati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>”.Despite these changes, the formulati<strong>on</strong> in the Declarati<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialismwas still unsatisfac<strong>to</strong>ry. We finally c<strong>on</strong>ceded the point <strong>on</strong>lyout <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> for the repeatedly expressed wish <strong>of</strong> theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU that the formulati<strong>on</strong> should show somec<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> with that <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.However, we presented the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU with an outline <strong>of</strong> our views <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong> in which the views <strong>of</strong> the CPC were explainedcomprehensively and clearly. The outline emphasizes thefollowing:72
“In the present situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, it is advantageous from the point <strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong>tactics <strong>to</strong> refer <strong>to</strong> the desire for peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>. Butit would be inappropriate <strong>to</strong> over-emphasize the possibility<strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>.”“They [the proletariat and the Communist Party] mustbe prepared at all times <strong>to</strong> repulse counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryattacks and, at the critical juncture <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong> whenthe working class is seizing state power, <strong>to</strong> overthrow thebourgeoisie by armed force if it uses armed force <strong>to</strong> suppressthe peoples revoluti<strong>on</strong> (generally speaking, it isinevitable that the bourgeoisie will do so).”“To obtain a majority in parliament is not the same assmashing the old state machinery (chiefly the armed forces)and establishing new state machinery (chiefly the armedforces). Unless the military-bureaucratic state machinery<strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie is smashed, a parliamentary majorityfor the proletariat and its reliable allies will either beimpossible . . . or undependable. . . .” (See Appendix I.)As a result <strong>of</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong> efforts <strong>of</strong> the delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> theCPC and the other fraternal Parties, the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>also corrected the err<strong>on</strong>eous views which the CPSU leadershiphad put forward at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>on</strong> such questi<strong>on</strong>sas imperialism and war and peace, and it added many importantpoints <strong>on</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle. Themain additi<strong>on</strong>s were the thesis that U.S. imperialism is thecentre <strong>of</strong> world reacti<strong>on</strong> and the sworn enemy <strong>of</strong> the people,the thesis that if imperialism should unleash a world war itwould doom itself <strong>to</strong> destructi<strong>on</strong>, the comm<strong>on</strong> laws governingthe socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the building <strong>of</strong> socialism; theprinciple <strong>of</strong> combining the universal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismwith the c<strong>on</strong>crete practice <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>in different countries, the formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the importance<strong>of</strong> applying dialectical materialism in practical work, the73
thesis that the seizure <strong>of</strong> political power by the working classis the beginning <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong> and not its end; the thesisthat it will take a fairly l<strong>on</strong>g time <strong>to</strong> solve the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>who will win — capitalism or socialism, the thesis that theexistence <strong>of</strong> bourgeois influence is an internal source <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,while surrender <strong>to</strong> imperialist pressure is its externalsource; and so <strong>on</strong>.At the same time, the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC made somenecessary compromises. In additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>, we did not agree with thereference <strong>to</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and suggestedchanges. But out <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> for the difficult positi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU at the time, we did not insist<strong>on</strong> the changes.Who could have imagined that these c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong>s which wemade out <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> for the larger interest would laterbe used by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU as an excuse foraggravating differences and creating a split in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement?The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUc<strong>on</strong>stantly equates the resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU with the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957 in its attempt <strong>to</strong> substitutethe wr<strong>on</strong>g line <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress for the comm<strong>on</strong> line <strong>of</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. We pointed out l<strong>on</strong>gago and now deem it necessary <strong>to</strong> reiterate, that in accordancewith the principle that all fraternal Parties are independentand equal, no <strong>on</strong>e is entitled <strong>to</strong> demand <strong>of</strong> fraternalParties that they accept the resoluti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong><strong>on</strong>e Party or for that matter anything else; and the resoluti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> a Party C<strong>on</strong>gress, whatever the Party, cannot be regardedas the comm<strong>on</strong> line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementand have no binding force <strong>on</strong> other fraternal Parties. Only<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the documents unanimously agreedup<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>stitute the comm<strong>on</strong> code binding us and all fraternalParties.74
THE GROWTH OF THE REVISIONISMOF THE CPSU LEADERSHIPAfter the Moscow Meeting <strong>of</strong> 1957 with its unanimouslyagreed Declarati<strong>on</strong>, we hoped that the leadership <strong>of</strong> theCPSU would follow the line laid down in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> andcorrect its errors. We regret <strong>to</strong> say that c<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> the expectati<strong>on</strong>swe and all other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist fraternal Partiesentertained, the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU perpetrated increasinglyserious violati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> theDeclarati<strong>on</strong> and the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternalParties and countries, and departed farther and fartherfrom the path <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU grew.This development aggravated the differences in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement and carried them <strong>to</strong> a new stage.In complete disregard <strong>of</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the 1957Declarati<strong>on</strong> that U.S. imperialism is the enemy <strong>of</strong> all thepeople <strong>of</strong> the world, the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU passi<strong>on</strong>atelysought collaborati<strong>on</strong> with U.S. imperialism and the settlement<strong>of</strong> world problems by the heads <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>and the United States. Particularly around the time <strong>of</strong> theCamp David Talks in September 1959, Khrushchov laudedEisenhower <strong>to</strong> the skies, hailing him as a man who “enjoysthe absolute c<strong>on</strong>fidence <strong>of</strong> his people” 1 and who “also worriesabout ensuring peace just as we do”. 2 Moreover, comrades <strong>of</strong>the CPSU energetically advertised the so-called “spirit <strong>of</strong>Camp David”, whose existence Eisenhower himself denied,alleging that it marked “a new era in internati<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>s”3 and “a turning-point in his<strong>to</strong>ry”. 41N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Mass Meeting in Moscow, September28, 1959.2N. S. Khrushchov, Press C<strong>on</strong>ference in Washingt<strong>on</strong>, September 27,1959.3A. A. Gromyko Speech at the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong> theUSSR, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 31, 1959.4New Year message <strong>of</strong> greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and K. Y.Voroshilov <strong>to</strong> D. D. Eisenhower, January 1, 1960.75
Completely disregarding the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line <strong>of</strong> the 1957Declarati<strong>on</strong>, in statements by Khrushchov and in the Sovietpress the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU vigorously advocated theirrevisi<strong>on</strong>ist line <strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence”, “peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>”and “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”, praised the “wisdom” and“goodwill” <strong>of</strong> the imperialists, preached that “a world withoutweap<strong>on</strong>s, without armed forces and without wars” couldbe brought in<strong>to</strong> being while the greater part <strong>of</strong> the globe wasstill ruled and c<strong>on</strong>trolled by imperialism, 1 that universal andcomplete disarmament could “open up literally a new epochin the ec<strong>on</strong>omic development <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica”, 2 etc., etc.The CPSU published many books and articles in which ittampered with the fundamental theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism,emasculated their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary spirit and propagatedits revisi<strong>on</strong>ist views <strong>on</strong> a whole series <strong>of</strong> important problems<strong>of</strong> principle in the fields <strong>of</strong> philosophy, political ec<strong>on</strong>omy,socialist and communist theory, his<strong>to</strong>ry, literature and art.The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU actively endeavoured <strong>to</strong> imposeits err<strong>on</strong>eous views <strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al democratic organizati<strong>on</strong>sand <strong>to</strong> change their correct lines. An outstanding casein point was the behaviour <strong>of</strong> the Soviet comrades at thePeking sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>General</strong> Council Of the World Federati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Trade Uni<strong>on</strong>s in June 1960.Completely disregarding the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>sam<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and countries which were laid downin the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, eager <strong>to</strong>curry favour with U.S. imperialism, engaged in unbridledactivities against China. They regarded the Chinese CommunistParty, which adheres <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, as anobstacle <strong>to</strong> their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line. They thought they hadsolved their internal problems and had “stabilized” their own1N. S. Khrushchov, Replies <strong>to</strong> Questi<strong>on</strong>s by Rober<strong>to</strong> J. Noble, Direc<strong>to</strong>r<strong>of</strong> the Argentine paper Clarin, December 30, 1959.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. <strong>General</strong> Assembly, September18, 1959.76
positi<strong>on</strong> and could therefore step up their policy <strong>of</strong> “beingfriendly <strong>to</strong> enemies and <strong>to</strong>ugh with friends”.In 1958 the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU put forward unreas<strong>on</strong>abledemands designed <strong>to</strong> bring China under Soviet militaryc<strong>on</strong>trol. These unreas<strong>on</strong>able demands were rightly and firmlyrejected by the Chinese Government. Not l<strong>on</strong>g afterwards,in June 1959, the Soviet Government unilaterally <strong>to</strong>re up theagreement <strong>on</strong> new technology for nati<strong>on</strong>al defense c<strong>on</strong>cludedbetween China and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> in Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1957, and refused<strong>to</strong> provide China with a sample <strong>of</strong> an a<strong>to</strong>mic bomb andtechnical data c<strong>on</strong>cerning its manufacture.Then, <strong>on</strong> the eve <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s visit <strong>to</strong> the United States,ignoring China’s repeated objecti<strong>on</strong>s the leadership <strong>of</strong> theCPSU rushed out the TASS statement <strong>of</strong> September 9 <strong>on</strong> theSino-Indian border incident, siding with the Indian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries.In this way, the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU broughtthe differences between China and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> right in<strong>to</strong>the open before the whole world.The tearing up <strong>of</strong> the agreement <strong>on</strong> new technology fornati<strong>on</strong>al defence by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and its issuance<strong>of</strong> the statement <strong>on</strong> the Sino-Indian border clash <strong>on</strong>the eve <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s visit <strong>to</strong> the United States were presentati<strong>on</strong>gifts <strong>to</strong> Eisenhower so as <strong>to</strong> curry favour with theU.S. imperialists and create the so-called “spirit <strong>of</strong> CampDavid”.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and Soviet publicati<strong>on</strong>s also levelledmany virulent attacks <strong>on</strong> the domestic and foreign policies<strong>of</strong> the Chinese Communist Party. These attacks werealmost invariably led by Khrushchov himself. He insinuatedthat China’s socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> was “skipping over a stage”and was “equalitarian communism” 1 and that China’s People’sCommunes were “in essence reacti<strong>on</strong>ary”. 2 By innuendo he1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the 21st C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU,January 1959.2N. S. Khrushchov, C<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong> with the U.S. Sena<strong>to</strong>r H. H. Humphrey,December 1, 1958.77
maligned China as warlike, guilty <strong>of</strong> “adventurism”, 1 and so<strong>on</strong> and so forth. Back from the Camp David Talks, he wentso far as <strong>to</strong> try <strong>to</strong> sell China the U.S. plot <strong>of</strong> “two Chinas”and, at the state banquet celebrating the tenth anniversary <strong>of</strong>the founding <strong>of</strong> the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China, he read Chinaa lecture against “testing by force the stability <strong>of</strong> the capitalistsystem”.The line <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism pursued by the leadership<strong>of</strong> the CPSU created serious c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> in the ranks <strong>of</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. It seemed as thoughU.S. imperialism had ceased <strong>to</strong> be the sworn enemy <strong>of</strong> thepeople <strong>of</strong> the world. Eisenhower was welcomed by certainCommunists as a “peace envoy”. <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and theDeclarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957 seemed <strong>to</strong> be outmoded.In the circumstances, in order <strong>to</strong> defend <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismand the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and clear up the ideological c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China published “L<strong>on</strong>g Live Leninism!” and twoother articles in April 1960. Keeping <strong>to</strong> our c<strong>on</strong>sistent stand<strong>of</strong> persevering in principle and upholding unity, we c<strong>on</strong>centrated<strong>on</strong> explaining the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theses <strong>of</strong> the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>and the fundamental <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theories <strong>on</strong>imperialism, war and peace, proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. The views in these three articleswere <strong>to</strong>tally different from the series <strong>of</strong> err<strong>on</strong>eous viewsthat were being propagated by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. However,for the sake <strong>of</strong> the larger interest, we refrained frompublicly criticizing the comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and directedthe spearhead <strong>of</strong> struggle against the imperialists and theYugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ists.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUspends much energy dis<strong>to</strong>rting and attacking “L<strong>on</strong>g LiveLeninism!” and the two other articles, but is unable <strong>to</strong> supportits attacks with any c<strong>on</strong>vincing arguments. We should1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong>the USSR, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1959.78
like <strong>to</strong> put this questi<strong>on</strong>: In those circumstances, should wehave kept silent <strong>on</strong> the wr<strong>on</strong>g views and absurd argumentswhich had become current? Did we not have the right, andindeed the duty, <strong>to</strong> come forward in defense <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957?THE SURPRISE ASSAULT ON THE CPC BYTHE LEADERSHIP OF THE CPSUA week after the publicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> “L<strong>on</strong>g Live Leninism!” andour two other articles, an American U-2 plane intruded in<strong>to</strong>Soviet air space and the United States aborted the four-powersummit c<strong>on</strong>ference. The “spirit <strong>of</strong> Camp David” completelyvanished. Thus events entirely c<strong>on</strong>firmed our views.In face <strong>of</strong> the arch enemy, it was imperative for the CommunistParties <strong>of</strong> China and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the fraternalParties <strong>of</strong> the whole world <strong>to</strong> eliminate their differences,strengthen their unity and wage a comm<strong>on</strong> struggle againstthe enemy. But that was not what happened. In the summer<strong>of</strong> 1960 there was a widening <strong>of</strong> the differences in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, a large-scale campaign waslaunched against the Chinese Communist Party, and theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU extended the ideological differencesbetween the Chinese and Soviet Parties <strong>to</strong> the sphere <strong>of</strong> staterelati<strong>on</strong>s.In early June 1960 the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUmade the proposal that the Third C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the RumanianWorkers’ Party <strong>to</strong> be held in Bucharest later in June, shouldbe taken as an opportunity for representatives <strong>of</strong> the Communistand Workers’ Parties <strong>of</strong> all the socialist countries <strong>to</strong>meet and exchange views <strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong>following the miscarriage <strong>of</strong> the four-power summit c<strong>on</strong>ferencecaused by the United States. The Chinese CommunistParty did not approve <strong>of</strong> this idea <strong>of</strong> a hasty meeting nor <strong>of</strong>the idea <strong>of</strong> a representative meeting <strong>of</strong> the Parties <strong>of</strong> the79
socialist countries al<strong>on</strong>e. We made the positive proposal thatthere should be a meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> all the Communistand Workers’ Parties <strong>of</strong> the world and maintained thatadequate preparati<strong>on</strong>s were necessary <strong>to</strong> make that meetinga success. Our proposal was agreed <strong>to</strong> by the CPSU. The twoParties thereup<strong>on</strong> agreed that, in preparati<strong>on</strong> for the internati<strong>on</strong>almeeting, the representatives <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Partiesattending the Third C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Rumanian Workers’ Partycould provisi<strong>on</strong>ally exchange views <strong>on</strong> the date and place forthe meeting, but not take any decisi<strong>on</strong>.At Bucharest, <strong>to</strong> our amazement, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwent back <strong>on</strong> their word and unleashed a surprise assault <strong>on</strong>the Chinese Communist Party, turning the spearhead <strong>of</strong> struggleagainst us and not against U.S. imperialism.The Bucharest meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties<strong>to</strong>ok place from June 24 <strong>to</strong> June 26. It is a plain lie forthe Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> describethat meeting as “comradely assistance” <strong>to</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party.Indeed, <strong>on</strong> the eve <strong>of</strong> the meeting, the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theCPSU headed by Khrushchov distributed am<strong>on</strong>g the representatives<strong>of</strong> some fraternal Parties, and read out <strong>to</strong> those <strong>of</strong>others, a Letter <strong>of</strong> Informati<strong>on</strong> dated June 21 from the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPC. This Letter <strong>of</strong> Informati<strong>on</strong> groundlessly slandered andattacked the CPC all al<strong>on</strong>g the line; it c<strong>on</strong>stituted a programmefor the anti-China campaign which was launched bythe leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.In the meeting, Khrushchov <strong>to</strong>ok the lead in organizing agreat c<strong>on</strong>verging <strong>on</strong>slaught <strong>on</strong> the Chinese Communist Party.In his speech, he want<strong>on</strong>ly vilified the Chinese CommunistParty as “madmen”, “wanting <strong>to</strong> unleash war”, “picking upthe banner <strong>of</strong> the imperialist m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalists”, being“pure nati<strong>on</strong>alist” <strong>on</strong> the Sino-Indian boundary questi<strong>on</strong> andemploying “Trotskyite ways” against the CPSU. Some <strong>of</strong> thefraternal Party representatives who obeyed Khrushchov and80
followed his lead also want<strong>on</strong>ly charged the CPC withbeing “dogmatic”, “Left adventurist”, “pseudo-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary”,“sectarian”, “worse than Yugoslavia”, and so <strong>on</strong> and so forth.The anti-China campaign launched by Khrushchov at thismeeting was also a surprise <strong>to</strong> many fraternal Parties. Therepresentatives <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist fraternal Parties<strong>to</strong>ok excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the wr<strong>on</strong>g acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong>the CPSU.At this meeting, the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labourrefused <strong>to</strong> obey the bat<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU andfirmly opposed their sectarian activities. C<strong>on</strong>sequently theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU regarded the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labouras a thorn in their side. Whereup<strong>on</strong> they <strong>to</strong>ok increasinglydrastic steps against the Albanian Party.Can this dastardly attack <strong>on</strong> the CPC launched by theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU be called “comradely assistance”? Ofcourse not. It was a pre-arranged anti-Chinese performancestaged by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU; it was a serious andcrude violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternalParties as laid down in the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>; it was alarge-scale attack <strong>on</strong> a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Party by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists,represented by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.In the circumstances, the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China wageda tit-for-tat struggle against the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU indefence <strong>of</strong> the positi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the principlesguiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties as laid downin the Declarati<strong>on</strong>. For the sake <strong>of</strong> the larger interest, theCPC delegati<strong>on</strong> in Bucharest signed the Communique <strong>on</strong> themeeting, and at the same time, <strong>on</strong> June 26, 1960 distributed awritten statement up<strong>on</strong> the instructi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPC. In this statement, the CPC delegati<strong>on</strong>pointed out that Khrushchov’s behaviour at the Bucharestmeeting created an extremely bad precedent in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement. It solemnly declared:81
“There are differences between us and Comrade Khrushchov<strong>on</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> fundamental principles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.” “The future <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementdepends <strong>on</strong> the needs and the struggles <strong>of</strong> the people<strong>of</strong> all countries and <strong>on</strong> the guidance <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism,and will never be decided by the bat<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> any individual.”“. . . our Party believes in and obeys the truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism al<strong>on</strong>e, and will never submit<strong>to</strong> err<strong>on</strong>eous views which run counter <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.” (See Appendix II.)The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU did not rec<strong>on</strong>cile themselves <strong>to</strong>their failure <strong>to</strong> subdue the Chinese Communist Party inBucharest. Immediately after the Bucharest meeting, theybrought more pressure <strong>to</strong> bear <strong>on</strong> China by taking a series <strong>of</strong>steps <strong>to</strong> extend the ideological differences between the Chineseand Soviet Parties <strong>to</strong> the sphere <strong>of</strong> state relati<strong>on</strong>s.In July the Soviet Government suddenly <strong>to</strong>ok a unilateraldecisi<strong>on</strong> recalling all the Soviet experts in China within <strong>on</strong>em<strong>on</strong>th, thereby tearing up hundreds <strong>of</strong> agreements and c<strong>on</strong>tracts.The Soviet side unilaterally scrapped the agreement <strong>on</strong>the publicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the magazine Druzhba (Friendship) by Chinafor Soviet readers and <strong>of</strong> Su Chung You Hao (Soviet-ChineseFriendship) by the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> for Chinese readers andtheir distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> reciprocal terms; it <strong>to</strong>ok the unwarrantedstep <strong>of</strong> demanding the recall by the Chinese Government <strong>of</strong> astaff member <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Embassy in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>; andit provoked troubles <strong>on</strong> the Sino-Soviet border.Apparently the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU imagined that <strong>on</strong>cethey waved their bat<strong>on</strong>, gathered a group <strong>of</strong> hatchet-men <strong>to</strong>make a c<strong>on</strong>verging assault, and applied immense political andec<strong>on</strong>omic pressures, they could force the Chinese CommunistParty <strong>to</strong> aband<strong>on</strong> its <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>aliststand and submit <strong>to</strong> their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and greatpowerchauvinist behests. But the tempered and l<strong>on</strong>g-testedChinese Communist Party and Chinese people could neither82
e vanquished nor subdued. Those who tried <strong>to</strong> subjugate usby engineering a c<strong>on</strong>verging assault and applying pressurescompletely miscalculated.We shall leave the details <strong>of</strong> the way the leadership <strong>of</strong> theCPSU sabotaged Sino-Soviet relati<strong>on</strong>s for other articles. Herewe shall simply point out that <strong>on</strong> the subject <strong>of</strong> Sino-Sovietrelati<strong>on</strong>s, the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU falsely charges China with extending the ideological differences<strong>to</strong> the sphere <strong>of</strong> state relati<strong>on</strong>s and with curtailingtrade between the two countries, while deliberately c<strong>on</strong>cealingthe fact that the Soviet Government withdrew all its expertsfrom China and unilaterally <strong>to</strong>re up hundreds <strong>of</strong> agreementsand c<strong>on</strong>tracts, and that it was these unilateral Soviet acti<strong>on</strong>swhich made Sino-Soviet trade shrink. For the leadership <strong>of</strong>the CPSU <strong>to</strong> deceive its members and the Soviet people in sucha bare-faced way is truly sad.THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO LINES AT THE1960 MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIESIn the latter half <strong>of</strong> 1960, a sharp struggle developed in theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement around the Meeting <strong>of</strong>Representatives <strong>of</strong> Communist and Workers’ Parties. It wasa struggle between the line <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the line<strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and between the policy <strong>of</strong> persevering in principleand upholding unity and the policy <strong>of</strong> aband<strong>on</strong>ing principleand creating splits.It had become evident before the meeting that the leadership<strong>of</strong> the CPSU was stubbornly persisting in its wr<strong>on</strong>g standand was endeavouring <strong>to</strong> impose its wr<strong>on</strong>g line <strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement.The Chinese Communist Party was keenly aware <strong>of</strong> thegravity <strong>of</strong> the differences. In the interests <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement we made many efforts, hoping83
that the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU would not proceed <strong>to</strong>o fardown the wr<strong>on</strong>g path.On September 10, 1960 the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPCreplied <strong>to</strong> the June 21 Letter <strong>of</strong> Informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. In its reply which set forth thefacts and reas<strong>on</strong>ed things out, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPC systematically explained its views <strong>on</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> importantquesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle c<strong>on</strong>cerning the world situati<strong>on</strong> andthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, refuted the attacks<strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>on</strong> us, criticized its wr<strong>on</strong>g viewsand put forward <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU fivepositive proposals for settling the differences and attainingunity. (For the five proposals, see Appendix III.)The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC subsequently sent adelegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> Moscow in September for talks with the delegati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the CPSU. During these talks, the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theCPC pointed out that, while prettifying U.S. imperialism, theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU was actively opposing China and extendingthe ideological differences between the two Parties <strong>to</strong>state relati<strong>on</strong>s, and was thus treating enemies as brothers andbrothers as enemies. Again and again the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theCPC urged the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> change their wr<strong>on</strong>gstand, return <strong>to</strong> the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>gfraternal Parties and countries, and strengthen the unity betweenthe Chinese and Soviet Parties and between the twocountries in order <strong>to</strong> fight the comm<strong>on</strong> enemy. However, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU showed not the slightest intenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> correctingtheir errors.Thus a sharp struggle became inevitable. This struggle firstunfolded in the Drafting Committee, attended by the representatives<strong>of</strong> 26 fraternal Parties, which prepared the documentsfor the meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties, and later grew <strong>to</strong> unprecedentedacuteness at the meeting <strong>of</strong> the representatives<strong>of</strong> 81 fraternal Parties.In the meetings <strong>of</strong> the Drafting Committee in Moscowduring Oc<strong>to</strong>ber, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU attempted <strong>to</strong> force84
through their own draft statement, which c<strong>on</strong>tained a wholestring <strong>of</strong> err<strong>on</strong>eous views. As a result <strong>of</strong> principled struggleby the delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the CPC and some other fraternal Parties,the Drafting Committee after heated debates made manyimportant changes <strong>of</strong> principle in the draft statement put forwardby the CPSU. The committee reached agreement <strong>on</strong>most <strong>of</strong> the draft. However, in their determinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinuethe debate, the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU refused <strong>to</strong> arriveat agreement <strong>on</strong> several important points at issue in the draftand, moreover, <strong>on</strong> Khrushchov’s return from New York, evenscrapped the agreements which had already been reached <strong>on</strong>some questi<strong>on</strong>s.The meeting <strong>of</strong> the representatives <strong>of</strong> the 81 fraternal Partieswas held in Moscow in November 1960. Ignoring thedesire <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and many other delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> eliminatethe differences and strengthen unity, <strong>on</strong> the eve <strong>of</strong> the meetingthe leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU distributed am<strong>on</strong>g the representatives<strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties gathered in Moscow a letter<strong>of</strong> 127 pages, which attacked the Chinese Communist Partymore savagely than ever, thus provoking still sharper c<strong>on</strong>troversy.Such was the most unnatural atmosphere in which themeeting <strong>of</strong> the representatives <strong>of</strong> the 81 fraternal Parties washeld. By their base c<strong>on</strong>duct, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU broughtthe meeting <strong>to</strong> the brink <strong>of</strong> rupture. But the meeting finallyreached agreement and achieved positive results, because thedelegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Communist Party and some otherfraternal Parties kept <strong>to</strong> principle, persevered in struggle andupheld unity, and because the majority <strong>of</strong> the delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>the fraternal Parties demanded unity and were against a split.In its Open Letter, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUdeclares that at this meeting the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC “signedthe Statement <strong>on</strong>ly when the danger <strong>of</strong> its full isolati<strong>on</strong> becameclear”. This is another lie.What was the actual state <strong>of</strong> affairs?85
It is true that, both before and during the meeting, theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU engineered c<strong>on</strong>verging assaults <strong>on</strong>the Chinese Communist Party by a number <strong>of</strong> representatives<strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties, and relying <strong>on</strong> a so-called majority endeavoured<strong>to</strong> bring the delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and other<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties <strong>to</strong> their knees and compel them <strong>to</strong>accept its revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line and views. However, the attemptsby the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> impose things <strong>on</strong> others metwith failure, both in the Drafting Committee <strong>of</strong> the 26 fraternalParties and in the meeting <strong>of</strong> the representatives <strong>of</strong> the 81fraternal Parties.The fact remains that many <strong>of</strong> the wr<strong>on</strong>g theses they putforward in their draft statement were rejected. Here aresome examples:The wr<strong>on</strong>g thesis <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU that peacefulcoexistence and ec<strong>on</strong>omic competiti<strong>on</strong> form the generalline <strong>of</strong> the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries was rejected.Its wr<strong>on</strong>g thesis that the emergence <strong>of</strong> a new stage in thegeneral crisis <strong>of</strong> capitalism is the result <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistenceand peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong> was rejected.Its wr<strong>on</strong>g thesis that there is a growing possibility <strong>of</strong> peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong> was rejected.It’s wr<strong>on</strong>g thesis about opposing the policy <strong>of</strong> “going ital<strong>on</strong>e” <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> socialist countries, which in effectmeant opposing the policy <strong>of</strong> their relying mainly <strong>on</strong> themselvesin c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, was rejected.Its wr<strong>on</strong>g thesis c<strong>on</strong>cerning oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> so-called “cliquishactivities” and “facti<strong>on</strong>al activities” in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement was rejected. In effect this thesis meantdemanding that fraternal Parties should obey its bat<strong>on</strong>,liquidating the principles <strong>of</strong> independence and equality inrelati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties, and replacing the principle<strong>of</strong> reaching unanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> by the practice<strong>of</strong> subduing the minority by the majority.Its wr<strong>on</strong>g thesis <strong>of</strong> underestimating the serious danger <strong>of</strong>modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism was rejected.86
The fact remains that many correct views <strong>on</strong> important principlesset forth by the delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and otherfraternal Parties were written in<strong>to</strong> the Statement. The theses<strong>on</strong> the unaltered nature <strong>of</strong> imperialism; <strong>on</strong> U.S. imperialismas the enemy <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the whole world; <strong>on</strong> the formati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the most extensive united fr<strong>on</strong>t against U.S. imperialism;<strong>on</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement as an important forcein preventing world war; <strong>on</strong> the thoroughgoing completi<strong>on</strong> bythe newly-independent countries <strong>of</strong> their nati<strong>on</strong>al democraticrevoluti<strong>on</strong>s; <strong>on</strong> support by the socialist countries and the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking-class movement for the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>struggle; <strong>on</strong> the need for the working class and the massesin the advanced capitalist countries under U.S. imperialistpolitical, ec<strong>on</strong>omic and military dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> direct theirchief blows at U.S. imperialist dominati<strong>on</strong> and also at them<strong>on</strong>opoly capital and other reacti<strong>on</strong>ary forces at home whichbetray their nati<strong>on</strong>al interests; <strong>on</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong> reachingunanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties;against the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist emasculati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary spirit<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism; <strong>on</strong> the betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismby the leaders <strong>of</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Communists <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia;and so <strong>on</strong> — all these theses are in the Statement as a result <strong>of</strong>the acceptance <strong>of</strong> the views <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and some otherdelegati<strong>on</strong>s.It is, <strong>of</strong> course, necessary <strong>to</strong> add that after the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU agreed <strong>to</strong> drop their err<strong>on</strong>eous propositi<strong>on</strong>s andaccepted the correct propositi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> other Parties, the delegati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the CPC and some other fraternal Parties also madecertain c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong>s. For instance, we differed <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and <strong>of</strong> the forms <strong>of</strong>transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism, but out <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>for the needs <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and certain other fraternalParties we agreed <strong>to</strong> the inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the same wording <strong>on</strong>these two questi<strong>on</strong>s as that used in the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>. Butwe made it plain at the time <strong>to</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU thatthis would be the last time we accommodated ourselves <strong>to</strong>87
such a formulati<strong>on</strong> about the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress; we would neverdo so again.<strong>From</strong> all the above it can be seen that the struggle betweenthe two lines in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement dominatedthe 1960 Moscow Meeting from beginning <strong>to</strong> end.The errors <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU as revealed at thismeeting had developed further. <strong>From</strong> the draft statement<strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and their speeches during themeeting, it could be clearly seen that the main political c<strong>on</strong>tent<strong>of</strong> the wr<strong>on</strong>g line they were attempting <strong>to</strong> impose <strong>on</strong> thefraternal Parties c<strong>on</strong>sisted <strong>of</strong> the err<strong>on</strong>eous theories <strong>of</strong> “peacefulcoexistence”, “peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>” and “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”,while its organizati<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>tent c<strong>on</strong>sisted <strong>of</strong> err<strong>on</strong>eoussectarian and splitting policies. It was a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line infundamental c<strong>on</strong>flict with <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alism. The delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and otherfraternal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties resolutely opposed it andfirmly upheld the line <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alism.The outcome <strong>of</strong> the struggle at this meeting was that therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist line and views <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU werein the main repudiated and that the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist linegained a great vic<strong>to</strong>ry. The revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles embodiedin the Statement adopted at the meeting are powerful weap<strong>on</strong>sin the hands <strong>of</strong> all fraternal Parties in the struggles againstimperialism and for world peace, nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>, people’sdemocracy and socialism; they are also powerful weap<strong>on</strong>s inthe hands <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists throughout the world in combatingmodern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.At the meeting the fraternal Parties which upheld <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism earnestly criticized the err<strong>on</strong>eous views <strong>of</strong> theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and compelled it <strong>to</strong> accept many <strong>of</strong>their correct views; in doing so they changed the previoushighly abnormal situati<strong>on</strong>, in which not even the slightestcriticism <strong>of</strong> the errors <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU was<strong>to</strong>lerated and its word was final. This was an event <strong>of</strong> great88
his<strong>to</strong>rical significance in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU asserts in its OpenLetter that the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC was “completely isolated”at the meeting. This is merely an impudent attempt <strong>on</strong> thepart <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> represent its defeat asa vic<strong>to</strong>ry.The principles <strong>of</strong> mutual solidarity as well as independenceand equality am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and <strong>of</strong> reaching unanimitythrough c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> were observed at the meeting and themistaken attempt <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> use a majority<strong>to</strong> overrule the minority and <strong>to</strong> impose their views <strong>on</strong> otherfraternal Parties was frustrated. The meeting dem<strong>on</strong>strated<strong>on</strong>ce again that in resolving differences am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Partiesit is highly necessary for <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties <strong>to</strong> stick<strong>to</strong> principle, persevere in struggle and uphold unity.THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIPBECOMES SYSTEMATIZEDThe Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUasserts that “in appending their signatures <strong>to</strong> the 1960 Statement,the CPC leaders were <strong>on</strong>ly manoeuvring”. Is that reallya fact? No. On the c<strong>on</strong>trary, it was the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUand not we who were manoeuvring.The facts have shown that at the 1960 meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternalParties the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU agreed <strong>to</strong> delete or changethe err<strong>on</strong>eous propositi<strong>on</strong>s in their draft statement againsttheir will and they were insincere in their acceptance <strong>of</strong> thecorrect propositi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties. They did not caretwo hoots about the document which was jointly agreed up<strong>on</strong>by the fraternal Parties. The ink was scarcely dry <strong>on</strong> theirsignature <strong>to</strong> the 1960 Statement before they began wreckingit. On December 1 Khrushchov signed the Statement <strong>on</strong>behalf <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, and twenty-four89
hours later, violating what the fraternal Parties had agreed<strong>on</strong>, the same Khrushchov brazenly described Yugoslavia asa socialist country at the banquet for the delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> thefraternal Parties.After the meeting <strong>of</strong> the 81 fraternal Parties, the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU became more and more blatant in wrecking the1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement. On the <strong>on</strong>e hand,they <strong>to</strong>ok as their friend U.S. imperialism which the Statementdeclares <strong>to</strong> be the enemy <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the world,advocating “U.S.-Soviet co-operati<strong>on</strong>” and expressing thedesire <strong>to</strong> work <strong>to</strong>gether with Kennedy <strong>to</strong> “set about buildingdurable bridges <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fidence, mutual understanding andfriendship”. 1 On the other hand, they <strong>to</strong>ok some fraternalParties and countries as their enemies and drastically worsenedthe Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>’s relati<strong>on</strong>s with Albania.The 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU in Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1961 markeda new low in the CPSU leadership’s efforts <strong>to</strong> oppose <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and split the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement. It marked the systematizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> therevisi<strong>on</strong>ism which the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU had developedstep by step from the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>on</strong>ward.The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU unleashed a great public attack<strong>on</strong> the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labour at the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress. Inhis speech Khrushchov went so far as openly <strong>to</strong> call for theoverthrow <strong>of</strong> the Albanian leadership under Comrades EnverHoxha and Mehmet Shehu. Thus the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUestablished the vicious precedent <strong>of</strong> a Party c<strong>on</strong>gress beingused for public attacks <strong>on</strong> other fraternal Parties.Another great thing the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU did at theC<strong>on</strong>gress was the renewed c<strong>on</strong>centrated <strong>on</strong>slaught <strong>on</strong> Stalinfive years after the complete negati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> him at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gressand eight years after his death.1Message <strong>of</strong> greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. Brezhnev <strong>to</strong>J. F. Kennedy <strong>on</strong> the 185th Anniversary <strong>of</strong> the Independence <strong>of</strong> theUnited States, July 4, 1961.90
In the final analysis, this was d<strong>on</strong>e in order that the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU should be able <strong>to</strong> throw the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and theStatement overboard, oppose <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and pursuea systematically revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line.Their revisi<strong>on</strong>ism was expressed in c<strong>on</strong>centrated form inthe new Programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU which that C<strong>on</strong>gress adopted.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUsays that the line <strong>of</strong> the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress was “approved at themeetings <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> the Communist Parties andset out in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and Statement”. Is it not verycareless <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> make such a statement?How can they describe what happened in 1961 as having been“approved” or “set out” at the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Communistand Workers’ Parties in 1960, or as far back as that in 1957?But leaving aside such silly self-commendati<strong>on</strong> for themoment, let us first see the kind <strong>of</strong> stuff the Programmeadopted at the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress is made <strong>of</strong>.Even a cursory study <strong>of</strong> the Programme and the report <strong>on</strong>it made by Khrushchov shows that it is an out-and-out revisi<strong>on</strong>istprogramme which <strong>to</strong>tally violates the fundamentaltheories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles<strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement.It runs counter <strong>to</strong> the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement<strong>on</strong> many important questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle. Many <strong>of</strong>the err<strong>on</strong>eous views <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU which wererejected at the 1960 meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties reappear.For instance, it describes peaceful coexistence as the generalprinciple <strong>of</strong> foreign policy, <strong>on</strong>e-sidedly stresses the possibility<strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> and slanders the policy <strong>of</strong> a socialistcountry’s relying mainly <strong>on</strong> its own efforts in c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>as “going it al<strong>on</strong>e”.The Programme goes a step further in systematizing thewr<strong>on</strong>g line pursued by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU since its20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, the main c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> which is “peaceful coexistence”,“peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>” and “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”.91
The Programme crudely revises the essence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, namely, the teachings <strong>on</strong> proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong>the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and <strong>on</strong> the party <strong>of</strong> theproletariat, declaring that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatis no l<strong>on</strong>ger needed in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and that the nature<strong>of</strong> the CPSU as the vanguard <strong>of</strong> the proletariat has changed,and advancing fallacies <strong>of</strong> a “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people” anda “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”.It substitutes humanism for the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory <strong>of</strong>class struggle and substitutes the bourgeois slogan <strong>of</strong> Liberty,Equality, Fraternity for the ideals <strong>of</strong> communism.It is a programme which opposes revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong>the people still living under the imperialist and capitalistsystem, who comprise two-thirds <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>,and opposes the carrying <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> through <strong>to</strong> completi<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the people already <strong>on</strong> the socialist road, whocomprise <strong>on</strong>e-third <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>. It is a revisi<strong>on</strong>istprogramme for the preservati<strong>on</strong> or res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China resolutely opposed the errors<strong>of</strong> the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. Comrade Chou En-lai,who headed the CPC delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>gress, stated ourParty’s positi<strong>on</strong> in his speech there, and he also franklycriticized the errors <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU in subsequentc<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>s with Khrushchov and other leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU.In his c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong> with the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC,Khrushchov flatly turned down our criticisms and advice andeven expressed undisguised support for anti-Party elementsin the Chinese Communist Party. He openly stated that afterthe 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, when the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwere beginning <strong>to</strong> take a “road different from that <strong>of</strong> Stalin”(that is, the road <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism), they still needed the support<strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties. He said, “The voice <strong>of</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party was then <strong>of</strong> great significance <strong>to</strong> us”, but92
“things are different now”, and “we are doing well” and “weshall go our own way”.Khrushchov’s remarks showed that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhad made up their minds <strong>to</strong> go all the way down the road <strong>of</strong>revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splitting. Although the Chinese CommunistParty has frequently given them comradely advice, they havesimply ignored it and shown not the slightest intenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>mending their ways.AN ADVERSE CURRENT THAT IS OPPOSED TOMARXISM-LENINISM AND IS SPLITTINGTHE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISTMOVEMENTIn the Open Letter the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU try hard <strong>to</strong>make people believe that after the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress they “madefresh efforts” <strong>to</strong> improve relati<strong>on</strong>s between the Chinese andSoviet Parties and <strong>to</strong> strengthen unity am<strong>on</strong>g the fraternalParties and countries.This is another lie.What are the facts?They show that since the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress the leadership <strong>of</strong>the CPSU has become more unbridled in violating the principlesguiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and countriesand in pursuing policies <strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism, sectarianismand splittism in order <strong>to</strong> promote its own line <strong>of</strong> systematicrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism, which is in complete violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. This has brought about a c<strong>on</strong>tinuous deteriorati<strong>on</strong>in Sino-Soviet relati<strong>on</strong>s and grave damage <strong>to</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong>the fraternal Parties and countries.The following are the main facts about how the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU have sabotaged Sino-Soviet unity and the unity <strong>of</strong>fraternal Parties and countries since the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress:1. The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have tried hard <strong>to</strong> impose theirerr<strong>on</strong>eous line up<strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement93
and <strong>to</strong> replace the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement with theirown revisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme. They describe their err<strong>on</strong>eousline as the “whole set <strong>of</strong> Leninist policies <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement <strong>of</strong> recent years”, 1 and they call theirrevisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme the “real Communist Manifes<strong>to</strong> <strong>of</strong> ourtime” 2 and the “comm<strong>on</strong> programme” <strong>of</strong> the “Communist andWorkers’ Parties and <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> countries <strong>of</strong> the socialistcommunity”. 3Any fraternal Party which rejects the err<strong>on</strong>eous line andprogramme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and perseveres in the fundamentaltheories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles<strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement is looked up<strong>on</strong> as anenemy by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, who oppose, attack andinjure it and try <strong>to</strong> subvert its leadership by every possiblemeans.2. Disregarding all c<strong>on</strong>sequences, the leadership <strong>of</strong> theCPSU broke <strong>of</strong>f diplomatic relati<strong>on</strong>s with socialist Albania,an unprecedented step in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s betweenfraternal Parties and countries.3. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> exert pressure<strong>on</strong> China and <strong>to</strong> make outrageous attacks <strong>on</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party. In its letter <strong>of</strong> February 22, 1962 <strong>to</strong> theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU accused the CPC <strong>of</strong> taking a “special stand <strong>of</strong> theirown” and pursuing a line at variance with the comm<strong>on</strong> course<strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties, and even made a crime out <strong>of</strong> oursupport for the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labour.As pre-c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for improving Sino-Soviet relati<strong>on</strong>s, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU attempted <strong>to</strong> compel the CPC <strong>to</strong> aband<strong>on</strong>its <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alist stand,1J. Y. Andropov, “The 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and the Development<strong>of</strong> the World Socialist System”, Pravda, December 2, 1961.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>of</strong> the AgriculturalWorkers <strong>of</strong> the Uzbek and Other Republics, November 16, 1961.3“Unity Multiplies Tenfold the Forces <strong>of</strong> Communism”, Pravdaedi<strong>to</strong>rial, August 25, 1961.94
aband<strong>on</strong> its c<strong>on</strong>sistent line, which is in lull c<strong>on</strong>formity withthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement,accept their err<strong>on</strong>eous line, and also accept as a fait accomplitheir violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>gfraternal Parties and countries. In its Open Letter, the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU boasted <strong>of</strong> its letters <strong>to</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPC during this period, <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’sremarks about his desire for unity in Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1962 <strong>to</strong> ourAmbassador <strong>to</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and so <strong>on</strong>, but in fact thesewere all acts for realizing their base attempt.4. The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU rejected the proposalsmade by the fraternal Parties <strong>of</strong> Ind<strong>on</strong>esia, Viet Nam,New Zealand, etc., that a meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> thefraternal Parties should be c<strong>on</strong>vened, as well as the five positiveproposals made by the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC inits letter <strong>of</strong> April 7, 1962 <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU for the preparati<strong>on</strong> for the meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties.In its reply <strong>of</strong> May 31, 1962 <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPC, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU went so far as <strong>to</strong>make the demand that the Albanian comrades aband<strong>on</strong> theirown stand as a prec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> for improving Soviet-Albanianrelati<strong>on</strong>s and also for c<strong>on</strong>vening a meeting <strong>of</strong> the fraternalParties.5. In April and May 1962 the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU usedtheir organs and pers<strong>on</strong>nel in Sinkiang, China, <strong>to</strong> carry outlarge-scale subversive activities in the Ili regi<strong>on</strong> and enticedand coerced several tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> Chinese citizens in<strong>to</strong>going <strong>to</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. The Chinese Government lodgedrepeated protests and made repeated representati<strong>on</strong>s, but theSoviet Government refused <strong>to</strong> repatriate these Chinese citizens<strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “the sense <strong>of</strong> Soviet legality” 1 and “humanitarianism”.2 To this day this incident remains unsettled.1Memorandum presented <strong>to</strong> the Chinese Ministry <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairsby the Soviet Embassy in China <strong>on</strong> August 9, 1962.2Memorandum presented <strong>to</strong> the Chinese Ministry <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairsby the Soviet Embassy in China <strong>on</strong> April 29, 1962.95
This is indeed an as<strong>to</strong>unding event, unheard <strong>of</strong> in the relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween socialist countries.6. In August 1962 the Soviet Government formally notifiedChina that the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> would c<strong>on</strong>clude an agreementwith the United States <strong>on</strong> the preventi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> nuclear proliferati<strong>on</strong>.This was a joint Soviet-U.S. plot <strong>to</strong> m<strong>on</strong>opolize nuclearweap<strong>on</strong>s and an attempt <strong>to</strong> deprive China <strong>of</strong> the right <strong>to</strong>possess nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> resist the U.S. nuclear threat. TheChinese Government lodged repeated protests against this.7. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has become increasinglyanxious <strong>to</strong> strike political bargains with U.S. imperialism andhas been bent <strong>on</strong> forming a reacti<strong>on</strong>ary alliance with Kennedy,even at the expense <strong>of</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp andthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. An outstandingexample was the fact that, during the Caribbean crisis, theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU committed the error <strong>of</strong> capitulati<strong>on</strong>ismby submitting <strong>to</strong> the nuclear blackmail <strong>of</strong> the U.S. imperialistsand accepting the U.S. Government’s demand for “internati<strong>on</strong>alinspecti<strong>on</strong>” in violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Cuban sovereignty.8. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has become increasinglyanxious <strong>to</strong> collude with the Indian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and is bent<strong>on</strong> forming a reacti<strong>on</strong>ary alliance with Nehru against socialistChina. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and its press openly sidedwith Indian reacti<strong>on</strong>, c<strong>on</strong>demned China for its just stand <strong>on</strong>the Sino-Indian border c<strong>on</strong>flict and defended the Nehru government.Two-thirds <strong>of</strong> Soviet ec<strong>on</strong>omic aid <strong>to</strong> India havebeen given since the Indian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries provoked the Sino-Indian border c<strong>on</strong>flict. Even after large-scale armed c<strong>on</strong>flict<strong>on</strong> the Sino-Indian border began in the autumn <strong>of</strong> 1962, theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> extend military aid<strong>to</strong> the Indian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries.9. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has become increasinglyanxious <strong>to</strong> collude with the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia and isbent <strong>on</strong> forming a reacti<strong>on</strong>ary alliance with the renegade Ti<strong>to</strong><strong>to</strong> oppose all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties. After the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>-96
gress, it <strong>to</strong>ok a series <strong>of</strong> steps <strong>to</strong> reverse the verdict <strong>on</strong> theTi<strong>to</strong> clique and thus openly <strong>to</strong>re up the 1960 Statement.10. Since November 1962 the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhas launched still fiercer attacks, <strong>on</strong> an internati<strong>on</strong>al scale,against the Chinese Communist Party and other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties and whipped up a new adverse current inorder <strong>to</strong> split the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. Khrushchov made <strong>on</strong>e statement afteranother and the Soviet press carried hundreds <strong>of</strong> articles attackingthe Chinese Communist Party <strong>on</strong> a whole set <strong>of</strong> issues.Directed by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the C<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> thefraternal Parties <strong>of</strong> Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italyand the Democratic Republic <strong>of</strong> Germany became stages foranti-China performances, and more than forty fraternal Partiespublished resoluti<strong>on</strong>s, statements or articles attacking theChinese Communist Party and other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties.The facts cited above cannot possibly be denied by theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. These ir<strong>on</strong>-clad facts prove that the“fresh efforts” they made after the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU were aimed, not at improving Sino-Soviet relati<strong>on</strong>s andstrengthening unity between the fraternal Parties and countries,but <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary, at further ganging up with the U.S.imperialists, the Indian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and the renegade Ti<strong>to</strong>clique in order <strong>to</strong> create a wider split in the socialist campand the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.In these grave circumstances, the Chinese Communist Partyhad no alternative but <strong>to</strong> make open replies <strong>to</strong> the attacks <strong>of</strong>some fraternal Parties. Between December 15, 1962 andMarch 8, 1963 we published seven such replies. In thesearticles we c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> leave some leeway and did not criticizethe leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU by name.Despite the serious deteriorati<strong>on</strong> in Sino-Soviet relati<strong>on</strong>sresulting from the errors <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, theChinese Communist Party agreed <strong>to</strong> send its delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>Moscow for the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties,and, in order that there might be a systematic exchange <strong>of</strong>97
views in the talks, put forward its proposal c<strong>on</strong>cerning thegeneral line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement in itsletter <strong>of</strong> reply <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU datedJune 14.As subsequent facts have shown, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwere not <strong>on</strong>ly insincere about eliminating differences andstrengthening unity, but used the talks as a smokescreen forcovering up their activities <strong>to</strong> further worsen Sino-Sovietrelati<strong>on</strong>s.On the eve <strong>of</strong> the talks, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU publiclyattacked the Chinese Communist Party by name, through statementsand resoluti<strong>on</strong>s. At the same time, they unjustifiablyexpelled a number <strong>of</strong> Chinese Embassy pers<strong>on</strong>nel and researchstudents from the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.On July 14, that is, <strong>on</strong> the eve <strong>of</strong> the U.S.-British-Soviettalks, while the Sino-Soviet talks were still in progress, theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hastily published the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> Party organizati<strong>on</strong>sand all Communists in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and launchedunbridled attacks <strong>on</strong> the Chinese Communist Party. This wasanother precious presentati<strong>on</strong> gift made by the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU <strong>to</strong> the U.S. imperialists in order <strong>to</strong> curry favour withthem.Immediately afterwards in Moscow, the leadership <strong>of</strong> theCPSU signed the treaty <strong>on</strong> the partial halting <strong>of</strong> nuclear testswith the United States and Britain in open betrayal <strong>of</strong> theinterests <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people, the people in the socialist campincluding the Chinese people, and the peace-loving people <strong>of</strong>the world; there was a flurry <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tacts between the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> and India; Khrushchov went <strong>to</strong> Yugoslavia for a “vacati<strong>on</strong>”;the Soviet press launched a frenzied anti-Chinese campaign;and so <strong>on</strong> and so forth. This whole train <strong>of</strong> eventsstrikingly dem<strong>on</strong>strates that, disregarding everything, theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is allying with the imperialists, thereacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries and the renegade Ti<strong>to</strong> clique inorder <strong>to</strong> oppose fraternal socialist countries and fraternal98
<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties. All this completely exposes therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisive line which the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUis following.At present, the “anti-Chinese chorus” <strong>of</strong> the imperialists, thereacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries and the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists is making alot <strong>of</strong> noise. And the campaign led by Khrushchov <strong>to</strong> oppose<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and split the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist ranks is being carried <strong>on</strong> with growingintensity.WHAT HAVE THE FACTS OF THE PASTSEVEN YEARS DEMONSTRATED?In the foregoing we have reviewed at some length theorigin and development <strong>of</strong> the differences. Our aim is <strong>to</strong>clarify the facts which were dis<strong>to</strong>rted in the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and <strong>to</strong> help our Partymembers and our people and also the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists andrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> the world <strong>to</strong> see the truth.The facts <strong>of</strong> the past seven years have amply proved thatthe differences between the Chinese and Soviet Parties andwithin the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement have arisensolely because the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has departed from<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> the1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement and pursued a revisi<strong>on</strong>istand splitting line in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.The process in which the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hasg<strong>on</strong>e farther and farther down the road <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism andsplittism is the very process which has widened and aggravatedthe differences.The facts <strong>of</strong> the past seven years have amply proved thatthe present differences within the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement are differences between the line <strong>of</strong> adhering <strong>to</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the line <strong>of</strong> clinging <strong>to</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, betweenthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line and the n<strong>on</strong>-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary and99
anti-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line, between the anti-imperialist line andthe line <strong>of</strong> capitulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> imperialism. They are differencesbetween proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism and great-power chauvinism,sectarianism and splittism.The facts <strong>of</strong> the past seven years have amply proved thatthe road taken by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is the course<strong>of</strong> allying with imperialism against socialism, allying with theUnited States against China, allying with the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries<strong>of</strong> all countries against the people <strong>of</strong> the world, and allyingwith the renegade Ti<strong>to</strong> clique against fraternal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties. This err<strong>on</strong>eous line <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> theCPSU has led <strong>to</strong> a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist flood <strong>on</strong> an internati<strong>on</strong>al scale,brought the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement face <strong>to</strong> facewith the danger <strong>of</strong> a split <strong>of</strong> unprecedented gravity, andbrought serious damage <strong>to</strong> the peoples’ cause <strong>of</strong> world peace,nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>, people’s democracy and socialism.The facts <strong>of</strong> the past seven years have also amply provedthat the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has c<strong>on</strong>stantly striven<strong>to</strong> prevent the situati<strong>on</strong> from deteriorating and <strong>to</strong> upholdprinciple, eliminate differences, strengthen unity and wage acomm<strong>on</strong> struggle against the enemy. We have exercisedgreat restraint and d<strong>on</strong>e our very best.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has always stressed theimportance <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and Soviet Parties andthe two countries. It has always held in respect the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> created by the great Lenin.We have always cherished deep proletarian affecti<strong>on</strong> for thegreat CPSU and the great Soviet people. We have rejoicedover every achievement <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and the Soviet people,and we have been saddened by every error <strong>of</strong> the leadership<strong>of</strong> the CPSU that has harmed the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement.It is not just <strong>to</strong>day that the Chinese Communists have begun<strong>to</strong> discover the errors <strong>of</strong> the CPSU leadership. Ever since the20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, we have watched with c<strong>on</strong>cernas the CPSU leadership <strong>to</strong>ok the road <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.100
C<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted with this grave situati<strong>on</strong>, our Party has scores<strong>of</strong> times and for a l<strong>on</strong>g period c<strong>on</strong>sidered: what should we do?We asked ourselves, should we follow the CPSU leadershipand suit all our acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> its wishes? In that case, the leadership<strong>of</strong> the CPSU would <strong>of</strong> course rejoice, but would not weourselves then turn in<strong>to</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ists?We also asked ourselves, should we keep silent about theerrors <strong>of</strong> the CPSU leadership? We believed that the errors<strong>of</strong> the CPSU leadership were not just accidental, individualand minor errors, but rather a whole series <strong>of</strong> errors <strong>of</strong> principle,which endanger the interests <strong>of</strong> the entire socialistcamp and internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. As a memberin the ranks <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, howcould we be indifferent and keep silent about these errors?If we should do that, would not we be aband<strong>on</strong>ing our duty <strong>to</strong>defend <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism?We foresaw that if we criticized the errors <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU, they would certainly strike at us vindictively andthus inevitably cause serious damage <strong>to</strong> China’s socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>.But should Communists take a stand <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>alegoism and not dare <strong>to</strong> uphold truth for fear <strong>of</strong> vindictiveblows? Should Communists barter away principles?We <strong>to</strong>ok in<strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> the fact that the CPSU wasbuilt by Lenin, that it is the Party <strong>of</strong> the first socialist state,and that it enjoyed high prestige in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement and am<strong>on</strong>g the people <strong>of</strong> the whole world.Therefore, over a c<strong>on</strong>siderable period <strong>of</strong> time, we were particularlycareful and patient in criticizing the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, trying our best <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fine such criticism <strong>to</strong> inter-Partytalks between the leaders <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and Soviet Partiesand <strong>to</strong> solve the differences through private discussi<strong>on</strong>s withoutresorting <strong>to</strong> public polemics.But all the comradely criticism and advice given <strong>to</strong> theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU by resp<strong>on</strong>sible comrades <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPC in scores <strong>of</strong> inter-Party talks did notsucceed in enabling them <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> the correct path. The101
CPSU leaders went farther and farther down the road <strong>of</strong>revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism. In return for the advice we gavein goodwill, they applied a successi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> political, ec<strong>on</strong>omicand military pressures against us and launched attacks whichbecame increasingly violent.The CPSU leaders have a bad habit: they undiscriminatinglystick labels <strong>on</strong> any<strong>on</strong>e who criticizes them.They say, “You are anti-Soviet!” No, friends! The label“anti-Soviet” cannot be stuck <strong>on</strong> us. Our criticism <strong>of</strong> yourerrors is precisely for the sake <strong>of</strong> defending the great CPSUand the great Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and preventing the prestige <strong>of</strong>the CPSU and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> from being badly damagedby you. To put it plainly, it is you, and not we, who arereally anti-Soviet and who are defaming and discrediting theCPSU and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. Ever since the complete negati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Stalin at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, you havecommitted innumerable foul deeds. Not all the water in theVolga can wash away the great shame you have broughtup<strong>on</strong> the CPSU and up<strong>on</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.They say, “You want <strong>to</strong> seize the leadership!” No, friends!It is not at all clever <strong>of</strong> you <strong>to</strong> make this slander. Theway you put it, it would seem that some people are c<strong>on</strong>tendingwith you for some such thing as “the leadership”. Isthis not tantamount <strong>to</strong> shamelessly claiming that some sort<strong>of</strong> “leadership” exists in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementand that you have this “leadership”? It is a very, verybad habit <strong>of</strong> yours thus <strong>to</strong> put <strong>on</strong> the airs <strong>of</strong> a patriarchalparty. It is entirely illegitimate. The 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>and the 1960 Statement clearly state that all Communist Partiesare independent and equal. According <strong>to</strong> this principle,the relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties should under no circumstancesbe like the relati<strong>on</strong>s between a leading Party and theled, and much less like the relati<strong>on</strong>s between a patriarchalfather and his s<strong>on</strong>. We have always opposed any <strong>on</strong>e Partycommanding other fraternal Parties, and it has neveroccurred <strong>to</strong> us that we ourselves should command other102
fraternal Parties, and so the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tending forleadership simply does not arise. What c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ts the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement now is not whether this or thatParty should assume leadership but whether <strong>to</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>d <strong>to</strong>the bat<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism or <strong>to</strong> uphold the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles<strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement and perseverein the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. Our criticism<strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU c<strong>on</strong>cerns its attempt <strong>to</strong> lord i<strong>to</strong>ver fraternal Parties and <strong>to</strong> impose its line <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism andsplittism <strong>on</strong> them. What we desire is merely the independentand equal status <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties stipulated in theDeclarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement and their unity <strong>on</strong> the basis<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.It is the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU who have provoked and extendedthe present great debate in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement and forced it <strong>on</strong> us. Since they have levelledlarge-scale attacks and all kinds <strong>of</strong> unscrupulous slandersagainst us, and since they have openly betrayed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism and <strong>to</strong>rn up theDeclarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement, they cannot expect us <strong>to</strong>abstain from replying, from refuting their slanders, from safeguardingthe Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement and from defending<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. The debate is <strong>on</strong>, and right andwr<strong>on</strong>g must be thoroughly clarified.We Chinese Communists persevere in principle and upholdunity; we did so in the past, we do so now and we shall c<strong>on</strong>tinue<strong>to</strong> do so in the future. While engaging in polemicswith the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, we still hope they will realizethat they have taken a most dangerous road by aband<strong>on</strong>ingrevoluti<strong>on</strong>, aband<strong>on</strong>ing the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> the world,aband<strong>on</strong>ing the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement and eagerly collaborating withthe U.S. imperialists, the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries andthe renegade Ti<strong>to</strong> clique.The interests <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and Soviet peoples, <strong>of</strong> thesocialist camp, <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, and103
<strong>of</strong> the people throughout the world demand that all Communistand Workers’ Parties should become united and oppose thecomm<strong>on</strong> enemy.We hereby appeal <strong>on</strong>ce again <strong>to</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU<strong>to</strong> correct its errors and return <strong>to</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismand proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism, the path <strong>of</strong> the 1957Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement.The internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement is going through animportant period. The present debate has a vital bearing <strong>on</strong>the future <strong>of</strong> the proletarian world revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the destiny<strong>of</strong> mankind. As his<strong>to</strong>ry will prove, after this great debate<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism will shine forth more brilliantly and therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and thepeople <strong>of</strong> the world will win still greater vic<strong>to</strong>ries.
APPENDIX IOUTLINE OF VIEWS ON THE QUESTION OFPEACEFUL TRANSITION(November 10, 1957)1. On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong>socialism, it would be more flexible <strong>to</strong> refer <strong>to</strong> the two possibilities,peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> and n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>, than<strong>to</strong> just <strong>on</strong>e, and this would place us in a positi<strong>on</strong> where wecan have the initiative politically at any time.a. Referring <strong>to</strong> the possibility <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> indicatesthat for us the use <strong>of</strong> violence is primarily a matter<strong>of</strong> self-defence. It enables the Communist Parties in thecapitalist countries <strong>to</strong> sidestep attacks <strong>on</strong> them <strong>on</strong> this issue,and it is politically advantageous — advantageous for winningthe masses and also for depriving the bourgeoisie <strong>of</strong>its pretexts for such attacks and isolating it.b. If practical possibilities for peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> were<strong>to</strong> arise in individual countries in the future when the internati<strong>on</strong>alor domestic situati<strong>on</strong> changes drastically, wecould then make timely use <strong>of</strong> the opportunity <strong>to</strong> win thesupport <strong>of</strong> the masses and solve the problem <strong>of</strong> state powerby peaceful means.c. Nevertheless, we should not tie our own hands because<strong>of</strong> this desire. The bourgeoisie will not step downfrom the stage <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry voluntarily. This is a universallaw <strong>of</strong> class struggle. In no country should the proletariatand the Communist Party slacken their preparati<strong>on</strong>s forthe revoluti<strong>on</strong> in any way. They must be prepared at alltimes <strong>to</strong> repulse counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary attacks and, at thecritical juncture <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong> when the working class105
is seizing state power, <strong>to</strong> overthrow the bourgeoisie byarmed force if it uses armed force <strong>to</strong> suppress the people’srevoluti<strong>on</strong> (generally speaking, it is inevitable that thebourgeoisie will do so).2. In the present situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, it is advantageous from the point <strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong> tactics<strong>to</strong> refer <strong>to</strong> the desire for peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>. But it wouldbe inappropriate <strong>to</strong> over-emphasize the possibility <strong>of</strong> peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>. The reas<strong>on</strong>s are:a. Possibility and reality, the desire and whether ornot it can be fulfilled, are two different matters. We shouldrefer <strong>to</strong> the desire for peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>, but we shouldnot place our hopes mainly <strong>on</strong> it and therefore should no<strong>to</strong>ver-emphasize this aspect.b. If <strong>to</strong>o much stress is laid <strong>on</strong> the possibility <strong>of</strong> peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>, and especially <strong>on</strong> the possibility <strong>of</strong> seizingstate power by winning a majority in parliament it is liable<strong>to</strong> weaken the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary will <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, theworking people and the Communist Party and disarm themideologically.c. To the best <strong>of</strong> our knowledge, there is still not asingle country where this possibility is <strong>of</strong> any practicalsignificance. Even if it is slightly more apparent in a particularcountry, over-emphasizing this possibility is inappropriatebecause it does not c<strong>on</strong>form with the realities inthe overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> countries. Should such apossibility actually occur in some country, the CommunistParty there must <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand strive <strong>to</strong> realize it, and<strong>on</strong> the other hand always be prepared <strong>to</strong> repulse the armedattacks <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie.d. The result <strong>of</strong> emphasizing this possibility will neitherweaken the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary nature <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie nor lullthem.e. Nor will such emphasis make the social democraticparties any more revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary.106
f. Nor will such emphasis make Communist Partiesgrow any str<strong>on</strong>ger. On the c<strong>on</strong>trary, if some CommunistParties should as a result obscure their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary featuresand thus become c<strong>on</strong>fused with the social democraticparties in the eyes <strong>of</strong> the people, they would <strong>on</strong>ly beweakened.g. It is very hard <strong>to</strong> accumulate strength and preparefor the revoluti<strong>on</strong>, and after all parliamentary struggle iseasy in comparis<strong>on</strong>. We must fully utilize the parliamentaryform <strong>of</strong> struggle, but its role is limited. What is most importantis <strong>to</strong> proceed with the hard work <strong>of</strong> accumulatingrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strength.3. To obtain a majority in parliament is not the sameas smashing the old state machinery (chiefly the armed forces)and establishing new state machinery (chiefly the armedforces). Unless the military-bureaucratic state machinery <strong>of</strong>the bourgeoisie is smashed, a parliamentary majority for theproletariat and its reliable allies will either be impossible(because the bourgeoisie will amend the c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> whenevernecessary in order <strong>to</strong> facilitate the c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> itsdicta<strong>to</strong>rship) or undependable (for instance, electi<strong>on</strong>s may bedeclared null and void, the Communist Party may be outlawed,parliament may be dissolved, etc.).4. Peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism should not be interpretedin such a way as solely <strong>to</strong> mean transiti<strong>on</strong> through aparliamentary majority. The main questi<strong>on</strong> is that <strong>of</strong> the statemachinery. In the 1870’s, <strong>Marx</strong> was <strong>of</strong> the opini<strong>on</strong> that therewas a possibility <strong>of</strong> achieving socialism in Britain by peacefulmeans, because “at that time England was a country in whichmilitarism and bureaucracy were less pr<strong>on</strong>ounced than inany other”. For a period after the February Revoluti<strong>on</strong>,Lenin hoped that through “all power <strong>to</strong> the Soviets” the revoluti<strong>on</strong>would develop peacefully and triumph, because atthat time “the arms were in the hands <strong>of</strong> the people”. Neither<strong>Marx</strong> nor Lenin meant that peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> could be107
ealized by using the old state machinery. Lenin repeatedlyelaborated <strong>on</strong> the famous saying <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, “Theworking class cannot simply lay hold <strong>of</strong> the ready-made statemachinery and wield it for its own purposes.”5. The social democratic parties are not parties <strong>of</strong> socialism.With the excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> certain Left wings, they are partiesserving the bourgeoisie and capitalism. They are a variant<strong>of</strong> bourgeois political parties. On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>, our positi<strong>on</strong> is fundamentally different from that<strong>of</strong> the social democratic parties. This distincti<strong>on</strong> must not beobscured. To obscure this distincti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly helps the leadersfor the social democratic parties <strong>to</strong> deceive the masses andhinders us from winning the masses away from the influence<strong>of</strong> the social democratic parties. However, it is unquesti<strong>on</strong>ablyvery important <strong>to</strong> strengthen our work with respect <strong>to</strong> thesocial democratic parties and strive <strong>to</strong> establish a united fr<strong>on</strong>twith their left and middle groups.6. Such is our understanding <strong>of</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong>. We do holddiffering views <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong>, but out <strong>of</strong> various c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>swe did not state our views after the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. Since a jointDeclarati<strong>on</strong> is <strong>to</strong> be issued, we must now explain our views.However, this need not prevent us from attaining comm<strong>on</strong>language in the draft Declarati<strong>on</strong>. In order <strong>to</strong> show a c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>between the formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong> in the draftDeclarati<strong>on</strong> and the formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, we agree <strong>to</strong> take the draft put forward <strong>to</strong>day by theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU as a basis, while proposingamendments in certain places.
APPENDIX IISTATEMENT OF THE DELEGATION OF THECOMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA AT THEBUCHAREST MEETING OFFRATERNAL PARTIES(June 26, 1960)1. The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>China maintains that at this meeting Comrade Khrushchov<strong>of</strong> the Delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> has completely violated the l<strong>on</strong>gstandingprinciple in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementthat questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern should be settled by c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties, and has completely brokenthe agreement made prior <strong>to</strong> the meeting <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fine it <strong>to</strong> anexchange <strong>of</strong> views and not <strong>to</strong> make any decisi<strong>on</strong>; this he hasd<strong>on</strong>e by his surprise attack <strong>of</strong> putting forward a draft communique<strong>of</strong> the meeting without having c<strong>on</strong>sulted thefraternal Parties <strong>on</strong> its c<strong>on</strong>tents beforehand and without permittingfull and normal discussi<strong>on</strong> in the meeting. This is anabuse <strong>of</strong> the prestige enjoyed by the CPSU in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, a prestige which has been builtup over the l<strong>on</strong>g years since Lenin’s time, and it is, moreover,an extremely crude act <strong>of</strong> imposing <strong>on</strong>e’s own will <strong>on</strong> otherpeople. This attitude has nothing in comm<strong>on</strong> with Lenin’sstyle <strong>of</strong> work and this way <strong>of</strong> doing things creates an extremelybad precedent in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC c<strong>on</strong>siders that thisattitude and this way <strong>of</strong> doing things <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> ComradeKhrushchov will have extraordinarily grave c<strong>on</strong>sequences forthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.109
2. The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has always been faithful<strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and has always steadfastly adhered<strong>to</strong> the theoretical positi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. In the pasttwo years and more, it has been completely faithful <strong>to</strong> theMoscow Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957, and has firmly upheld all the<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theses <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong>. There are differencesbetween us and Comrade Khrushchov <strong>on</strong> a series <strong>of</strong>fundamental principles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. These differenceshave a vital bearing <strong>on</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong> the entire socialistcamp, <strong>on</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the workingpeople <strong>of</strong> the whole world, <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> whetherthe people <strong>of</strong> all countries will be able <strong>to</strong> preserve worldpeace and prevent the imperialists from launching a worldwar, and <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> whether socialism will c<strong>on</strong>tinue<strong>to</strong> score vic<strong>to</strong>ries in the capitalist world, which comprisestwo-thirds <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong> and three-fourths <strong>of</strong> itsland space. All <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists should adopt a serious attitude<strong>to</strong>wards these differences, give them serious thoughtand hold comradely discussi<strong>on</strong>s, so as <strong>to</strong> achieve unanimousc<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s. However, the attitude Comrade Khrushchov hasadopted is patriarchal, arbitrary and tyrannical. He has infact treated the relati<strong>on</strong>ship between the great CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and our Party not as <strong>on</strong>e betweenbrothers, but as <strong>on</strong>e between patriarchal father and s<strong>on</strong>. Atthis meeting he has exerted pressure in an attempt <strong>to</strong> makeour Party submit <strong>to</strong> his n<strong>on</strong>-<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist views. Wehereby solemnly declare that our Party believes in and obeysthe truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism al<strong>on</strong>e,and will never submit <strong>to</strong> err<strong>on</strong>eous views which run counter<strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. We c<strong>on</strong>sider that certain views expressedby Comrade Khrushchov in his speech at the ThirdC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Rumanian Party are err<strong>on</strong>eous and in c<strong>on</strong>traventi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong>. His speech will bewelcomed by the imperialists and the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique and hasindeed already been welcomed by them. When the occasi<strong>on</strong>arises, we shall be ready <strong>to</strong> carry <strong>on</strong> serious discussi<strong>on</strong>s with110
the CPSU and other fraternal Parties <strong>on</strong> our differences withComrade Khrushchov. As for the Letter <strong>of</strong> Informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China, which Comrade Khrushchov has distributed inBucharest, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC will reply <strong>to</strong>it in detail after carefully studying it; the reply will explainthe differences <strong>of</strong> principle between the two Parties, settingforth the relevant facts, and the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPC will hold serious, earnest and comradely discussi<strong>on</strong>swith fraternal Parties. We are c<strong>on</strong>vinced that in any case thetruth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism will triumph in the end. Truthdoes not fear c<strong>on</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong>. Ultimately, it is impossible <strong>to</strong> portraytruth as error or error as truth. The future <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement depends <strong>on</strong> the needs andthe struggles <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> all countries and <strong>on</strong> theguidance <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and will never be decidedby the bat<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> any individual.3. We, the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China, have always striven<strong>to</strong> safeguard the unity <strong>of</strong> all Communist Parties and the unity<strong>of</strong> all socialist countries. For the sake <strong>of</strong> genuine unity inthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist ranks and for the sake <strong>of</strong> thecomm<strong>on</strong> struggle against imperialism and reacti<strong>on</strong>, we holdthat it is necessary <strong>to</strong> unfold normal discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the differencesand that serious questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle should not besettled in a hurry by abnormal methods or simply by vote.Nor should <strong>on</strong>e impose <strong>on</strong> others arbitrary views which havenot been tested in practice or which have already proved <strong>to</strong>be wr<strong>on</strong>g in such tests. Comrade Khrushchov’s way <strong>of</strong> doingthings at this meeting is entirely detrimental <strong>to</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong>internati<strong>on</strong>al communism. But however Comrade Khrushchovmay act, the unity <strong>of</strong> the Chinese and Soviet Partiesand the unity <strong>of</strong> all the Communist and Workers’ Parties isbound <strong>to</strong> be further strengthened and developed. We aredeeply c<strong>on</strong>vinced that, as the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementand <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism develop, the unity <strong>of</strong> our rankswill c<strong>on</strong>stantly grow str<strong>on</strong>ger.111
4. If the relati<strong>on</strong>s between our two Parties are viewedas a whole, the above-menti<strong>on</strong>ed differences between ComradeKhrushchov and ourselves are <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>of</strong> a partial character. Wehold that the main thing in the relati<strong>on</strong>s between our twoParties is their unity in the struggle for the comm<strong>on</strong> cause;this is so because both our countries are socialist countriesand both our Parties are built <strong>on</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and are fighting <strong>to</strong> advance the cause <strong>of</strong> the wholesocialist camp, <strong>to</strong> oppose imperialist aggressi<strong>on</strong> and <strong>to</strong> winworld peace. We believe that Comrade Khrushchov and theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and we ourselves will beable <strong>to</strong> find opportunities <strong>to</strong> hold calm and comradely discussi<strong>on</strong>sand resolve our differences, so that the Chinese andSoviet Parties may become more united and their relati<strong>on</strong>sfurther strengthened. This will be highly beneficial <strong>to</strong> thesocialist camp and <strong>to</strong> the struggle <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the worldagainst imperialist aggressi<strong>on</strong> and for world peace.5. We are glad <strong>to</strong> see that the draft Communique <strong>of</strong> theMeeting put forward here affirms the correctness <strong>of</strong> theMoscow Declarati<strong>on</strong>. But the presentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theses <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong> in this draft is inaccurateand <strong>on</strong>e-sided. And it is wr<strong>on</strong>g that the draft avoidstaking a clear stand <strong>on</strong> the major problems in the currentinternati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong> and makes no menti<strong>on</strong> at all <strong>of</strong> modernrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism, the main danger in the internati<strong>on</strong>al workingclassmovement. Therefore, this draft is unacceptable <strong>to</strong> us.For the sake <strong>of</strong> unity in the comm<strong>on</strong> struggle against theenemy, we have submitted a revised draft and propose thatit be discussed. If it is not possible <strong>to</strong> reach agreement thistime, we propose that a special drafting committee be set up<strong>to</strong> work out, after full discussi<strong>on</strong>s, a document which isacceptable <strong>to</strong> all.
APPENDIX IIITHE FIVE PROPOSALS FOR SETTLEMENT OF THEDIFFERENCES AND ATTAINMENT OF UNITY CON-TAINED IN THE LETTER OF THE CENTRALCOMMITTEE OF THE CPC IN REPLYTO THE LETTER OF INFORMATIONOF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEEOF THE CPSU(September 10, 1960)Striving <strong>to</strong> settle the differences successfully and <strong>to</strong> attainunity, we put forward the following proposals in all sincerity:1. The fundamental theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism andthe principles <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Manifes<strong>to</strong> <strong>of</strong> the1957 Moscow Meeting are the ideological foundati<strong>on</strong> for theunity between our two Parties and am<strong>on</strong>g all fraternal Parties.All our statements and acti<strong>on</strong>s must be absolutely loyal<strong>to</strong> the fundamental principles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and theprinciples <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong>, which we should useas the criteria for judging between truth and falsehood.2. The relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the socialist countries and am<strong>on</strong>gthe fraternal Parties must strictly c<strong>on</strong>form <strong>to</strong> the principles<strong>of</strong> equality, comradeship and internati<strong>on</strong>alism as stipulatedby the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong>.3. All disputes am<strong>on</strong>g the socialist countries and am<strong>on</strong>gthe fraternal Parties must be settled in accordance with thestipulati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong>, through comradelyand unhurried discussi<strong>on</strong>. Both the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and China,and both the Soviet and Chinese Parties, bear great resp<strong>on</strong>sibilitiesregarding the internati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong> and <strong>to</strong>wardsthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. They should have113
full c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>s and unhurried discussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> all importantquesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern in order <strong>to</strong> have unity <strong>of</strong> acti<strong>on</strong>.If the disputes between the Chinese and Soviet Parties cannotbe settled for the time being in c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>s between thetwo Parties, then unhurried discussi<strong>on</strong>s should be c<strong>on</strong>tinued.When necessary, the views <strong>of</strong> both sides should be presentedcompletely objectively <strong>to</strong> the Communist and Workers’ Parties<strong>of</strong> all countries so that these Parties may make correctjudgments after serious deliberati<strong>on</strong> and in accordance with<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the principles <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong>.4. It is <strong>of</strong> the utmost importance for Communists <strong>to</strong> drawa clear line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong> between the enemy and ourselves,between truth and falsehood. Our two Parties shouldtreasure and value our friendship and join hands <strong>to</strong> opposethe enemy, and should not make statements or take acti<strong>on</strong>sliable <strong>to</strong> undermine the unity between the two Parties andthe two countries and thus give the enemy the opportunity<strong>of</strong> driving a wedge between us.5. On the basis <strong>of</strong> the above principles, our two Parties,<strong>to</strong>gether with other Communist and Workers’ Parties, shouldstrive through full preparati<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> make asuccess <strong>of</strong> the Meeting <strong>of</strong> Representatives <strong>of</strong> the Communistand Workers’ Parties <strong>of</strong> all countries <strong>to</strong> be held in Moscowin November this year, and, at this meeting, should work outa document c<strong>on</strong>forming <strong>to</strong> the fundamental principles <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the principles <strong>of</strong> the 1957 MoscowDeclarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> serve as a programme <strong>to</strong> which we should alladhere, a programme for our united struggle against theenemy.
ON THE QUESTIONOF STALINSec<strong>on</strong>d Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(September 13, 1963)
HE questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> world-wide importanceT which has had repercussi<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g all classes in everycountry and which is still a subject <strong>of</strong> much discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>day,with different classes and their political parties and groupstaking different views. It is likely that no final verdict canbe reached <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong> in the present century. But thereis virtual agreement am<strong>on</strong>g the majority <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking class and <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people, who disapprove <strong>of</strong>the complete negati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin and more and more cherishhis memory. This is also true <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. Ourc<strong>on</strong>troversy with the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is with a secti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>people. We hope <strong>to</strong> persuade them in order <strong>to</strong> advance therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause. This is our purpose in writing the presentarticle.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has always held that whenComrade Khrushchov completely negated Stalin <strong>on</strong> the pretext<strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, he was quite wr<strong>on</strong>g andhad ulterior motives.The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC pointed out in its letter<strong>of</strong> June 14 that the “struggle against the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”violates Lenin’s integral teachings <strong>on</strong> the interrelati<strong>on</strong>ship <strong>of</strong>leaders, party, class and masses, and undermines the Communistprinciple <strong>of</strong> democratic centralism.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUavoids making any reply <strong>to</strong> our principled arguments, butmerely labels the Chinese Communists as “defenders <strong>of</strong> thepers<strong>on</strong>ality cult and peddlers <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s err<strong>on</strong>eous ideas”.When he was fighting the Mensheviks, Lenin said, “Not <strong>to</strong>reply <strong>to</strong> an argument <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s opp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>on</strong> a questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> principle,and <strong>to</strong> ascribe <strong>on</strong>ly ‘pathos’ <strong>to</strong> him, means not <strong>to</strong> argue117
ut <strong>to</strong> turn <strong>to</strong> abuse.” 1 The attitude shown by the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU in its Open Letter is exactly like that<strong>of</strong> the Mensheviks.Even though the Open Letter resorts <strong>to</strong> abuse in place <strong>of</strong>debate, we <strong>on</strong> our part prefer <strong>to</strong> reply <strong>to</strong> it with principledarguments and a great many facts.The great Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> was the first state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat. In the beginning, the foremost leader <strong>of</strong>the Party and the Government in this state was Lenin. AfterLenin’s death, it was Stalin.After Lenin’s death, Stalin became not <strong>on</strong>ly the leader <strong>of</strong>the Party and Government <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> but theacknowledged leader <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementas well.It is <strong>on</strong>ly forty-six years since the first socialist state wasinaugurated by the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>. For nearly thirty<strong>of</strong> these years Stalin was the foremost leader <strong>of</strong> this state.Whether in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletaria<strong>to</strong>r in that <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, Stalin’sactivities occupy an extremely important place.The Chinese Communist Party has c<strong>on</strong>sistently maintainedthat the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> how <strong>to</strong> evaluate Stalin and what attitude<strong>to</strong> take <strong>to</strong>wards him is not just <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> appraising Stalin himself;more important, it is a questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> how <strong>to</strong> sum up thehis<strong>to</strong>rical experience <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and<strong>of</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement since Lenin’s death.Comrade Khrushchov completely negated Stalin at the 20thC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. He failed <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sult the fraternal Partiesin advance <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> principle which involvesthe whole internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, and afterwardstried <strong>to</strong> impose a fait accompli <strong>on</strong> them. Whoever makes anappraisal <strong>of</strong> Stalin different from that <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong>the CPSU is charged with “defence <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”as well as “interference” in the internal affairs <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.1V. I. Lenin, “Some Remarks <strong>on</strong> the ‘Reply’ by P. Maslov”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XV, p. 255.118
But no <strong>on</strong>e can deny the internati<strong>on</strong>al significance <strong>of</strong> thehis<strong>to</strong>rical experience <strong>of</strong> the first state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat, or the his<strong>to</strong>rical fact that Stalin was the leader<strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement; c<strong>on</strong>sequently, no<strong>on</strong>e can deny that the appraisal <strong>of</strong> Stalin is an important questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> principle involving the whole internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. On what ground, then, do the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUforbid other fraternal Parties <strong>to</strong> make a realistic analysis andappraisal <strong>of</strong> Stalin?The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has invariably insisted <strong>on</strong>an overall, objective and scientific analysis <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s meritsand demerits by the method <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>rical materialism and thepresentati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry as it actually occurred, and has opposedthe subjective, crude and complete negati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin by themethod <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>rical idealism and the wilful dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong> andalterati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has c<strong>on</strong>sistently held thatStalin did commit errors, which had their ideological as wellas social and his<strong>to</strong>rical roots. It is necessary <strong>to</strong> criticize theerrors Stalin actually committed, not those groundlesslyattributed <strong>to</strong> him, and <strong>to</strong> do so from a correct stand and withcorrect methods. But we have c<strong>on</strong>sistently opposed impropercriticism <strong>of</strong> Stalin, made from a wr<strong>on</strong>g stand and with wr<strong>on</strong>gmethods.Stalin fought tsarism and propagated <strong>Marx</strong>ism duringLenin’s lifetime; after he became a member <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the Bolshevik Party headed by Lenin he <strong>to</strong>okpart in the struggle <strong>to</strong> pave the way for the 1917 Revoluti<strong>on</strong>;after the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> he fought <strong>to</strong> defend the fruits<strong>of</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>.Stalin led the CPSU and the Soviet people, after Lenin’sdeath, in resolutely fighting both internal and external foes,and in safeguarding and c<strong>on</strong>solidating the first socialist statein the world.Stalin led the CPSU and the Soviet people in upholding theline <strong>of</strong> socialist industrializati<strong>on</strong> and agricultural collectiviza-119
ti<strong>on</strong> and in achieving great successes in socialist transformati<strong>on</strong>and socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>.Stalin led the CPSU, the Soviet people and the Soviet armyin an arduous and bitter struggle <strong>to</strong> the great vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> theanti-fascist war.Stalin defended and developed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism in thefight against various kinds <strong>of</strong> opportunism, against the enemies<strong>of</strong> Leninism, the Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites andother bourgeois agents.Stalin made an indelible c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement in a number <strong>of</strong> theoretical writingswhich are immortal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist works.Stalin led the Soviet Party and Government in pursuing aforeign policy which <strong>on</strong> the whole was in keeping with proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alism and in greatly assisting the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> all peoples, including the Chinese people.Stalin s<strong>to</strong>od in the forefr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> the tide <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry guidingthe struggle, and was an irrec<strong>on</strong>cilable enemy <strong>of</strong> the imperialistsand all reacti<strong>on</strong>aries.Stalin’s activities were intimately bound up with the struggles<strong>of</strong> the great CPSU and the great Soviet people and inseparablefrom the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong>the whole world.Stalin’s life was that <strong>of</strong> a great <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist, a greatproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary.It is true that while he performed meri<strong>to</strong>rious deeds for theSoviet people and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement,Stalin, a great <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist and proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary,also made certain mistakes. Some were errors <strong>of</strong> principle andsome were errors made in the course <strong>of</strong> practical work; somecould have been avoided and some were scarcely avoidableat a time when the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat had no precedent<strong>to</strong> go by.In his way <strong>of</strong> thinking, Stalin departed from dialecticalmaterialism and fell in<strong>to</strong> metaphysics and subjectivism <strong>on</strong>certain questi<strong>on</strong>s and c<strong>on</strong>sequently he was sometimes divorced120
from reality and from the masses. In struggles inside as wellas outside the Party, <strong>on</strong> certain occasi<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>on</strong> certain questi<strong>on</strong>she c<strong>on</strong>fused two types <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s which are differentin nature, c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s between ourselves and theenemy and c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the people, and also c<strong>on</strong>fusedthe different methods needed in handling them. In the workled by Stalin <strong>of</strong> suppressing the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>, manycounter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries deserving punishment were duly punished,but at the same time there were innocent people whowere wr<strong>on</strong>gly c<strong>on</strong>victed; and in 1937 and 1938 there occurredthe error <strong>of</strong> enlarging the scope <strong>of</strong> the suppressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>aries.In the matter <strong>of</strong> Party and government organizati<strong>on</strong>,he did not fully apply proletarian democratic centralismand, <strong>to</strong> some extent, violated it. In handling relati<strong>on</strong>swith fraternal Parties and countries, he made some mistakes.He also gave some bad counsel in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. These mistakes caused some losses <strong>to</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.Stalin’s merits and mistakes are matters <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>rical, objectivereality. A comparis<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the two shows that his meritsoutweighed his faults. He was primarily correct, and hisfaults were sec<strong>on</strong>dary. In summing up Stalin’s thinking andhis work in their <strong>to</strong>tality, surely every h<strong>on</strong>est Communist witha respect for his<strong>to</strong>ry will first observe what was primary inStalin. Therefore, when Stalin’s errors are being correctlyappraised, criticized and overcome, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> safeguardwhat was primary in Stalin’s life, <strong>to</strong> safeguard <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism which he defended and developed.It would be beneficial if the errors <strong>of</strong> Stalin, which were<strong>on</strong>ly sec<strong>on</strong>dary, are taken as his<strong>to</strong>rical less<strong>on</strong>s so that theCommunists <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and other countries mighttake warning and avoid repeating those errors or commitfewer errors. Both positive and negative his<strong>to</strong>rical less<strong>on</strong>s arebeneficial <strong>to</strong> all Communists, provided they are drawn correctlyand c<strong>on</strong>form with and do not dis<strong>to</strong>rt his<strong>to</strong>rical facts.121
Lenin pointed out more than <strong>on</strong>ce that <strong>Marx</strong>ists were <strong>to</strong>tallydifferent from the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al intheir attitude <strong>to</strong>wards people like Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg,who, for all their mistakes, were great proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries.<strong>Marx</strong>ists did not c<strong>on</strong>ceal these people’s mistakes butthrough such examples learned “how <strong>to</strong> avoid them and liveup <strong>to</strong> the more rigorous requirements <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>Marx</strong>ism”.1 By c<strong>on</strong>trast, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists “crowed” and “cackled”over the mistakes <strong>of</strong> Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg. Ridiculingthe revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, Lenin quoted a Russian fable in this c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>.“Sometimes eagles may fly lower than hens, but henscan never rise <strong>to</strong> the height <strong>of</strong> eagles.” 2 Bebel and RosaLuxemburg were “great Communists” and, in spite <strong>of</strong> theirmistakes, remained “eagles”, while the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists were aflock <strong>of</strong> “hens” “in the backyard <strong>of</strong> the working class movement,am<strong>on</strong>g the dung heaps”. 3The his<strong>to</strong>rical role <strong>of</strong> Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg is by nomeans comparable <strong>to</strong> that <strong>of</strong> Stalin. Stalin was the greatleader <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement over a whole his<strong>to</strong>rical era, andgreater care should be exercised in evaluating him.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have accused the Chinese CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> “defending” Stalin. Yes, we do defend Stalin.When Khrushchov dis<strong>to</strong>rts his<strong>to</strong>ry and completely negatesStalin, naturally we have the inescapable duty <strong>to</strong> come forwardand defend him in the interests <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement.In defending Stalin, the Chinese Communist Party defendshis correct side, defends the glorious his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> struggle <strong>of</strong> thefirst state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, which was1V. I. Lenin, “Preface <strong>to</strong> the Pamphlet by Voinov (A. V. Lunacharsky)<strong>on</strong> the Attitude <strong>of</strong> the Party Towards the Trade Uni<strong>on</strong>s”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. XIII, p. 165.2V. I. Lenin, “Notes <strong>of</strong> a Publicist”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>alPublishers, New York, 1943, Vol. X, p. 312.3Ibid., p. 313.122
created by the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>; it defends the glorioushis<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> struggle <strong>of</strong> the CPSU; it defends the prestige <strong>of</strong> theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement am<strong>on</strong>g working peoplethroughout the world. In brief, it defends the theory andpractice <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. It is not <strong>on</strong>ly the ChineseCommunists who are doing this; all Communists devoted <strong>to</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, all staunch revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries and all fairmindedpeople have been doing the same thing.While defending Stalin, we do not defend his mistakes. L<strong>on</strong>gago the Chinese Communists had first-hand experience <strong>of</strong> some<strong>of</strong> his mistakes. Of the err<strong>on</strong>eous “Left” and Right opportunistlines which emerged in the Chinese Communist Party at <strong>on</strong>etime or another, some arose under the influence <strong>of</strong> certainmistakes <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s, in so far as their internati<strong>on</strong>al sourceswere c<strong>on</strong>cerned. In the late twenties, the thirties and the earlyand middle forties, the Chinese <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists representedby Comrades <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung and Liu Shao-chi resistedthe influence <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s mistakes; they gradually overcamethe err<strong>on</strong>eous lines <strong>of</strong> “Left” and Right opportunism andfinally led the Chinese revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry.But since some <strong>of</strong> the wr<strong>on</strong>g ideas put forward by Stalinwere accepted and applied by certain Chinese comrades, weChinese should bear the resp<strong>on</strong>sibility. In its struggle against“Left” and Right opportunism, therefore, our Party criticized<strong>on</strong>ly its own erring comrades and never put the blame <strong>on</strong>Stalin. The purpose <strong>of</strong> our criticism was <strong>to</strong> distinguish betweenright and wr<strong>on</strong>g, learn the appropriate less<strong>on</strong>s andadvance the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause. We merely asked the erringcomrades that they should correct their mistakes. If theyfailed <strong>to</strong> do so, we waited until they were gradually awakenedby their own practical experience, provided they did not organizesecret groups for clandestine and disruptive activities.Our method was the proper method <strong>of</strong> inner-Party criticismand self-criticism; we started from the desire for unity andarrived at a new unity <strong>on</strong> a new basis through criticism andstruggle, and thus good results were achieved. We held that123
these were c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the people and not betweenthe enemy and ourselves, and that therefore we should usethe above method.What attitude have Comrade Khrushchov and other leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU taken <strong>to</strong>wards Stalin since the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong>the CPSU?They have not made an overall his<strong>to</strong>rical and scientificanalysis <strong>of</strong> his life and work but have completely negatedhim without any distincti<strong>on</strong> between right and wr<strong>on</strong>g.They have treated Stalin not as a comrade but as an enemy.They have not adopted the method <strong>of</strong> criticism and selfcriticism<strong>to</strong> sum up experience but have blamed Stalin for allerrors, or ascribed <strong>to</strong> him the “mistakes” they have arbitrarilyinvented.They have not presented the facts and reas<strong>on</strong>ed things outbut have made demagogic pers<strong>on</strong>al attacks <strong>on</strong> Stalin in order<strong>to</strong> pois<strong>on</strong> people’s minds.Khrushchov has abused Stalin as a “murderer”, a “criminal”,a “bandit”, 1 a “gambler”, a “despot <strong>of</strong> the type <strong>of</strong> Ivan theTerrible”, “the greatest dicta<strong>to</strong>r in Russian his<strong>to</strong>ry”, a “fool”, 2an “idiot”, 3 etc. When we are compelled <strong>to</strong> cite all this filthy,vulgar and malicious language, we are afraid it may soil ourpen and paper.Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as “the greatest dicta<strong>to</strong>rin Russian his<strong>to</strong>ry”. Does not this mean that the Soviet peoplelived for thirty l<strong>on</strong>g years under the “tyranny” <strong>of</strong> “thegreatest dicta<strong>to</strong>r in Russian his<strong>to</strong>ry” and not under the socialistsystem? The great Soviet people and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people<strong>of</strong> the whole world completely disagree with this slander!Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “despot <strong>of</strong> the type <strong>of</strong>Ivan the Terrible”. Does not this mean that the experience1N. S. Khrushchov, C<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong> with the Delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 22, 1961.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the May Day Recepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1962. Givenby the Soviet Government.3N. S. Khrushchov, C<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong> with the Delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 22, 1961.124
the great CPSU and the great Soviet people provided overthirty years for people the world over was not the experience<strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat but that <strong>of</strong> life underthe rule <strong>of</strong> a feudal “despot”? The great Soviet people, theSoviet Communists and <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists <strong>of</strong> the whole worldcompletely disagree with this slander!Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “bandit”. Does notthis mean that the first socialist state in the world was for al<strong>on</strong>g period headed by a “bandit”? The great Soviet peopleand the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> the whole world completelydisagree with this slander!Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “fool”. Does not thismean that the CPSU which waged heroic revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strugglesover the past decades had a “fool” as its leader? TheSoviet Communists and <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists <strong>of</strong> the whole worldcompletely disagree with this slander!Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as an “idiot”. Does notthis mean that the great Soviet army which triumphed in theanti-fascist war had an “idiot” as its supreme commander?The glorious Soviet commanders and fighters and all antifascistfighters <strong>of</strong> the world completely disagree with thisslander!Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “murderer”. Doesnot this mean that the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementhad a “murderer” as its teacher for decades? Communists <strong>of</strong>the whole world, including the Soviet Communists, completelydisagree with this slander!Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a “gambler”. Does notthis mean that the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary peoples had a “gambler” astheir standard-bearer in the struggles against imperialism andreacti<strong>on</strong>? All revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> the world, including theSoviet people, completely disagree with this slander!Such abuse <strong>of</strong> Stalin by Khrushchov is a gross insult <strong>to</strong> thegreat Soviet people, a gross insult <strong>to</strong> the CPSU, <strong>to</strong> the Sovietarmy, <strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and <strong>to</strong> the socialist125
system <strong>to</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople the world over and <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.In what positi<strong>on</strong> does Khrushchov, who participated in theleadership <strong>of</strong> the Party and the state during Stalin’s periodplace himself when he beats his breast, pounds the table andshouts abuse <strong>of</strong> Stalin at the <strong>to</strong>p <strong>of</strong> his voice? In the positi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> an accomplice <strong>to</strong> a “murderer” or a “bandit”? Or in thesame positi<strong>on</strong> as a “fool” or an “idiot”?What difference is there between such abuse <strong>of</strong> Stalin byKhrushchov and the abuse by the imperialists, the reacti<strong>on</strong>ariesin various countries, and the renegades <strong>to</strong> communism?Why such inveterate hatred <strong>of</strong> Stalin? Why attack himmore ferociously than you do the enemy?In abusing Stalin, Khrushchov is in fact wildly denouncingthe Soviet system and state. His language in this c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>is by no means weaker but is actually str<strong>on</strong>ger than that <strong>of</strong>such renegades as Kautsky, Trotsky, Ti<strong>to</strong> and Djilas.People should quote the following passage from the OpenLetter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and ask Khrushchov:“How can they say these things about the party <strong>of</strong>the great Lenin, about the motherland <strong>of</strong> socialism, about thepeople who were the first in the world <strong>to</strong> accomplish a socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>, upheld its great gains in fierce battles against internati<strong>on</strong>alimperialism and domestic counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>, aredisplaying miracles <strong>of</strong> heroism and dedicati<strong>on</strong> in the effort <strong>to</strong>build communism are faithfully fulfilling their internati<strong>on</strong>alistduty <strong>to</strong> the working people <strong>of</strong> the world”!In his article, “The Political Significance <strong>of</strong> Abuse”, Leninsaid, “Abuse in politics <strong>of</strong>ten covers up the utter lack <strong>of</strong> ideologicalc<strong>on</strong>tent, the helplessness and the impotence, the annoyingimpotence <strong>of</strong> the abuser.” Does this not apply <strong>to</strong> theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU who, feeling c<strong>on</strong>stantly haunted by thespectre <strong>of</strong> Stalin, try <strong>to</strong> cover up their <strong>to</strong>tal lack <strong>of</strong> principle,their helplessness and annoying impotence by abusing Stalin?The great majority <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people disapprove <strong>of</strong> suchabuse <strong>of</strong> Stalin. They increasingly cherish the memory <strong>of</strong>126
Stalin. The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have seriously isolatedthemselves from the masses. They always feel they are beingthreatened by the haunting spectre <strong>of</strong> Stalin, which is infact the broad masses’ great dissatisfacti<strong>on</strong> with the completenegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin. So far Khrushchov has not dared <strong>to</strong> letthe Soviet people and the other people in the socialist campsee the secret report completely negating Stalin which hemade <strong>to</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, because it is a reportwhich cannot bear the light <strong>of</strong> day, a report which wouldseriously alienate the masses.Especially noteworthy is the fact that while they abuseStalin in every possible way, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU regardEisenhower, Kennedy and the like “with respect and trust”. 1They abuse Stalin as a “despot <strong>of</strong> the type <strong>of</strong> Ivan the Terrible”and “the greatest dicta<strong>to</strong>r in Russian his<strong>to</strong>ry”, but complimentboth Eisenhower and Kennedy as “having the support<strong>of</strong> the absolute majority <strong>of</strong> the American people”! 2 Theyabuse Stalin as an “idiot” but praise Eisenhower and Kennedyas “sensible”! On the <strong>on</strong>e hand, they viciously lash at a great<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist, a great proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary and agreat leader <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, and<strong>on</strong> the other, they laud the chieftains <strong>of</strong> imperialism <strong>to</strong> theskies. Is there any possibility that the c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> betweenthese phenomena is merely accidental and that it does notfollow with inexorable logic from the betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism?If his memory is not <strong>to</strong>o short, Khrushchov ought <strong>to</strong> rememberthat at a mass rally held in Moscow in January 1937 hehimself rightly c<strong>on</strong>demned those who had attacked Stalin,saying, “In lifting their hand against Comrade Stalin, theylifted it against all <strong>of</strong> us, against the working class and theworking people! In lifting their hand against Comrade Stalin,1N. S. Khrushchov, Letter in Reply <strong>to</strong> J. F. Kennedy, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 28,1962.2N. S. Khrushchov, Replies <strong>to</strong> the Questi<strong>on</strong>s by the Edi<strong>to</strong>rs-in-Chief<strong>of</strong> Pravda and Izvestia, in Pravda, June 15, 1963.127
they lifted it against the teachings <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>, Engels andLenin!” Khrushchev himself repeatedly ex<strong>to</strong>lled Stalin as an“intimate friend and comrade-in-arms <strong>of</strong> the great Lenin”, 1as “the greatest genius, teacher and leader <strong>of</strong> mankind” 2 and“the great, ever-vic<strong>to</strong>rious marshal”, 3 as “the sincere friend <strong>of</strong>the people” 4 and as his “own fathere”. 5If <strong>on</strong>e compares the remarks made by Khrushchov whenStalin was alive with those made after his death, <strong>on</strong>e will notfail <strong>to</strong> see that Khrushchov has made a 180-degree turn in hisevaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin.If his memory is not <strong>to</strong>o short, Khrushchov should <strong>of</strong> courseremember that during the period <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s leadership hehimself was particularly active in supporting and carrying outthe then prevailing policy for suppressing counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries.On June 6, 1937, at the Fifth Party C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>of</strong> MoscowProvince, Khrushchov declared:Our Party will mercilessly crush the band <strong>of</strong> trai<strong>to</strong>rs andbetrayers, and wipe out all the Trotskyist-Right dregs. . . .The guarantee <strong>of</strong> this is the unshakable leadership <strong>of</strong> ourCentral Committee, the unshakable leadership <strong>of</strong> our leaderComrade Stalin. . . . We shall <strong>to</strong>tally annihilate theenemies — <strong>to</strong> the last man — and scatter their ashes <strong>to</strong> thewinds.On June 8, 1938, at the Fourth Party C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>of</strong> KievProvince, Khrushchov declared:1N. S. Khrushchov, “Stalin and the Great Friendship <strong>of</strong> the Peoples<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>”, Pravda, December 21, 1939.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the 18th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU(B),Pravda, March 15, 1939.3N. S. Khrushchov and others, Letter <strong>to</strong> All the Officers and Men<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Red Army, Pravda, May 13, 1945.4N. S. Khrushchov, “Stalin and the Great Friendship <strong>of</strong> the Peoples<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>”, Pravda, December 21, 1939.5N. S. Khrushchov, “Stalinist Friendship Am<strong>on</strong>g the Peoples —Guarantee <strong>of</strong> the Invincibility <strong>of</strong> Our Motherland”, Pravda, December21, 1949.128
The Yakyirs, Balyitskys, Lyubehenkys, Zat<strong>on</strong>skys andother scum wanted <strong>to</strong> bring Polish landowners <strong>to</strong> theUkraine, wanted <strong>to</strong> bring here the German fascists, landlordsand capitalists. . . . We have annihilated a c<strong>on</strong>siderablenumber <strong>of</strong> enemies, but still not all. Therefore, it isnecessary <strong>to</strong> keep our eyes open. We should bear firmly inmind the words <strong>of</strong> Comrade Stalin, that as l<strong>on</strong>g as capitalistencirclement exists, spies and saboteurs will be smuggledin<strong>to</strong> our country.Why does Khrushchov, who was in the leadership <strong>of</strong> theParty and the state in Stalin’s period and who actively supportedand firmly executed the policy for suppressing counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>aries,repudiate everything d<strong>on</strong>e during this periodand shift the blame for all errors <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> Stalin al<strong>on</strong>e, whileal<strong>to</strong>gether whitewashing himself?When Stalin did something wr<strong>on</strong>g, he was capable <strong>of</strong> criticizinghimself. For instance, he had given some bad counselwith regard <strong>to</strong> the Chinese revoluti<strong>on</strong>. After the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong>the Chinese revoluti<strong>on</strong>, he admitted his mistake. Stalin alsoadmitted some <strong>of</strong> his mistakes in the work <strong>of</strong> purifying theParty ranks in his report <strong>to</strong> the 18th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU(B) in 1939. But what about Khrushchov? He simply doesnot know what self-criticism is; all he does is <strong>to</strong> shift theentire blame <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> others and claim the entire credit forhimself.It is not surprising that these ugly acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’sshould have taken place when modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is <strong>on</strong> therampage. As Lenin said in 1915 when he criticized the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists<strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al for their betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism:This is not at all surprising in this day <strong>of</strong> words forgotten,principles lost, philosophies overthrown, and resoluti<strong>on</strong>sand solemn promises discarded. 11V. I. Lenin, “Preface <strong>to</strong> N. Bukharin’s Pamphlet, Imperialism andthe World Ec<strong>on</strong>omy”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers,Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXII, p. 104.129
As the train <strong>of</strong> events since the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhas fully shown, the complete negati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin by the leadership<strong>of</strong> the CPSU has had extremely serious c<strong>on</strong>sequences.It has provided the imperialists and the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> allcountries with exceedingly welcome anti-Soviet and anti-Communist ammuniti<strong>on</strong>. Shortly after the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong>the CPSU, the imperialists exploited Khrushchov’s secret anti-Stalin report <strong>to</strong> stir up a world-wide tidal wave against theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and against communism. The imperialists, thereacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique and opportunists<strong>of</strong> various descripti<strong>on</strong>s all leapt at the chance <strong>to</strong> attack theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, the socialist camp and the Communist Parties;thus many fraternal Parties and countries were placed inserious difficulties.The frantic campaign against Stalin by the leadership <strong>of</strong>the CPSU enabled the Trotskyites, who had l<strong>on</strong>g been politicalcorpses, <strong>to</strong> come <strong>to</strong> life again and clamour for the “rehabilitati<strong>on</strong>”<strong>of</strong> Trotsky. In November 1961, at the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Secretariat <strong>of</strong>the so-called Fourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al stated in a Letter <strong>to</strong> the22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and Its New Central Committeethat in 1937 Trotsky said a m<strong>on</strong>ument would be erected <strong>to</strong> theh<strong>on</strong>our <strong>of</strong> the victims <strong>of</strong> Stalin. “Today,” it c<strong>on</strong>tinued, “thispredicti<strong>on</strong> has come true. Before your C<strong>on</strong>gress the FirstSecretary <strong>of</strong> your Party has promised the erecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thism<strong>on</strong>ument.” In this letter the specific demand was made thatthe name <strong>of</strong> Trotsky be “engraved in letters <strong>of</strong> gold <strong>on</strong> them<strong>on</strong>ument erected in h<strong>on</strong>our <strong>of</strong> the victims <strong>of</strong> Stalin”. TheTrotskyites made no secret <strong>of</strong> their joy, declaring that theanti-Stalin campaign started by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhad “opened the door for Trotskyism” and would “greatlyhelp the advance <strong>of</strong> Trotskyism and its organizati<strong>on</strong> — theFourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al”.In completely negating Stalin, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhave motives that cannot bear the light <strong>of</strong> day.130
Stalin died in 1953; three years later the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU violently attacked him at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, and eightyears after his death they again did so at the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress,removing and burning his remains. In repeating their violentattacks <strong>on</strong> Stalin, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU aimed at erasingthe indelible influence <strong>of</strong> this great proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryam<strong>on</strong>g the people <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and throughout theworld, and at paving the way for negating <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism,which Stalin had defended and developed, and for the all-outapplicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line. Their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line beganexactly with the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress and became fully systematizedat the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress. The facts have shown ever more clearlythat their revisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theories <strong>on</strong> imperialism,war and peace, proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat, revoluti<strong>on</strong> in the col<strong>on</strong>ies and semicol<strong>on</strong>ies,the proletarian party, etc., is inseparably c<strong>on</strong>nectedwith their complete negati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Stalin.It is under the cover <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”that the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU tries <strong>to</strong> negate Stalin completely.In launching “the combat against the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are not out <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re what they call “theLeninist standards <strong>of</strong> Party life and principles <strong>of</strong> leadership”.On the c<strong>on</strong>trary, they are violating Lenin’s teachings <strong>on</strong> theinterrelati<strong>on</strong>ship <strong>of</strong> leaders, party, class and masses and c<strong>on</strong>traveningthe principle <strong>of</strong> democratic centralism in the Party.<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists maintain that if the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party<strong>of</strong> the proletariat is genuinely <strong>to</strong> serve as the headquarters <strong>of</strong>the proletariat in struggle, it must correctly handle the interrelati<strong>on</strong>ship<strong>of</strong> leaders, party, class and masses and must beorganized <strong>on</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong> democratic centralism. Such aParty must have a fairly stable nucleus <strong>of</strong> leadership, whichshould c<strong>on</strong>sist <strong>of</strong> a group <strong>of</strong> l<strong>on</strong>g-tested leaders who are goodat integrating the universal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism withthe c<strong>on</strong>crete practice <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>.131
The leaders <strong>of</strong> the proletarian party, whether members <strong>of</strong>the Central or local committees, emerge from the masses inthe course <strong>of</strong> class struggles and mass revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movements.They are infinitely loyal <strong>to</strong> the masses, have closeties with them and are good at correctly c<strong>on</strong>centrating theideas <strong>of</strong> the masses and then carrying them through. Suchleaders are genuine representatives <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and areacknowledged by the masses. It is a sign <strong>of</strong> the politicalmaturity <strong>of</strong> a proletarian party for it <strong>to</strong> have such leaders, andherein lies the hope <strong>of</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry for the cause <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Lenin was absolutely right in saying that “not a single classin his<strong>to</strong>ry has achieved power without producing its politicalleaders, its prominent representatives able <strong>to</strong> organise a movementand lead it”. 1 He also said:The training <strong>of</strong> experienced and most influential Partyleaders is a l<strong>on</strong>g-term and difficult task. But without this,the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, its “unity <strong>of</strong> will”, willremain a phrase. 2The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has always adhered <strong>to</strong> the<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist teachings <strong>on</strong> the role <strong>of</strong> the masses and theindividual in his<strong>to</strong>ry and <strong>on</strong> the interrelati<strong>on</strong>ship <strong>of</strong> leaders,party, class and masses, and upheld democratic centralismin the Party. We have always maintained collective leadership;at the same time, we are against belittling the role <strong>of</strong>leaders. While we attach importance <strong>to</strong> this role, we areagainst dish<strong>on</strong>est and excessive eulogy <strong>of</strong> individuals and exaggerati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> their role. As far back as 1949 the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the Chinese Communist Party, <strong>on</strong> Comrade <strong>Mao</strong>Tse-tung’s suggesti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong>ok a decisi<strong>on</strong> forbidding publiccelebrati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> any kind <strong>on</strong> the birthdays <strong>of</strong> Party leadersand the naming <strong>of</strong> places, streets or enterprises after them.1V. I. Lenin, “The Urgent Tasks <strong>of</strong> Our Movement”, Selected Works,Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. II, p. 13.2V. I. Lenin, “A Letter <strong>to</strong> the German Communists”, Collected Works,Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, p 492.132
This c<strong>on</strong>sistent and correct approach <strong>of</strong> ours is fundamentallydifferent from the “combat against the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult” advocated by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.It has become increasingly clear that in advocating the“combat against the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult” the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUdo not intend, as they themselves claim, <strong>to</strong> promote democracy,practise collective leadership and oppose exaggerati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the role <strong>of</strong> the individual but have ulterior motives.What exactly is the gist <strong>of</strong> their “combat against the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult”?To put it bluntly, it is nothing but the following:1. <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, <strong>to</strong>counterpose Stalin, the leader <strong>of</strong> the Party, <strong>to</strong> the Party organizati<strong>on</strong>,the proletariat and the masses <strong>of</strong> the people;2. <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, <strong>to</strong>besmirch the proletarian party, the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat,and the socialist system;3. <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, <strong>to</strong>build themselves up and <strong>to</strong> attack revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries loyal <strong>to</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism so as <strong>to</strong> pave the way for revisi<strong>on</strong>istschemers <strong>to</strong> usurp the Party and state leadership;4. <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, <strong>to</strong>interfere in the internal affairs <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties and countriesand strive <strong>to</strong> subvert their leadership <strong>to</strong> suit themselves;and5. <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, <strong>to</strong>attack fraternal Parties which adhere <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismand <strong>to</strong> split the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.The “combat against the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult” launched byKhrushchov is a despicable political intrigue. Like some<strong>on</strong>edescribed by <strong>Marx</strong>, “He is in his element as an intriguer,while a n<strong>on</strong>entity as a theorist.” 1The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUstates that “while rejecting the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult and combat-1“<strong>Marx</strong> <strong>to</strong> F. Bolte”, Selected Works <strong>of</strong> Karl <strong>Marx</strong> and FrederickEngels, Ger. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1950, Vol. II, p. 438.133
ing its c<strong>on</strong>sequences” they have “a high regard for leaderswho . . . enjoy deserved prestige”. What does this mean?It means that, while trampling Stalin underfoot, the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU laud Khrushchov <strong>to</strong> the skies.They describe Khrushchov, who was not yet a Communistat the time <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and who was a lowrankingpolitical worker during the Civil War, as an “activecrea<strong>to</strong>r <strong>of</strong> the Red Army”. 1They ascribe the great vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the decisive battle in theSoviet Patriotic War entirely <strong>to</strong> Khrushchov, saying thatin the Battle Of Stalingrad “Khrushchov’s voice was veryfrequently heard” 2 and that he was “the soul <strong>of</strong> the Stalingraders”.3They attribute the great achievements in nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>sand rocketry wholly <strong>to</strong> Khrushchov, calling him “cosmicfather”. 4 But as everybody knows, the success <strong>of</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> in manufacturing the a<strong>to</strong>m and hydrogen bombs wasa great achievement <strong>of</strong> the Soviet scientists and techniciansand the Soviet people under Stalin’s leadership. The foundati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> rocketry were also laid in Stalin’s time. How canthese important his<strong>to</strong>rical facts be obliterated? How can allcredit be given <strong>to</strong> Khrushchev?They laud Khrushchov who has revised the fundamentaltheories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and who holds that Leninismis outmoded as the “brilliant model who creatively developedand enriched <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory”. 5What the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are doing under the cover<strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult” is exactly as Lenin said:1“Life for the People”, Zarya Vos<strong>to</strong>ka, December 17, 1961.2“Created and Reared by the Party”, Agita<strong>to</strong>r, No. 2, 1963.3V. I. Chuikov, Speech at the Rally Marking the 20th Anniversary<strong>of</strong> the Great Patriotic War <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, Pravda, June 22, 1961.4G. S. Ti<strong>to</strong>v, Speech at the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 26,1961.5A. N. Kosygin, Speech at the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber21, 1961.134
. . . in place <strong>of</strong> the old leaders, who hold ordinary humanviews <strong>on</strong> ordinary matters, new leaders are put forth . . .who talk supernatural n<strong>on</strong>sense and c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>. 1The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUslanders our stand in adhering <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, assertingthat we “are trying <strong>to</strong> impose up<strong>on</strong> other Parties the order<strong>of</strong> things, the ideology and morals, the forms and methods <strong>of</strong>leadership that flourished in the period <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult”. This remark again exposes the absurdity <strong>of</strong> the “combatagainst the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”.According <strong>to</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, after the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong> put an end <strong>to</strong> capitalism in Russia there followeda “period <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”. It would seem that the“social system” and “the ideology and morals” <strong>of</strong> that periodwere not socialist. In that period the Soviet working peoplewere under a “heavy burden”, there prevailed an “atmosphere<strong>of</strong> fear, suspici<strong>on</strong> and uncertainty which pois<strong>on</strong>ed thelife <strong>of</strong> the people”, 2 and Soviet society was impeded in itsdevelopment.In his speech at the Soviet-Hungarian friendship rally <strong>on</strong>July 19, 1963, Khrushchov dwelt <strong>on</strong> what he called Stalin’srule <strong>of</strong> “terror”, saying that Stalin “maintained his powerwith an axe”. He described the social order <strong>of</strong> the time inthe following terms: “. . . in that period a man leaving forwork <strong>of</strong>ten did not know whether he would return home,whether he would see his wife and children again.”“The period <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult” as described by theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU was <strong>on</strong>e when society was more“hateful” and “barbarous” than in the period <strong>of</strong> feudalism orcapitalism.1V. I. Lenin, “‘Left-Wing’ Communism, an Infantile Disorder”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943,Vol. X, p. 82.2Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> all Party Organizati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> All Communists <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, July 14, 1963.135
According <strong>to</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the socialist system <strong>of</strong> society whichwere established as a result <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> failed<strong>to</strong> remove the oppressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the working people or acceleratethe development <strong>of</strong> Soviet society for several decades; <strong>on</strong>lyafter the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU carried out the “combatagainst the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult” was the “heavy burden” removedfrom the working people and “the development <strong>of</strong> Sovietsociety” suddenly “accelerated”. 1Khrushchov said, “Ah! If <strong>on</strong>ly Stalin had died ten yearsearlier!” 2 As everybody knows, Stalin died in 1953; ten yearsearlier would have been 1943, the very year when the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> began its counter-<strong>of</strong>fensive in the Great Patriotic War.At that time, who wanted Stalin <strong>to</strong> die? Hitler!It is not a new thing in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement for the enemies <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism <strong>to</strong>vilify the leaders <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and try <strong>to</strong> undermine theproletarian cause by using some such slogan as “combatingthe pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”. It is a dirty trick which people sawthrough l<strong>on</strong>g ago.In the period <strong>of</strong> the First Internati<strong>on</strong>al the schemer Bakuninused similar language <strong>to</strong> rail at <strong>Marx</strong>. At first, <strong>to</strong> wormhimself in<strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>’s c<strong>on</strong>fidence, he wrote him, “I am yourdisciple and I am proud <strong>of</strong> it.” 3 Later, when he failed in hisplot <strong>to</strong> usurp the leadership <strong>of</strong> the First Internati<strong>on</strong>al, heabused <strong>Marx</strong> and said, “As a German and a Jew, he is authoritarianfrom head <strong>to</strong> heels” 4 and a “dicta<strong>to</strong>r”. 51Ibid.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Soviet-Hungarian Friendship Rallyin Moscow, July 19, 1963.3M. A. Bakunin’s Letter <strong>to</strong> Karl <strong>Marx</strong>, December 22, 1868, Die NeueZeit, No. 1, 1900.4Franz Mehring, Karl <strong>Marx</strong>, the S<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> His Life, Eng. ed., CoviciFriede Publishers, New York, 1935, p. 429.5“Engels <strong>to</strong> A. Bebel, June 20, 1873”, Selected Works <strong>of</strong> Karl <strong>Marx</strong>and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 432.136
In the period <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al the renegadeKautsky used similar language <strong>to</strong> rail at Lenin. He slanderedLenin, likening him <strong>to</strong> “the God <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>otheists” 1 who hadreduced <strong>Marx</strong>ism “<strong>to</strong> the status not <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>of</strong> a state religi<strong>on</strong>but <strong>of</strong> a medieval or oriental faith”. 2In the period <strong>of</strong> the Third Internati<strong>on</strong>al the renegadeTrotsky similarly used such language <strong>to</strong> rail at Stalin. Hesaid that Stalin was a “tyrant” 3 and that “the Stalinistbureaucracy has created a vile leader-cult, attributing <strong>to</strong>leaders divine qualities”. 4The modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Ti<strong>to</strong> clique also use similar words<strong>to</strong> rail at Stalin, saying that Stalin was the “dicta<strong>to</strong>r” “in asystem <strong>of</strong> absolute pers<strong>on</strong>al power”. 5Thus it is clear that the issue <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult” raised by the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU has come downthrough Bakunin, Kautsky, Trotsky and Ti<strong>to</strong>, all <strong>of</strong> whomused it <strong>to</strong> attack the leaders <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and underminethe proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement.The opportunists in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement were unable <strong>to</strong> negate <strong>Marx</strong>, Engels orLenin by vilificati<strong>on</strong>, nor is Khrushchov able <strong>to</strong> negate Stalinby vilificati<strong>on</strong>.As Lenin pointed out, a privileged positi<strong>on</strong> cannot ensurethe success <strong>of</strong> vilificati<strong>on</strong>.Khrushchov was able <strong>to</strong> utilize his privileged positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>remove the body <strong>of</strong> Stalin from the Lenin Mausoleum, but tryas he may, he can never succeed in removing the great image1Karl Kautsky, Social Democracy Versus Communism, Eng. ed.,Rand School Press, New York, 1946, p. 54.2Ibid., p. 29.3Le<strong>on</strong> Trotsky, Stalin, an Appraisal <strong>of</strong> the Man and His Influence,Eng. ed., Harper and Brothers, New York and L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>, 1941, p. 490.4Le<strong>on</strong> Trotsky, “The Stalinist Bureaucracy and the Assassinati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Kirov”, On the Kirov Assassinati<strong>on</strong>, Eng. ed., Pi<strong>on</strong>eer Publishers,New York, 1956, p. 17.5Edvard Kardelj, “Five Years Later”, Borba, June 28, 1953.137
<strong>of</strong> Stalin from the minds <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people and <strong>of</strong> the peoplethroughout the world.Khrushchov can utilize his privileged positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> revise<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism <strong>on</strong>e way or another, but try as he may, hecan never succeed in overthrowing <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism whichStalin defended and which is defended by <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leniniststhroughout the world.We would like <strong>to</strong> <strong>of</strong>fer a word <strong>of</strong> sincere advice <strong>to</strong> ComradeKhrushchov. We hope you will become aware <strong>of</strong> your errorsand return from your wr<strong>on</strong>g path <strong>to</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.L<strong>on</strong>g live the great revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary teachings <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>, Engels,Lenin and Stalin!
IS YUGOSLAVIAA SOCIALIST COUNTRY?Third Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(September 26, 1963)
IS Yugoslavia a socialist country?This is not <strong>on</strong>ly a questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ascertaining the nature <strong>of</strong> theYugoslav state, but it also involves the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> which roadthe socialist countries should follow: whether they shouldfollow the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and carry the socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong> through <strong>to</strong> the end or follow the road <strong>of</strong>Yugoslavia and res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism. In additi<strong>on</strong>, it involvesthe questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> how <strong>to</strong> appraise the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique: whether it isa fraternal Party and a force against imperialism or a renegadefrom the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and a lackey <strong>of</strong>imperialism.On this questi<strong>on</strong> there are fundamental differences <strong>of</strong>opini<strong>on</strong> between the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand,and ourselves and all other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, <strong>on</strong> the other.All <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists hold that Yugoslavia is not a socialistcountry. The leading clique <strong>of</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Communists<strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia has betrayed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the Yugoslavpeople and c<strong>on</strong>sists <strong>of</strong> renegades from the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement and lackeys <strong>of</strong> imperialism.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, <strong>on</strong> the other hand, hold that Yugoslaviais a socialist country and that the League <strong>of</strong> Communists<strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia bases itself <strong>on</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism andis a fraternal Party and a force against imperialism.In its Open Letter <strong>of</strong> July 14 the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU declares that Yugoslavia is a “socialist country” andthat the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is a “fraternal Party” that “stands at thehelm <strong>of</strong> the ship <strong>of</strong> state”.Recently Comrade Khrushchov paid a visit <strong>to</strong> Yugoslaviaand in a number <strong>of</strong> speeches he revealed the real standpoint<strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU still more clearly, and completelydiscarded the fig-leaf with which they had been coveringthemselves <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong>.141
In Khrushchov’s opini<strong>on</strong>, Yugoslavia is not <strong>on</strong>ly a socialistcountry but an “advanced” socialist country. There, <strong>on</strong>efinds not “idle talk about revoluti<strong>on</strong>” but “actual c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> socialism’’, and the development <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia is “ac<strong>on</strong>crete c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the general world revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryworkers’ movement”, 1 which Khrushchov rather envies andwishes <strong>to</strong> emulate.In Khrushchov’s opini<strong>on</strong>, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and theTi<strong>to</strong>ites are “not <strong>on</strong>ly class brothers” but “brothers tied <strong>to</strong>gether. . . by the singleness <strong>of</strong> aims c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting us”. Theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is a “reliable and faithful ally” <strong>of</strong>the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique. 2Khrushchov believes he has discovered genuine <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism in the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique. The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU was merely pretending when it asserted in its OpenLetter that “differences <strong>on</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> fundamental ideologicalquesti<strong>on</strong>s still remain between the CPSU and theYugoslav League <strong>of</strong> Communists”. Now Khrushchov has<strong>to</strong>ld the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique that “we bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> <strong>on</strong>e and the sameidea and are guided by the same theory”, and that both stand<strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. 3Khrushchov has cast the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960 <strong>to</strong> the winds.The Statement says:The Communist Parties have unanimously c<strong>on</strong>demnedthe Yugoslav variety <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al opportunism, a variety<strong>of</strong> modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ist “theories” in c<strong>on</strong>centrated form.It says:After betraying <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, which they termedobsolete, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Communists <strong>of</strong> Yu-1N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Mass Rally in Velenje, Yugoslavia,August 30, 1963.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Meeting in a Fac<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> Rakovica,Yugoslavia, August 21, 1963.3N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Corresp<strong>on</strong>dents at Bri<strong>on</strong>i,Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963, as reported by Tanjug.142
goslavia opposed their anti-Leninist revisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme<strong>to</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957; they set the L.C.Y. against theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement as a whole. . . .It says:[The leaders <strong>of</strong> the L.C.Y. were] dependent <strong>on</strong> so-called“aid” from U.S. and other imperialists, and thereby exposedthe Yugoslav people <strong>to</strong> the danger <strong>of</strong> losing the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arygains achieved through a heroic struggle.It further says:The Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ists carry <strong>on</strong> subversive workagainst the socialist camp and the world communist movement.. . . they engage in activities which prejudice theunity <strong>of</strong> all the peace-loving forces and countries.The Statement is absolutely clear, and yet the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU dare <strong>to</strong> say: “In accordance with the 1960 Statement,we c<strong>on</strong>sider Yugoslavia a socialist country.” 1 Howcan they say such a thing!One would like <strong>to</strong> ask:Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, itis guided by a variety <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al opportunism, a variety<strong>of</strong> modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ist theories?Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, ithas betrayed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and sets itself against theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement as a whole?Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, itcarries <strong>on</strong> subversive work against the socialist camp and theworld communist movement?Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, itengages in activities which prejudice the unity <strong>of</strong> all thepeace-loving forces and countries?1“For the Vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> Creative <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and Against theRevisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Course <strong>of</strong> the World Communist Movement”, edi<strong>to</strong>rialboard article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 11, 1963.143
Can a country be socialist when the imperialist countriesheaded by the United States have nurtured it with severalbilli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> U.S. dollars?This is indeed out <strong>of</strong> the ordinary and unheard <strong>of</strong>!Apparently, Comrade Togliatti speaks more plainly thanComrade Khrushchov. Togliatti did not mince his words; hesaid the positi<strong>on</strong> taken by the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960 <strong>on</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique was “wr<strong>on</strong>g”. 1 Since Khrushchov is bent <strong>on</strong> reversingthe verdict <strong>on</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique, he should be more explicit;there is no need <strong>to</strong> pretend <strong>to</strong> uphold the Statement.Is the Statement’s verdict <strong>on</strong> Yugoslavia wr<strong>on</strong>g and shouldit be reversed? Togliatti says it is wr<strong>on</strong>g and should bereversed. Khrushchov in effect also says it is wr<strong>on</strong>g andshould be reversed. We say it is not wr<strong>on</strong>g and must not bereversed. All fraternal Parties adhering <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and upholding the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960 likewise sayit is not wr<strong>on</strong>g and must not be reversed.In doing so, in the opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, weare clinging <strong>to</strong> a “stereotyped formula” and <strong>to</strong> the “junglelaws” <strong>of</strong> the capitalist world 2 and are “ ‘excommunicating’Yugoslavia from socialism”. 3 Furthermore, whoever doesnot regard Yugoslavia as a socialist country is said <strong>to</strong> be goingc<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> facts and making the mistake <strong>of</strong> subjectivism, 4whereas in shutting their eyes <strong>to</strong> the facts and asserting thatYugoslavia is a socialist country they are “proceeding fromobjective laws, from the teaching <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism” andhave drawn a c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> based <strong>on</strong> “a pr<strong>of</strong>ound analysis <strong>of</strong>reality”. 51Palmiro Togliatti, “Let Us Lead the Discussi<strong>on</strong> Back <strong>to</strong> Its RealLimit”, L’Unita, January 10, 1963.2N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong>the USSR, December 1962.3Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> All Party Organizati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> All Communists <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, July 14, 1963.4Ibid.5N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong>the USSR, December 1962.144
What are the realities in Yugoslavia? What sort <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>ought <strong>on</strong>e <strong>to</strong> draw if <strong>on</strong>e proceeds from objective laws,from the teachings <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and makes a pr<strong>of</strong>oundanalysis <strong>of</strong> the realities in Yugoslavia?Let us now look in<strong>to</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong>.THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE CAPITALIN YUGOSLAV CITIESOne <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s arguments <strong>to</strong> affirm that Yugoslaviais a socialist country is that private capital, private enterpriseand capitalists do not exist in Yugoslavia.Is that true? No, it is not.The fact is private capital and private enterprise exist <strong>on</strong>a very big scale in Yugoslavia and are developing apace.Judging by the record in all socialist countries, it is notstrange <strong>to</strong> find different sec<strong>to</strong>rs, including a private capitalistsec<strong>to</strong>rs existing in the nati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>of</strong> a socialist countryfor a c<strong>on</strong>siderable period after the proletariat has taken politicalpower. What matters is the kind <strong>of</strong> policy adopted bythe government <strong>to</strong>wards private capitalism — the policy <strong>of</strong>utilizing, restricting, transforming and eliminating it, or thepolicy <strong>of</strong> laissez-faire and fostering and encouraging it. Thisis an important criteri<strong>on</strong> for determining whether a countryis developing <strong>to</strong>wards socialism or <strong>to</strong>wards capitalism.On this questi<strong>on</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is going in the oppositedirecti<strong>on</strong> from socialism. The social changes Yugoslavia introducedin the early post-war period were in the first placenot thoroughgoing. The policy the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has adoptedsince its open betrayal is not <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> transforming and eliminatingprivate capital and private enterprise but <strong>of</strong> fosteringand expanding them.Regulati<strong>on</strong>s issued by the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique in 1953 stipulate that“citizens’ groups” have the right <strong>to</strong> “found enterprises” and“hire labour”. In the same year, it issued a decree stipulat-145
ing that private individuals have the right <strong>to</strong> purchase fixedassets from state ec<strong>on</strong>omic establishments.In 1956 the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique encouraged local administrati<strong>on</strong>s t<strong>of</strong>oster private capital by its taxati<strong>on</strong> and other policies.In 1961 the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique decreed that private individualshave the right <strong>to</strong> purchase foreign exchange.In 1963 the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique embodied the policy <strong>of</strong> developingprivate capitalism in its c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>. According <strong>to</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>, private individuals in Yugoslavia mayfound enterprises and hire labour.With the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique’s help and encouragement, privateenterprise and private capital have mushroomed in the citiesin Yugoslavia.According <strong>to</strong> the <strong>of</strong>ficial Statistical Pocket-Book <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia,1963 published in Belgrade, there are over 115,000privately-owned craft establishments in Yugoslavia. But infact the owners <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> these private enterprises are not“craftsmen” but typical private capitalists.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique admits that although the law allows privateowners <strong>to</strong> employ a maximum <strong>of</strong> five workers each, there aresome who employ ten or twenty times as many and evensome who employ “five <strong>to</strong> six hundred workers”. 1 And theannual turnover <strong>of</strong> some private enterprises is over 100 milli<strong>on</strong>dinars. 2Politika disclosed <strong>on</strong> December 7, 1961 that in many casesthese private entrepreneurs are actually “big entrepreneurs”.It says:It is difficult <strong>to</strong> ascertain how wide the net <strong>of</strong> theseprivate entrepreneurs spreads and how many workers theyhave. According <strong>to</strong> the law, they are entitled <strong>to</strong> keep fiveworkers who are supposed <strong>to</strong> help them in their work. But<strong>to</strong> those who know the ins and outs <strong>of</strong> the matter, these fivepers<strong>on</strong>s are actually c<strong>on</strong>trac<strong>to</strong>rs who in turn have their own1M. Todorović, “The Struggle <strong>on</strong> Two Fr<strong>on</strong>ts”, Nasha Stvarnost,March issue, 1954.2Vesnik u sredu, December 27, 1961.146
‘sub-c<strong>on</strong>trac<strong>to</strong>rs’. . . . As a rule, these c<strong>on</strong>trac<strong>to</strong>rs no l<strong>on</strong>gerengage in labour but <strong>on</strong>ly give orders, make plans and c<strong>on</strong>cludec<strong>on</strong>tracts, travelling by car from <strong>on</strong>e enterprise <strong>to</strong>another.<strong>From</strong> the pr<strong>of</strong>its made by these entrepreneurs, <strong>on</strong>e can seethat they are <strong>on</strong>e hundred per cent capitalists. Svet reported<strong>on</strong> December 8, 1961 that “the net income <strong>of</strong> some privatehandicraftsmen reaches <strong>on</strong>e milli<strong>on</strong> dinars per m<strong>on</strong>th”, andthe Belgrade Večernje novosti said <strong>on</strong> December 20, 1961 thatin Belgrade “last year 116 owners <strong>of</strong> private enterprises eachreceived an income <strong>of</strong> more than 10 milli<strong>on</strong> dinars”. Someentrepreneurs “received an income <strong>of</strong> about 70 milli<strong>on</strong> dinars”in <strong>on</strong>e year, which is nearly U.S.$100,000 according <strong>to</strong> the<strong>of</strong>ficial rate <strong>of</strong> exchange.In Yugoslav cities not <strong>on</strong>ly are there private industrialenterprises, private service establishments, private commerce,private housing estates and private transport business, thereare also usurers, who are known as “private bankers”. Theseusurers operate openly and even advertise their business inthe newspapers; <strong>on</strong>e such advertisement runs as follows: “Aloan <strong>of</strong> 300,000 dinars for three m<strong>on</strong>ths <strong>of</strong>fered. 400,000 dinars<strong>to</strong> be returned. Security necessary.” 1All these are indisputable facts.We would like <strong>to</strong> ask those who are bent <strong>on</strong> reversing theverdict <strong>on</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique: Unless it is your intenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> deceive,how can you assert that Yugoslavia has no privatecapital, no private enterprise and no capitalists?YUGOSLAV COUNTRYSIDE SWAMPEDBY CAPITALISMLet us now c<strong>on</strong>sider the situati<strong>on</strong> in the Yugoslav countryside.Does it no l<strong>on</strong>ger have capitalists, as Khrushchov asserts?1Vesnik u sredu, December 6, 1961.147
No, the facts are quite the reverse.The fact that Yugoslavia has been swamped by capitalismis even more striking in the countryside.<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism teaches us that individual ec<strong>on</strong>omy,petty-producer ec<strong>on</strong>omy, generates capitalism daily and hourly,and that <strong>on</strong>ly collectivizati<strong>on</strong> can lead agriculture <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>the path <strong>of</strong> socialism.Stalin pointed out:Lenin says that so l<strong>on</strong>g as individual peasant ec<strong>on</strong>omy,which engenders capitalists and capitalism, predominatesin the country, the danger <strong>of</strong> a res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism willexist. Clearly, so l<strong>on</strong>g as this danger exists there can beno serious talk <strong>of</strong> the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> inour country. 1On this questi<strong>on</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique pursues a line runningcounter <strong>to</strong> socialism.In the initial post-war period a land reform <strong>to</strong>ok place inYugoslavia and a number <strong>of</strong> peasants’ working co-operativeswere organized. But in the main the rich-peasant ec<strong>on</strong>omywas left un<strong>to</strong>uched.In 1951 the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique openly declared its aband<strong>on</strong>ment <strong>of</strong>the road <strong>of</strong> agricultural collectivizati<strong>on</strong> and began <strong>to</strong> disbandthe peasants’ working co-operatives. This was a serious steptaken by the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique in betraying the socialist cause. Suchco-operatives decreased from over 6,900 in 1950 <strong>to</strong> a littlemore than 1,200 at the end <strong>of</strong> 1953, and <strong>to</strong> 147 in 1960. TheYugoslav countryside is submerged in a sea <strong>of</strong> individualec<strong>on</strong>omy.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique declares that collectivizati<strong>on</strong> has not proved<strong>of</strong> value in Yugoslavia. It makes the vicious slander that1J. V. Stalin, “Grain Procurements and the Prospects for the Development<strong>of</strong> Agriculture”, Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI,p. 8.148
“collectivizati<strong>on</strong> is the same as expropriati<strong>on</strong>” 1 and is a pathwhich “preserves serfdom and poverty in the countryside forthe l<strong>on</strong>gest possible time”. 2 It advocates the ridiculous ideathat the development <strong>of</strong> agriculture should be “based <strong>on</strong> thefree competiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic forces”. 3While dissolving many <strong>of</strong> the peasants’ working co-operatives,the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has promulgated <strong>on</strong>e law and decree afteranother since 1953 <strong>to</strong> encourage the development <strong>of</strong> capitalismin the rural areas, granting freedom <strong>to</strong> buy, sell and rent landand <strong>to</strong> hire farm hands, abolishing the planned purchase <strong>of</strong>agricultural produce and replacing it with free trading in thissphere.Under this policy, the forces <strong>of</strong> capitalism spread rapidly inthe rural areas and the process <strong>of</strong> polarizati<strong>on</strong> quickened.This has been an important aspect <strong>of</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique’s work<strong>of</strong> res<strong>to</strong>ring capitalism.Polarizati<strong>on</strong> in the countryside is firstly revealed in thechanges occurring in land ownership. Slavko Komar, formerlyYugoslav Secretary for Agriculture and Forestry, admitted thatin 1959 poorer peasant households with less than 5 hectares<strong>of</strong> land each, which c<strong>on</strong>stitute 70 per cent <strong>of</strong> all peasant households,owned <strong>on</strong>ly 43 per cent <strong>of</strong> all privately-owned land,whereas well-<strong>to</strong>-do peasant households with more than 8hectares <strong>of</strong> land each, which form <strong>on</strong>ly 13 per cent <strong>of</strong> all peasanthouseholds, owned 33 per cent <strong>of</strong> all privately-owned land.Komar also admitted that about 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> the peasanthouseholds bought or sold land every year. 4 Most <strong>of</strong> the sellerswere poorer families.1Edvard Kardelj, Opening Address at the Ninth Plenum <strong>of</strong> theFourth Federal Committee <strong>of</strong> the Socialist Alliance <strong>of</strong> the WorkingPeople <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia, May 5, 1959.2Vladimir Bakarić, Speech at the Sixth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the League<strong>of</strong> Communists <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia.3Edvard Kardelj, “On Some Problems <strong>of</strong> Our Policy in the Villages”Komunist, Belgrade, No. 4, 1953.4Slavko Komar, “Some Problems C<strong>on</strong>cerning the Countryside andthe Peasant Households”, Socializam, No. 5, 1962.149
The c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> land is actually much more seriousthan is apparent from the above data. As revealed in theJuly 19, 1963 issue <strong>of</strong> Borba, the organ <strong>of</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique, in<strong>on</strong>e district al<strong>on</strong>e there were “thousands <strong>of</strong> peasant householdswith far more than the legal maximum <strong>of</strong> 10 hectares <strong>of</strong> land”.In Bijeljina Commune, “it was found that five hundred peasanthouseholds owned estates <strong>of</strong> 10 <strong>to</strong> 30 hectares”. These are notisolated cases.Polarizati<strong>on</strong> in the rural areas also manifests itself in thegreat inequalities in the ownership <strong>of</strong> draught animals andfarm implements. Of the 308,000 peasant households in theprovince <strong>of</strong> Vojvodina, which is a leading grain-producingarea, 55 per cent have no draught animals. Peasant householdswith less than 2 hectares <strong>of</strong> land each, which c<strong>on</strong>stitute 40.7per cent <strong>of</strong> all peasant households, have <strong>on</strong>ly 4.4 per cent <strong>of</strong>all the ploughs in this regi<strong>on</strong>, or an average <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e plough<strong>to</strong> 20 households. On the other hand, the rich peasants ownmore than 1,300 trac<strong>to</strong>rs and a great deal <strong>of</strong> other farm machineryas well as large numbers <strong>of</strong> ploughs and animal-drawncarts. 1Polarizati<strong>on</strong> likewise manifests itself in the growth <strong>of</strong> suchforms <strong>of</strong> capitalist exploitati<strong>on</strong> as the hiring <strong>of</strong> labour.The February 7, 1958 issue <strong>of</strong> Komunist revealed that 52per cent <strong>of</strong> the peasant households in Serbia owning morethan 8 hectares <strong>of</strong> land hired labourers in 1956.In 1962 Slavko Komar said that the heads <strong>of</strong> some peasanthouseholds had in recent years “become powerful” and that“their income is derived not from their own labour but fromunlawful trade, from the processing <strong>of</strong> both their own productsand those <strong>of</strong> others, from illicit distilling <strong>of</strong> spirits, fromthe possessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> more than the prescribed maximum <strong>of</strong> 10hectares <strong>of</strong> farmland, which is obtained by purchasing, or more<strong>of</strong>ten by leasing land, fictitious partiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> land am<strong>on</strong>g familymembers, seizure or c<strong>on</strong>cealment <strong>of</strong> public land, from the1The Yugoslav journal Index, No. 2, 1962.150
acquisiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> trac<strong>to</strong>rs through speculati<strong>on</strong> and from the exploitati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> poor neighbours by cultivating their land forthem”. 1Borba stated <strong>on</strong> August 30, 1962 that “the so-called kindheartedproducer . . . is a leaseholder <strong>of</strong> land, a hirer <strong>of</strong>labour and an experienced merchant. . . . Such people arenot producers, but entrepreneurs. Some never <strong>to</strong>uch a hoe allthe year round. They hire labour and <strong>on</strong>ly supervise the workin the field and they engage in trading”.Usurers, <strong>to</strong>o, are very active in the Yugoslav countryside.Interest rates <strong>of</strong>ten run <strong>to</strong> more than 100 per cent per annum.In additi<strong>on</strong>, there are people who, taking advantage <strong>of</strong> theplight <strong>of</strong> the unemployed, m<strong>on</strong>opolize the labour market andpractise exploitati<strong>on</strong> in the process.Deprived <strong>of</strong> land and other means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>, largenumbers <strong>of</strong> poverty-stricken peasants can live <strong>on</strong>ly by sellingtheir labour power. According <strong>to</strong> figures given in Politika <strong>of</strong>August 20, 1962, about 70 per cent <strong>of</strong> the 1961 cash income <strong>of</strong>Yugoslav peasant households with less than 2 hectares <strong>of</strong>land came from selling their labour power. These peasantsare fleeced right and left and lead a miserable life.As facts show, the Yugoslav countryside is dominated by theexploiting class.In arguing that Yugoslavia is a socialist country, the OpenLetter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU states that the“socialist sec<strong>to</strong>r” in the rural areas <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia has increasedfrom 6 <strong>to</strong> 15 per cent.Unfortunately, even this pitiable percentage is not socialist.By the socialist sec<strong>to</strong>r <strong>of</strong> 15 per cent the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUcan <strong>on</strong>ly mean such organizati<strong>on</strong>s as the “agricultural farms”and “general agricultural co-operatives” promoted by the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique. But in fact the “agricultural farms” are capitalist farmsand the “general agricultural co-operatives” are capitalistec<strong>on</strong>omic organizati<strong>on</strong>s engaging mainly in commerce. They1Slavko Komar, op. cit.151
do not affect the private ownership <strong>of</strong> land; what is more, theirmain functi<strong>on</strong> is <strong>to</strong> foster the development <strong>of</strong> the rich-peasantec<strong>on</strong>omy.Problems <strong>of</strong> Agriculture in Yugoslavia, a work published inBelgrade, states that “judging by how they are organized <strong>to</strong>dayand how they functi<strong>on</strong>”, the co-operatives “do not in the leastsignify socialist rec<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> agriculture and <strong>of</strong> thecountryside. They are working not so much for the creati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> socialist str<strong>on</strong>gholds as for the development and promoti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> capitalist elements. There are cases in which these cooperativesare kulak associati<strong>on</strong>s”.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has given the “general agricultural cooperatives”the m<strong>on</strong>opoly right <strong>to</strong> purchase agricultural productsfrom the peasants. Taking advantage <strong>of</strong> this specialprivilege and <strong>of</strong> unc<strong>on</strong>trolled fluctuati<strong>on</strong>s in prices <strong>of</strong> farmproduce, the so-called co-operatives speculate and throughsuch commercial activities exploit the peasants in a big way.In 1958 Yugoslavia had a poor harvest. The co-operativesand other commercial organs <strong>to</strong>ok the opportunity <strong>to</strong> raisethe selling prices <strong>of</strong> farm produce. The year 1959 brought abetter harvest and the co-operatives broke their c<strong>on</strong>tracts withthe peasants and reduced their purchases, not even hesitating<strong>to</strong> let the crops rot in the fields.The “general agricultural co-operatives” and the “agriculturalfarms” hire and exploit a large number <strong>of</strong> l<strong>on</strong>g-term andtemporary workers. According <strong>to</strong> data in The Statistical Year-Book <strong>of</strong> the Federal People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia <strong>of</strong> 1962,l<strong>on</strong>g-term workers hired by the “cooperatives” al<strong>on</strong>e <strong>to</strong>talledmore than 100,000 in 1961. A large number <strong>of</strong> temporaryworkers were also employed. As disclosed by Rad <strong>on</strong> December1, 1962, hired labourers “are very <strong>of</strong>ten subject <strong>to</strong> the crudestexploitati<strong>on</strong> (the working day may be as l<strong>on</strong>g as 15 hours),and usually their pers<strong>on</strong>al income is extremely low”.It is thus clear that these agricultural organizati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> theso-called socialist sec<strong>to</strong>r are nothing but capitalist agriculturalorganizati<strong>on</strong>s.152
Expropriati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> poorer peasants and promoti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalistfarms form the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique’s basic policy in the sphere <strong>of</strong>agriculture. Back in 1955, Ti<strong>to</strong> said:We do not aband<strong>on</strong> the idea that the day will come inYugoslavia when small farms will be combined in <strong>on</strong>e wayor another. . . . In America they have already d<strong>on</strong>e so.We must find a soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> this problem.In order <strong>to</strong> take the capitalist path, in 1959 the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliquepromulgated the Law <strong>on</strong> the Utilizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Cultivated Land,stipulating that the land <strong>of</strong> peasants working <strong>on</strong> their own,who cannot farm it according <strong>to</strong> requirements, is subject <strong>to</strong> the“compulsory management” <strong>of</strong> the “general agricultural cooperatives”and “agricultural farms”. In effect, this means theexpropriati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> poorer peasants and the forcible annexati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> their land <strong>to</strong> develop capitalist farms. This is the path <strong>of</strong>capitalist agriculture, pure and simple.In speaking <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> from small peasant ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>to</strong>an ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>of</strong> large-scale farming, Stalin said:There you have two paths, the capitalist path and thesocialist path: the path forward — <strong>to</strong> socialism, and the pathbackward — <strong>to</strong> capitalism.Is there a third path? Stalin said, “The so-called third pathis actually the sec<strong>on</strong>d path, the path leading back <strong>to</strong> capitalism.”“For what does it mean <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> individual farmingand <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re the kulaks? It means res<strong>to</strong>ring kulak b<strong>on</strong>dage,res<strong>to</strong>ring the exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the peasantry by the kulaks andgiving the kulaks power. But is it possible <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re thekulaks and at the same time <strong>to</strong> preserve the Soviet power?No, it is not possible. The res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the kulaks is bound<strong>to</strong> lead <strong>to</strong> the creati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a kulak power and <strong>to</strong> the liquidati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Soviet power — hence, it is bound <strong>to</strong> lead <strong>to</strong> the formati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> a bourgeois government. And the formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> abourgeois government is bound <strong>to</strong> lead in its turn <strong>to</strong> the153
es<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the landlords and capitalists, <strong>to</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> capitalism.” 1The path taken by Yugoslavia in agriculture during thepast ten years and more is precisely the path <strong>of</strong> res<strong>to</strong>ringcapitalism.All these are indisputable facts.We would like <strong>to</strong> ask those who are bent <strong>on</strong> reversing theverdict <strong>on</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique: Unless it is your intenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> deceive,how can you assert that there are no capitalists in Yugoslavia?THE DEGENERATION OF SOCIALIST ECON-OMY OWNED BY THE WHOLE PEOPLEINTO CAPITALIST ECONOMYThe res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in Yugoslavia manifests itselfnot <strong>on</strong>ly in the fact that private capitalism is spreading freelyboth in the cities and in the countryside. Still more important,the “public” enterprises, which play a decisive role in theYugoslav ec<strong>on</strong>omy, have degenerated.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique’s ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>of</strong> “workers’ self-government”is state capitalism <strong>of</strong> a peculiar kind. It is not state capitalismunder c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat butstate capitalism under c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in which the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique hasturned the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in<strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie. The means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the enterprises under “workers’ self-government”do not bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> <strong>on</strong>e or more private capitalists but <strong>to</strong> thenew type <strong>of</strong> bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia,which includes the bureaucrats and managers and which theTi<strong>to</strong> clique represents. Usurping the name <strong>of</strong> the state, depending<strong>on</strong> U.S. imperialism and disguising itself under the cloak <strong>of</strong>1J. V. Stalin, “Speech Delivered at the First All-Uni<strong>on</strong> C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong>Collective-Farm Shock Brigaders”, Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,1955, Vol. XIII, p. 248.154
socialism, this bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie has robbedthe working people <strong>of</strong> the property originally bel<strong>on</strong>ging <strong>to</strong>them. In reality, “workers’ self-government” is a system <strong>of</strong>ruthless exploitati<strong>on</strong> under the dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> bureaucratcompradorcapital.Since 1950, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has issued a series <strong>of</strong> decreesinstituting “workers’ self-government” in all state-owned fac<strong>to</strong>ries,mines and other enterprises in communicati<strong>on</strong>s,transport, trade, agriculture, forestry and public utilities. Theessence <strong>of</strong> “workers’ self-government” c<strong>on</strong>sists <strong>of</strong> handingover the enterprises <strong>to</strong> “working collectives”, with each enterpriseoperating independently, purchasing its own rawmaterials, deciding <strong>on</strong> the variety, output and prices <strong>of</strong> itsproducts and marketing them, and determining its own wagescale and the divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> part <strong>of</strong> its pr<strong>of</strong>its. Yugoslav decreesfurther stipulate that ec<strong>on</strong>omic enterprises have the right <strong>to</strong>buy, sell or lease fixed assets.In the enterprises under “workers’ self-government”,ownership is described by the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique as “a higher form<strong>of</strong> socialist ownership”. They assert that <strong>on</strong>ly with “workers’self-government” can <strong>on</strong>e “really build socialism”.This is sheer decepti<strong>on</strong>.Theoretically speaking, as any<strong>on</strong>e with a slight knowledge<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism knows, slogans like “workers’ self-government”and “fac<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>to</strong> the workers” have never been <strong>Marx</strong>ist slogansbut slogans advanced by anarchist syndicalists, bourgeoissocialists and old-line opportunists and revisi<strong>on</strong>ists.The theory <strong>of</strong> “workers’ self-government” and “fac<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>to</strong>the workers” runs counter <strong>to</strong> the fundamental <strong>Marx</strong>ist theory<strong>of</strong> socialism. It was completely refuted by the classical <strong>Marx</strong>istwriters l<strong>on</strong>g ago.As <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels pointed out in the Communist Manifes<strong>to</strong>,“The proletariat will use its political supremacy <strong>to</strong> wrest, bydegrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, <strong>to</strong> centralise all instruments<strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> in the hands <strong>of</strong> the State. . . .”155
Engels wrote in Anti-Dühring, “The proletariat seizes politicalpower and turns the means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> in<strong>to</strong> stateproperty.”Having seized political power, the proletariat must c<strong>on</strong>centratethe means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> in the hands <strong>of</strong> the state <strong>of</strong>the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. This is a fundamentalprinciple <strong>of</strong> socialism.In the early period <strong>of</strong> Soviet power following the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong> when some people advocated handing the fac<strong>to</strong>riesover <strong>to</strong> the producers so that they could “organize producti<strong>on</strong>”directly, Lenin sternly criticized this view, saying that in realityit meant oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.He acutely pointed out:. . . Any direct or indirect legalizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the possessi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> their own producti<strong>on</strong> by the workers <strong>of</strong> individual fac<strong>to</strong>riesor individual pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>s or <strong>of</strong> their right <strong>to</strong> weaken or impedethe decrees <strong>of</strong> the state power is the greatest dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the basic principles <strong>of</strong> Soviet power and the complete renunciati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> socialism. 1It is thus clear that “workers’ self-government” has nothing<strong>to</strong> do with socialism.In fact, the “workers’ self-government” <strong>of</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliquedoes not provide self-government <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the workers;it is a hoax.The enterprises under “workers’ self-government” are actuallyin the clutches <strong>of</strong> the new bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisierepresented by the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique. It c<strong>on</strong>trols the enterprises’property and pers<strong>on</strong>nel and takes away much thegreater part <strong>of</strong> their income.Through the banks the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique c<strong>on</strong>trols the credit <strong>of</strong> theentire country and the investment funds and liquid capital<strong>of</strong> all enterprises and supervises their financial affairs.1V. I. Lenin, “On the Democracy and Socialist Character <strong>of</strong> theSoviet Power”.156
The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique plunders the income <strong>of</strong> these enterprises byvarious means, such as the collecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> taxes and interest.According <strong>to</strong> the statistics <strong>of</strong> the “Report <strong>on</strong> the Work in 1961by the Federal Executive Council <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia”, it <strong>to</strong>ok awayabout three-quarters <strong>of</strong> the enterprises’ net income in thisway.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique seizes the fruits <strong>of</strong> the people’s labour whichit appropriates chiefly for meeting the extravagant expenses <strong>of</strong>this clique <strong>of</strong> bureaucrats, for maintaining its reacti<strong>on</strong>ary rule,for strengthening the apparatus which suppresses the workingpeople, and for paying tribute <strong>to</strong> the imperialists in the form<strong>of</strong> the servicing <strong>of</strong> foreign debts.Moreover, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique c<strong>on</strong>trols these enterprises throughtheir managers. The managers are nominally chosen by competiti<strong>on</strong>by the enterprises but are in fact appointed by theTi<strong>to</strong> clique. They are agents <strong>of</strong> the bureaucrat-compradorbourgeoisie in these enterprises.In the enterprises under “workers’ self-government”, the relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween managers and workers are actually relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween employers and employees, between the exploiters andthe exploited.As matters stand, the managers can determine the producti<strong>on</strong>plans and the directi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> these enterprises,dispose <strong>of</strong> the means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>, take the decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> thedistributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the enterprises’ income, hire or fire workersand overrule the resoluti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the workers’ councils ormanagement boards.Abundant informati<strong>on</strong> published in the Yugoslav pressproves that the workers’ council is merely formal, a kind <strong>of</strong>voting machine, and that all power in the enterprise is in thehands <strong>of</strong> the manager.The fact that the manager <strong>of</strong> an enterprise c<strong>on</strong>trols itsmeans <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> and the distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> its income enableshim <strong>to</strong> appropriate the fruits <strong>of</strong> the workers’ labour by means<strong>of</strong> various privileges.157
The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique itself admits that in these enterprises thereis a wide gap between managers and workers not <strong>on</strong>ly in wagesbut also in b<strong>on</strong>uses. In some enterprises, the b<strong>on</strong>uses <strong>of</strong> themanagers and higher staff are forty times those <strong>of</strong> the workers.“In certain enterprises, the <strong>to</strong>tal amount <strong>of</strong> the b<strong>on</strong>us whicha group <strong>of</strong> leaders received is equal <strong>to</strong> the wage fund <strong>of</strong> theentire collective.” 1Moreover, the managers <strong>of</strong> the enterprises use their privileges<strong>to</strong> make a lot <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>ey by various subterfuges. Bribery,embezzlement and theft are still bigger sources <strong>of</strong> income forthe managers.The broad masses <strong>of</strong> the workers live in poverty. Thereis no guarantee <strong>of</strong> employment. Large numbers <strong>of</strong> workerslose their jobs with the closing down <strong>of</strong> enterprises. According<strong>to</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial statistics, in February 1963 the number <strong>of</strong> the unemployedreached 339,000, or about 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> the number<strong>of</strong> the employed. In additi<strong>on</strong>, every year many workers goabroad seeking work.Politika admitted <strong>on</strong> September 25, 1961 that “there existsa great gap between some workers and <strong>of</strong>fice employees; theformer look up<strong>on</strong> the latter as ‘bureaucrats’ who ‘swallow up’their wages”.These facts show that in the Yugoslav enterprises under“workers’ self-government”, a new social group has come in<strong>to</strong>being c<strong>on</strong>sisting <strong>of</strong> the few who appropriate the fruits <strong>of</strong>labour <strong>of</strong> the many. It is an important comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> the newbureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie in Yugoslavia.By promoting “workers’ self-government”, the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliquehas completely pushed the enterprises originally owned bythe whole people <strong>of</strong>f the path <strong>of</strong> socialist ec<strong>on</strong>omy.The main manifestati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> this are the following:First, the aband<strong>on</strong>ment <strong>of</strong> unified ec<strong>on</strong>omic planning by thestate.1Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the L.C.Y. <strong>to</strong> Its Organizati<strong>on</strong>sand Leaderships at All Levels, February 17, 1958.158
Sec<strong>on</strong>d, the use <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>its as the primary incentive in theoperati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the enterprises. They may adopt a variety <strong>of</strong>methods <strong>to</strong> increase their income and pr<strong>of</strong>its. In other words, inthe enterprises under “workers’ self-government” the aim <strong>of</strong>producti<strong>on</strong> is not <strong>to</strong> meet the needs <strong>of</strong> society but <strong>to</strong> seek pr<strong>of</strong>its,just as in any capitalist enterprise.Third, the pursuance <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> encouraging capitalistfree competiti<strong>on</strong>. Ti<strong>to</strong> has said <strong>to</strong> the managers <strong>of</strong> the enterprises,“Competiti<strong>on</strong> at home will be beneficial <strong>to</strong> our ordinarypeople, the c<strong>on</strong>sumers.” The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique also openly declaresthat it allows “competiti<strong>on</strong>, the seeking <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>its, speculati<strong>on</strong>and the like” because “they play a positive role in promotingthe initiative <strong>of</strong> the producers, their collective, the communes,etc.”. 1Fourth, the use <strong>of</strong> credit and the banks as important levers<strong>to</strong> promote capitalist free competiti<strong>on</strong>. In granting loans, theTi<strong>to</strong> regime’s credit and banking system invites tenders forinvestment. Whoever is capable <strong>of</strong> repaying the loan in theshortest period and paying the highest rate <strong>of</strong> interest willobtain the loan. In their words, this is “<strong>to</strong> use competiti<strong>on</strong> asthe usual method <strong>of</strong> allocating investment credits”. 2Fifth, relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the enterprises are not socialist relati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> mutual support and co-ordinati<strong>on</strong> under a unified governmentplan but capitalist relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> competiti<strong>on</strong> and rivalryin a free market.All this has undermined the very foundati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialistplanned ec<strong>on</strong>omy.Lenin said:Socialism . . . is inc<strong>on</strong>ceivable without planned stateorganizati<strong>on</strong> which subjects tens <strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> people <strong>to</strong>1Vladimir Bakarić, Report <strong>to</strong> the Fourth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the League<strong>of</strong> Communists <strong>of</strong> Croatia, April 7, 1959.2Augustin Papié, “Investment Financing in Yugoslavia”, Annals <strong>of</strong>Collective Ec<strong>on</strong>omy, Belgrade, April-November 1959.159
the strictest observance <strong>of</strong> a single standard in producti<strong>on</strong>and distributi<strong>on</strong>. 1He also said:. . . without all-sided state accounting and c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong>producti<strong>on</strong> and distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> goods, the power <strong>of</strong> the <strong>to</strong>ilers,the freedom <strong>of</strong> the <strong>to</strong>ilers, cannot be maintained, and. . . a return <strong>to</strong> the yoke <strong>of</strong> capitalism is inevitable. 2Under the signboard <strong>of</strong> “workers’ self-government”, all theec<strong>on</strong>omic departments and enterprises in Yugoslavia are lockedin fierce capitalist competiti<strong>on</strong>. It is quite comm<strong>on</strong> for theenterprises under “workers’ self-government” <strong>to</strong> engage inembezzlement, speculati<strong>on</strong> and hoarding, <strong>to</strong> inflate prices,bribe, hide technical secrets, grab technical pers<strong>on</strong>nel andeven <strong>to</strong> attack <strong>on</strong>e another in the press or over the radio inrivalry for markets and pr<strong>of</strong>its.The fierce competiti<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g Yugoslav enterprises goes <strong>on</strong>not <strong>on</strong>ly in the home market but also in foreign trade. TheYugoslav press says that it is not unusual for twenty or thirtyagents <strong>of</strong> Yugoslav foreign trade establishments <strong>to</strong> visit thesame market abroad, compete am<strong>on</strong>g themselves for business,and take away the others’ cus<strong>to</strong>mers or suppliers. “<strong>From</strong>selfish motives”, these enterprises engaged in foreign tradeseek <strong>to</strong> “make pr<strong>of</strong>its at any cost” and “is not choosy abouttheir means”.A result <strong>of</strong> this fierce competiti<strong>on</strong> is chaos in the Yugoslavmarket. Prices vary c<strong>on</strong>siderably not <strong>on</strong>ly in different citiesor regi<strong>on</strong>s but also in different shops in the same place, andeven for the same kind <strong>of</strong> goods from the same producer. Inorder <strong>to</strong> maintain high prices, some enterprises do not hesitate<strong>to</strong> destroy large quantities <strong>of</strong> farm produce.1V. I. Lenin, “ ‘Left-Wing’ Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York,1943, Vol. VII, p. 365.2V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks Of the Soviet Government”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943,Vol. VII, p. 327.160
Another result <strong>of</strong> this fierce competiti<strong>on</strong> is the closing down<strong>of</strong> large numbers <strong>of</strong> enterprises in Yugoslavia. According <strong>to</strong>informati<strong>on</strong> provided by the Official Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the FPRY, fivehundred <strong>to</strong> six hundred enterprises closed down annually inrecent years.All this shows that the “public” ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia isgoverned not by the laws <strong>of</strong> socialist planned ec<strong>on</strong>omy but bythose <strong>of</strong> capitalist competiti<strong>on</strong> and anarchy <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>. TheTi<strong>to</strong> clique’s enterprises under “workers’ self-government”are not socialist but capitalist in nature.We would like <strong>to</strong> ask those who are bent <strong>on</strong> reversing theverdict <strong>on</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique: Unless it is your intenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>deceive, how can you describe the state capitalist ec<strong>on</strong>omyc<strong>on</strong>trolled by the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie as a socialistec<strong>on</strong>omy?A DEPENDENCY OF U.S. IMPERIALISMThe process <strong>of</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in Yugoslaviais interwoven with the process in which the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique hasbecome subservient <strong>to</strong>wards U.S. imperialism and Yugoslaviahas degenerated in<strong>to</strong> a U.S. imperialist dependency.With its betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliqueembarked <strong>on</strong> the shameful course <strong>of</strong> selling out the sovereignty<strong>of</strong> the state and living <strong>of</strong>f the alms <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.According <strong>to</strong> incomplete statistics, from the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>World War II <strong>to</strong> January 1963 the United States and otherimperialist powers extended <strong>to</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique “aid” <strong>to</strong>tallingsome U.S. $5,460 milli<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong> which more than 60 per cent, orabout $3,500 milli<strong>on</strong>, was U.S. “aid”. The greatest part <strong>of</strong>this U.S. aid was granted after 1950.U.S. aid has been the mainstay <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia’s finances andec<strong>on</strong>omy. Official statistics show that in 1961 the loans the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique obtained from the United States and U.S.-c<strong>on</strong>trolledinternati<strong>on</strong>al financial organizati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong>talled U.S. $346 milli<strong>on</strong>,161
or 47.4 per cent <strong>of</strong> the federal budgetary income <strong>of</strong> Yugoslaviain that year. With the inclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aid from other Westerncountries, the m<strong>on</strong>ey received by the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique from Westerncountries in 1961 <strong>to</strong>talled U.S. $493 milli<strong>on</strong>, or 67.6 per cent<strong>of</strong> the federal budgetary income in that year.In order <strong>to</strong> obtain U.S. aid, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has c<strong>on</strong>cluded aseries <strong>of</strong> trai<strong>to</strong>rous treaties with the United States.The notes exchanged between Yugoslavia and the UnitedStates in 1951 c<strong>on</strong>cerning the Agreement Relating <strong>to</strong> MutualDefense Assistance stipulated that U.S. Government <strong>of</strong>ficialshave the “freedom . . . , without restricti<strong>on</strong>”, <strong>to</strong> observe andsupervise the receipt and distributi<strong>on</strong> in Yugoslavia <strong>of</strong> U.S.military aid material and has “full access <strong>to</strong> communicati<strong>on</strong>and informati<strong>on</strong> facilities”. The agreement also requiredYugoslavia <strong>to</strong> provide the United States with strategic rawmaterials.The Agreement Regarding Military Assistance signed betweenYugoslavia and the United States in 1951 stipulated thatYugoslavia should “make the full c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> . . . <strong>to</strong> thedevelopment and maintenance <strong>of</strong> the defensive Strength <strong>of</strong>the free world” and should be ready <strong>to</strong> provide troops forthe United Nati<strong>on</strong>s. Under this agreement the military missi<strong>on</strong>sent by the United States was <strong>to</strong> directly supervise thetraining <strong>of</strong> Yugoslav troops.The Yugoslav-U.S. Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Co-operati<strong>on</strong> Agreement <strong>of</strong>1952 stipulated that Yugoslavia must use U.S. aid for “furtheringfundamental individual human rights, freedoms and democraticinstituti<strong>on</strong>s”, that is, for furthering capitalism.In 1954 Yugoslavia c<strong>on</strong>cluded a Treaty <strong>of</strong> Alliance, PoliticalCo-operati<strong>on</strong> and Mutual Assistance with Greece and Turkey,both members <strong>of</strong> NATO. The treaty provided for military anddiplomatic co-ordinati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g the three countries, thus makingYugoslavia a virtual member <strong>of</strong> the U.S.-c<strong>on</strong>trolled militarybloc.Since 1954 Yugoslavia has c<strong>on</strong>cluded a series <strong>of</strong> agreementswith the United States, selling out its sovereignty. More than162
fifty such agreements were signed in the period between 1957and 1962.Because <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> these treaties and agreementsand because the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has made Yugoslavia dependent <strong>on</strong>U.S. imperialism, the United States enjoys the following rightsin Yugoslavia:(1) <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol its military affairs;(2) <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol its foreign affairs;(3) <strong>to</strong> interfere in its internal affairs;(4) <strong>to</strong> manipulate and supervise its finance;(5) <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol its foreign trade;(6) <strong>to</strong> plunder its strategic resources; and(7) <strong>to</strong> collect military and ec<strong>on</strong>omic intelligence.The independence and sovereignty <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia have thusbeen aucti<strong>on</strong>ed <strong>of</strong>f by the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique.In additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> selling out Yugoslavia’s sovereign rights in aseries <strong>of</strong> unequal treaties with the United States, the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique, in order <strong>to</strong> secure U.S. aid, has taken <strong>on</strong>e step afteranother in domestic and foreign policy <strong>to</strong> comply with Westernm<strong>on</strong>opoly capital’s demand <strong>to</strong> penetrate Yugoslavia.Starting from 1950 the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique abolished the m<strong>on</strong>opoly<strong>of</strong> foreign trade by the state.The Act <strong>on</strong> Foreign Trade Activities promulgated in 1953permitted enterprises <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct foreign trade independentlyand <strong>to</strong> have direct transacti<strong>on</strong>s with Western m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalistenterprises.In 1961 the Ti<strong>to</strong> regime introduced reforms in the systems <strong>of</strong>foreign exchange and foreign trade. Their main c<strong>on</strong>tent wasthe further relaxati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> restricti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> import and exporttrade. Complete liberalizati<strong>on</strong> was effected in the import <strong>of</strong>major semi-processed materials and certain c<strong>on</strong>sumers goods,and restricti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the import <strong>of</strong> other commodities were relaxedin varying degrees. Restricti<strong>on</strong>s were removed <strong>on</strong> thesupply <strong>of</strong> foreign exchange needed for so-called unrestrictedimports.163
Everybody knows that state m<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>of</strong> foreign trade is abasic principle <strong>of</strong> socialism.Lenin said that the industrial proletariat “is absolutely notin a positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> recover our industry and <strong>to</strong> make Russia anindustrial country without the protecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> industry, whichin no way refers <strong>to</strong> its protecti<strong>on</strong> by cus<strong>to</strong>ms policy, but solelyand exclusively refers <strong>to</strong> its protecti<strong>on</strong> by m<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>of</strong> foreigntrade.” 1Stalin said that “the m<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>of</strong> foreign trade is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> theunshakable foundati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the platform <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Government”and that the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the m<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>of</strong> foreign tradewould mean “aband<strong>on</strong>ing the industrializati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the country”,“flooding the U.S.S.R. with goods from capitalist countries”,and “transforming our country from an independent countryin<strong>to</strong> a semi-col<strong>on</strong>ial <strong>on</strong>e”. 2To abolish the state m<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>of</strong> foreign trade, as the Ti<strong>to</strong>regime has d<strong>on</strong>e, is <strong>to</strong> throw the door wide open <strong>to</strong> imperialistm<strong>on</strong>opoly capital.What are the ec<strong>on</strong>omic c<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>of</strong> the fact that theTi<strong>to</strong> clique receives large amounts <strong>of</strong> U.S. aid and keepsYugoslavia’s door wide open <strong>to</strong> imperialism?First, Yugoslavia has become a market for imperialistdumping.Huge quantities <strong>of</strong> industrial goods and farm produce fromthe imperialist countries have flooded the Yugoslav market.In pursuit <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>its the Yugoslav comprador capitalists, whomake piles <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>ey by serving foreign m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital, keep<strong>on</strong> importing commodities even though they can be producedat home and even when s<strong>to</strong>cks are huge. Politika admitted <strong>on</strong>July 25, 1961 that it “was everywhere evident” that Yugoslavindustry “was suffering blows from the c<strong>on</strong>tinuous and verycomplicated competiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreign industry”.1V. I. Lenin, “On the M<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>of</strong> Foreign Trade”, Collected Works,Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 420.2J. V. Stalin, “Interview with the First American Labour Delegati<strong>on</strong>”,Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. X, pp. 115 and 116.164
Sec<strong>on</strong>dly, Yugoslavia has become an outlet for imperialistinvestment.Many Yugoslav industrial enterprises have been built with“aid” from the United States and other imperialist countries.A great deal <strong>of</strong> foreign private m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital has penetratedin<strong>to</strong> Yugoslavia. According <strong>to</strong> Augustin Papié, the generalmanager <strong>of</strong> the Yugoslav Investment Bank, in the period between1952 and 1956 “the participati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreign fundsreached 32.5 per cent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>to</strong>tal value <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic investments”.U.S. Secretary <strong>of</strong> State Dean Rusk said <strong>on</strong> February5, 1962 that Yugoslavia’s source <strong>of</strong> capital was “largely in theWest.”Thirdly, Yugoslavia has become a base from which imperialismextracts raw materials.In accordance with the Agreement Regarding Military Assistance,the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has since 1951 c<strong>on</strong>tinually suppliedthe United States with large quantities <strong>of</strong> strategic raw materials.According <strong>to</strong> the Statistical Year-Book <strong>of</strong> the FederalPeople’s Republic <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia <strong>of</strong> 1961, about half <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia’sexports <strong>of</strong> important metals, such as magnesium, lead,zinc and antim<strong>on</strong>y, have g<strong>on</strong>e <strong>to</strong> the United States since 1957.Fourthly, the industrial enterprises <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia have becomeassembly shops for Western m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalist companies.Many major Yugoslav industries produce under licence fromWestern countries and are dependent <strong>on</strong> imports <strong>of</strong> semiprocessedmaterials, parts, spare parts and semi-manufacturedproducts. The producti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> these industries is under the c<strong>on</strong>trol<strong>of</strong> Western m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital.In fact, many <strong>of</strong> the industrial products sold as home productsin Yugoslavia are assembled from imported ready-madeparts and have Yugoslav trade marks attached. Vesnik u sredu<strong>of</strong> April 25, 1962 said that “some <strong>of</strong> our industrial enterprisesare becoming a special type <strong>of</strong> commercial organizati<strong>on</strong>, whichdoes not produce but assembles, <strong>on</strong>ly sticking its own trademark <strong>on</strong> the products <strong>of</strong> others”.165
In these circumstances, Yugoslavia has become an integralpart <strong>of</strong> the world market <strong>of</strong> Western m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital. In thefinancial and ec<strong>on</strong>omic spheres it is tightly bound <strong>to</strong> the capitalistworld market and has degenerated in<strong>to</strong> a dependency<strong>of</strong> imperialism, and particularly <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.When a socialist country sells out its independence andsovereign rights and becomes an imperialist appendage, theres<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the capitalist system is the inevitable result.The special road <strong>of</strong> building “socialism” by relying <strong>on</strong> U.S.aid advertised by the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is nothing but a road for turninga socialist system in<strong>to</strong> a capitalist system <strong>to</strong> meet the needs<strong>of</strong> imperialism, a road <strong>of</strong> degenerati<strong>on</strong> from an independentcountry in<strong>to</strong> a semi-col<strong>on</strong>y.Khrushchov insists that this dependency <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialismis “building socialism”. This is fantastic. A self-styled socialismhaving U.S. aid as its trade mark is a new variety <strong>to</strong> beadded <strong>to</strong> the bogus brands <strong>of</strong> socialism, which were criticizedby <strong>Marx</strong>, Engels and Lenin, and this is presumably a greatc<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> Ti<strong>to</strong> and Khrushchov in “creativelydeveloping the theory <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism”.A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SPECIALDETACHMENT OF U.S. IMPERIALISMJudging by the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary role played by theTi<strong>to</strong> clique in internati<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>s and by its reacti<strong>on</strong>aryforeign policy, Yugoslavia is still farther from being a socialistcountry.In the internati<strong>on</strong>al arena the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is a special detachment<strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism for sabotaging the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>.By setting the example <strong>of</strong> res<strong>to</strong>ring capitalism in Yugoslavia,the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is helping U.S. imperialism <strong>to</strong> push its policy <strong>of</strong>“peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>” inside the socialist countries.Under the signboard <strong>of</strong> a socialist country, the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliqueis frantically opposing and disrupting the socialist camp and166
serving as an active agent in the anti-Chinese campaign.Under the cover <strong>of</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-alignment and active coexistencethe Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is trying <strong>to</strong> wreck the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movementin Asia, Africa and Latin America and is serving U.Sneo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique spares no effort <strong>to</strong> prettify U.S. imperialismand benumb the people <strong>of</strong> the world in their struggle againstthe imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> war and aggressi<strong>on</strong>.Under the pretext <strong>of</strong> opposing “Stalinism”, the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliqueis peddling revisi<strong>on</strong>ist pois<strong>on</strong> everywhere and opposing revoluti<strong>on</strong>by the people in all countries.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has invariably played the role <strong>of</strong> a lackey <strong>of</strong>U.S. imperialism in the major internati<strong>on</strong>al events <strong>of</strong> the pastten years and more.1. The revoluti<strong>on</strong> in Greece. On July 10, 1949 Ti<strong>to</strong> closedthe border between Yugoslavia and Greece against the Greekpeople’s guerrillas. At the same time, he allowed the Greekfascist royalist troops <strong>to</strong> pass through Yugoslav terri<strong>to</strong>ry inorder <strong>to</strong> attack the guerrillas from the rear. In this way theTi<strong>to</strong> clique helped the U.S.-British imperialists <strong>to</strong> strangle theGreek people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>.2. The Korean War. In a statement issued <strong>on</strong> September6, 1950, Edvard Kardelj, who was then foreign minister,brazenly slandered the Korean people’s just war <strong>of</strong> resistance<strong>to</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and defended U.S. imperialism. On December1, speaking at the U.N. Security Council, the representative<strong>of</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique attacked China for its “active interferencein the Korean War”. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique also voted in the UnitedNati<strong>on</strong>s for the embargo <strong>on</strong> China and Korea.3. The Vietnamese people’s war <strong>of</strong> liberati<strong>on</strong>. On the eve<strong>of</strong> the Geneva C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>on</strong> Indo-China in April 1954, theTi<strong>to</strong> clique violently slandered the just struggle <strong>of</strong> the Vietnamesepeople, asserting that they were being used by Moscowand Peking “as a card in their post-war policy <strong>of</strong> cold war”. 11Borba, April 23, 1954.167
They said <strong>of</strong> the Vietnamese people’s great battle <strong>to</strong> liberateDien Bien Phu that it was “not a gesture <strong>of</strong> goodwill”. 14. Subversi<strong>on</strong> against Albania. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has beencarrying <strong>on</strong> subversive activities and armed provocati<strong>on</strong>sagainst socialist Albania for a l<strong>on</strong>g time. It has engineered fourmajor cases <strong>of</strong> treas<strong>on</strong>, in 1944, 1948, 1956 and 1960. Its armedprovocati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the Yugoslav-Albanian border numbered morethan 470 from 1948 <strong>to</strong> 1958. In 1960 the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique and theGreek reacti<strong>on</strong>aries planned an armed attack <strong>on</strong> Albania inco-ordinati<strong>on</strong> with the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean.5. The counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary rebelli<strong>on</strong> in Hungary. TheTi<strong>to</strong> clique played a shameful role <strong>of</strong> an interventi<strong>on</strong>ist provocateurin the Hungarian counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary rebelli<strong>on</strong> inOc<strong>to</strong>ber 1956. After the outbreak <strong>of</strong> the rebelli<strong>on</strong>, Ti<strong>to</strong> publisheda letter supporting the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary measures<strong>of</strong> the trai<strong>to</strong>r Nagy. On November 3 the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique badeNagy seek asylum in the Yugoslav Embassy in Hungary. Ina speech <strong>on</strong> November 11, Ti<strong>to</strong> characterized the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryrebelli<strong>on</strong> as resistance by “progressives” and impudentlyquesti<strong>on</strong>ed whether the “course <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia” or the“course <strong>of</strong> Stalinism” would win.6. The Middle Eastern events. In 1958 troops were sentby U.S. imperialism <strong>to</strong> occupy Leban<strong>on</strong> and by British imperialism<strong>to</strong> occupy Jordan. There arose a world-wide wave<strong>of</strong> protest demanding the immediate withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the U.S.and British troops. At the emergency sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the U.N. <strong>General</strong>Assembly <strong>on</strong> the Middle Eastern situati<strong>on</strong>, Koča Popović,State Secretary for Foreign Affairs <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia, said that“it is not a questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> whether we insist <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>demning orapproving the acti<strong>on</strong>s taken by the United States and GreatBritain”. He advocated interventi<strong>on</strong> by the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s,an organizati<strong>on</strong> which is under the c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.7. The event in the Taiwan Straits. In the autumn <strong>of</strong> 1958,the Chinese People’s Liberati<strong>on</strong> Army shelled Quemoy in1Borba, May 8, 1954.168
order <strong>to</strong> counter the U.S. imperialist provocati<strong>on</strong>s in the TaiwanStraits and <strong>to</strong> punish the Chiang Kai-shek gang, whichis a U.S. imperialist lackey. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique maligned China’sjust struggle as “a danger <strong>to</strong> the whole world” 1 and “harmful<strong>to</strong> peace”. 28. The U-2 incident. In 1960 the United States sent a U-2spy plane <strong>to</strong> intrude in<strong>to</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and sabotaged thefour-power summit c<strong>on</strong>ference scheduled <strong>to</strong> be held in Paris.On May 17 Ti<strong>to</strong> issued a statement attacking the correct standthen taken by the Soviet Government as creating “such largescaledisputes”.9. The Japanese people’s patriotic struggle against theUnited States. In June 1960 the Japanese people waged a justand patriotic struggle against the United States, which wasunprecedented in its scale. But the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique defended U.S.imperialism, saying that the U.S. occupati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Japan “promotedthe democratizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> political life in Japan”. 3 Subsequently,it attacked the statement <strong>of</strong> Inejiro Asanuma, the latePresident <strong>of</strong> the Japanese Socialist Party, that “U.S. imperialismis the comm<strong>on</strong> enemy <strong>of</strong> the Japanese and Chinese peoples”,accusing him <strong>of</strong> “standing for an extremist line”. 410. The struggle <strong>of</strong> the Ind<strong>on</strong>esian people. The Ti<strong>to</strong> cliquetried <strong>to</strong> sabotage the Ind<strong>on</strong>esian people’s struggle against imperialism.It engaged in base activities in an effort <strong>to</strong> preventthe establishment <strong>of</strong> a “Nasakom” cabinet in Ind<strong>on</strong>esia, thatis, a government <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al unity comprising the nati<strong>on</strong>alists,religious circles and the Communists.11. The C<strong>on</strong>go event. In the summer <strong>of</strong> 1960, when U.S.imperialism carried out armed aggressi<strong>on</strong> in the C<strong>on</strong>go underthe flag <strong>of</strong> the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique not <strong>on</strong>ly votedfor U.S. imperialism in the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s but, in accordancewith the desire <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism, sent air force pers<strong>on</strong>nel1Slobodni Dom, September 4, 1958.2Slovenski Porocevalec, September 9, 1958.3Komunist, Belgrade, June 2, 1960.4Foreign Political Bulletin, February 1, 1962.169
<strong>to</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>go <strong>to</strong> take a direct part in the bloody suppressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the C<strong>on</strong>golese people.12. The Laotian questi<strong>on</strong>. When U.S. imperialism steppedup its interventi<strong>on</strong> in Laos in January 1961, the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliquespread the view that the United States “is really c<strong>on</strong>cerned forthe peace and neutralizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Laos”. 1 When U.S. imperialismengineered political assassinati<strong>on</strong>s and armed c<strong>on</strong>flicts in Laosin May 1963, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique attacked the Laotian patrioticforces for “putting all the blame <strong>on</strong> the United States”. 213. The U.S. Alliance for Progress programme. In August1961 the United States forced various Latin American countries<strong>to</strong> sign the Alliance for Progress programme, which was a newU.S. imperialist instrument for the enslavement <strong>of</strong> the LatinAmerican people. This programme <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> was str<strong>on</strong>glyopposed by the Latin American people but was praised by theTi<strong>to</strong> clique as “meeting in a large measure the requirements<strong>of</strong> the Latin American countries”. 314. The Sino-Indian border c<strong>on</strong>flict. Ever since the Indianreacti<strong>on</strong>aries created tensi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the Sino-Indian border in 1959,the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has c<strong>on</strong>sistently supported the expansi<strong>on</strong>ism,aggressi<strong>on</strong> and provocati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Indian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries againstChina. It openly spread the lie that “the demarcati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theboundary was already completed at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the presentcentury and put in<strong>to</strong> the shape <strong>of</strong> the well-knownMcMah<strong>on</strong> <strong>Line</strong>”, 4 and did its best <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fuse right and wr<strong>on</strong>g,making the slander that China “permits itself <strong>to</strong> revise itsborder with India wilfully and by force” 5 and “committed aggressi<strong>on</strong>”against India. 615. The Cuban revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Caribbean crisis. The Ti<strong>to</strong>clique has made numerous comments attacking Cuba, saying1Borba, January 13, 1961.2Politika, May 5, 1963.3Komunist, Belgrade, August 17, 1961.4Rad, September 12, 1959.5Borba, December 26, 1960.6Politika, September 3, 1959.170
that Cuba “believes <strong>on</strong>ly in revoluti<strong>on</strong>” 1 and that the Cubanrevoluti<strong>on</strong> is “not so much a model as an excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the road<strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>”. 2 During the Caribbean crisis in the autumn <strong>of</strong>1962, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique defended U.S. imperialist aggressi<strong>on</strong>,saying that “the difficulties started when the Cuban revoluti<strong>on</strong>trod <strong>on</strong> the pet corns <strong>of</strong> the U.S. companies”, 3 and that“if it is said that the United States was irritated by the establishment<strong>of</strong> rocket bases in Cuba, in its close neighbourhood,that would be understandable”. 4<strong>From</strong> all this, people cannot fail <strong>to</strong> see that for the past tenyears and more the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has desperately opposed thesocialist countries, tried <strong>to</strong> sabotage the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement, maligned the anti-imperialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle<strong>of</strong> the people in all countries and actively served imperialismand especially U.S. imperialism.Khrushchov has said repeatedly that there is “unanimity”and “accord” between the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique in their positi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al problems. 5 Well, thenwe would like <strong>to</strong> ask whether or not there is unanimity or accordbetween your activities and the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>arycrimes <strong>of</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique. Please answer, if you have thecourage.THE DEGENERATION OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THEPROLETARIAT INTO THE DICTATORSHIPOF THE BOURGEOISIEIn the final analysis, the fact that capitalism has swampedYugoslavia in both <strong>to</strong>wn and country, the degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> an1The Rebelli<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Cuba, Belgrade, November 1962.2Politika, January 1, 1963.3Komunist, Belgrade, September 13, 1962.4Politika, November 13, 1962.5N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Mass Rally in Split, Yugoslavia,August 24, 1963.171
ec<strong>on</strong>omy owned by the whole people in<strong>to</strong> a state capitalistec<strong>on</strong>omy and the decline <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia in<strong>to</strong> a dependency <strong>of</strong>U.S. imperialism are all due <strong>to</strong> the degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Partyand state power in Yugoslavia.Fighting heroically against the German and Italian fascistaggressors during World War II, the Communist Party andpeople <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia overthrew the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary rule <strong>of</strong> imperialismand its lackey in Yugoslavia and established the people’sdemocratic state power under the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Not l<strong>on</strong>g afterwards, the leading group <strong>of</strong> the YugoslavCommunist Party betrayed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and embarked<strong>on</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, bringing about the gradual degenerati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Party and state power in Yugoslavia.The Yugoslav Communist Party had a glorious traditi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles. The betrayal <strong>of</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique metfirst <strong>of</strong> all with str<strong>on</strong>g resistance inside the Party. To suppressthis resistance, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique used its power <strong>to</strong> expel andpurge from the Party a great number <strong>of</strong> Communists loyal <strong>to</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. In the period from 1948 <strong>to</strong> 1952 al<strong>on</strong>e,more than 200,000 Party members, or half the original membership<strong>of</strong> the Yugoslav Communist Party, were expelled.Taking acti<strong>on</strong> against the so-called Cominform elements, itarrested and slaughtered large numbers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistsand revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cadres and people, the number <strong>of</strong> Communistsand active revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries arrested and impris<strong>on</strong>ed al<strong>on</strong>eexceeding thirty thousand. At the same time, the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliqueopened the door wide <strong>to</strong> counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries, bourgeoiselements, all kinds <strong>of</strong> anti-socialist elements and careeristsseeking positi<strong>on</strong> and wealth through their membership cards.In November 1952 the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique declared that “the appellati<strong>on</strong>Party no l<strong>on</strong>ger fits” and changed the name, the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia, in<strong>to</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Communists<strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia. In violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the will <strong>of</strong> all h<strong>on</strong>est Communistsin Yugoslavia, it changed the character <strong>of</strong> the YugoslavCommunist Party as the vanguard <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and made172
the L.C.Y. the virtual instrument for maintaining its dicta<strong>to</strong>rialrule.In the socialist countries, state power is under the leadership<strong>of</strong> communist political parties. With the degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> acommunist in<strong>to</strong> a bourgeois political party, state power inevitablydegenerates from the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in<strong>to</strong>the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie.The state power <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat inYugoslavia was the fruit <strong>of</strong> the protracted and heroic struggle<strong>of</strong> the Yugoslav people. But as the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique turned renegade,this state power changed its nature.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has declared, “The means <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arydicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, i.e., <strong>of</strong> the socialist statesystem, become increasingly unnecessary.” 1But is there no dicta<strong>to</strong>rship in Yugoslavia any l<strong>on</strong>ger? Yes,there is. While the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is indeed nomore, the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie not <strong>on</strong>ly exists, butis a brutal fascist dicta<strong>to</strong>rship at that.The Ti<strong>to</strong> regime has set up many fascist pris<strong>on</strong>s and c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong>camps, where tens <strong>of</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries havebeen <strong>to</strong>rtured <strong>to</strong> death by every kind <strong>of</strong> inhuman punishment.At the same time, the Ti<strong>to</strong> regime has pard<strong>on</strong>ed large numbers<strong>of</strong> counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries and trai<strong>to</strong>rs in the anti-fascist war.Replying <strong>to</strong> a United Press corresp<strong>on</strong>dent <strong>on</strong> January 7, 1951,Ti<strong>to</strong> admitted that 11,000 political pris<strong>on</strong>ers had been pard<strong>on</strong>edin Yugoslavia. On March 13, 1962 another 150,000 counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ariesliving in exile abroad were pard<strong>on</strong>ed. Thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship over these enemies <strong>of</strong> the people was indeedabolished and they have obtained “democracy”. Whateverfine-sounding phrases the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique may use, its “democracy”is <strong>on</strong>ly a democracy for the small number <strong>of</strong> old and newbourgeois elements; for the working people it is out-and-outdicta<strong>to</strong>rship. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has transformed the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystate machinery, which was built up <strong>to</strong> suppress the small1Edvard Kardelj, “The New C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Socialist Yugoslavia”,Borba, September 29, 1962.173
minority <strong>of</strong> exploiters, in<strong>to</strong> a state machinery for suppressingthe proletariat and the broad masses.The degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the state power in Yugoslavia occurrednot through the overthrow <strong>of</strong> the original state power by violenceand the establishment <strong>of</strong> a new state power, but through“peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>”. In appearance, the same people remainin power, but in essence these people no l<strong>on</strong>ger represent theinterests <strong>of</strong> the workers, peasants and the working people butthose <strong>of</strong> imperialism and the old and new bourgeoisie <strong>of</strong>Yugoslavia.Utilizing state power and c<strong>on</strong>trolling the ec<strong>on</strong>omic lifeline<strong>of</strong> the country, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique exploited the Yugoslav workingpeople <strong>to</strong> the utmost extent and brought in<strong>to</strong> being abureaucrat-capitalist class. Being dependent <strong>on</strong> U.S. imperialism,this class is str<strong>on</strong>gly comprador in character and is alsoa comprador capitalist class. The state power c<strong>on</strong>trolled bythe Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is that <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bureaucratcompradorbourgeoisie.The above facts show from various aspects that the policypursued by the Ti<strong>to</strong> regime is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> res<strong>to</strong>ring and developingcapitalism, namely, <strong>of</strong> reducing Yugoslavia <strong>to</strong> a semi-col<strong>on</strong>yor a dependency.The degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the state power in Yugoslavia has led<strong>to</strong> the destructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the socialist ec<strong>on</strong>omic system and theres<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a capitalist ec<strong>on</strong>omic system. When a newbureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie has gradually come in<strong>to</strong>being with the re-establishment <strong>of</strong> the capitalist ec<strong>on</strong>omic systemin a new form, it demands the intensificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisdicta<strong>to</strong>rship and the development <strong>of</strong> a political systemsuited <strong>to</strong> the capitalist ec<strong>on</strong>omic system so as <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate itsruling positi<strong>on</strong>.This is how the process from the degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Partyand state power <strong>to</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in the entiresocial and ec<strong>on</strong>omic system has been realized step by step inYugoslavia. The process <strong>of</strong> degenerati<strong>on</strong> has g<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> for fif-174
teen years. This is the record <strong>of</strong> how a socialist state “peacefullyevolves” in<strong>to</strong> a capitalist state.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique maintains its rule in Yugoslavia by relying<strong>on</strong> U.S. imperialist support, the state machine <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie, the labouraris<strong>to</strong>cracy bought by it, and the rich peasants in the countryside.At the same time, it uses various cunning means<strong>to</strong> disguise its reacti<strong>on</strong>ary features and hoodwink the people.But its reacti<strong>on</strong>ary policies are extremely unpopular. Thedegenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the socialist state in<strong>to</strong> a capitalist state, thedegenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> an independent country in<strong>to</strong> a semi-col<strong>on</strong>y ora dependency <strong>of</strong> imperialism, runs counter <strong>to</strong> the basic interests<strong>of</strong> the Yugoslav people, and cannot but be opposed byall the h<strong>on</strong>est Communists and the overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong>the people <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia.We are in deep sympathy with the people and Communists<strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia in their present predicament. Although the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique can ride roughshod over the people for a time, we arec<strong>on</strong>fident that whatever high-handed measures and whatevertricks <strong>of</strong> decepti<strong>on</strong> it may resort <strong>to</strong>, no ruling group will come<strong>to</strong> a good end <strong>on</strong>ce it is against the people. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is<strong>of</strong> course no excepti<strong>on</strong>. The deceived people will graduallywake up in the end. The people and Communists <strong>of</strong> Yugoslaviawho have a glorious his<strong>to</strong>ry will not submit <strong>to</strong> therenegade Ti<strong>to</strong> clique for ever. The future <strong>of</strong> the Yugoslavpeople is bright.THE PRINCIPLED STAND OF THE CPC ONTHE QUESTION OF YUGOSLAVIAThe Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUasserts that for a time “the CPC leaders had no doubts as <strong>to</strong>the nature <strong>of</strong> the socialist system in Yugoslavia”, and thatnow the Chinese leaders have “changed their positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> theYugoslavian questi<strong>on</strong> so drastically”.175
True, Yugoslavia was <strong>on</strong>ce a socialist state. For a time thecountry advanced al<strong>on</strong>g the path <strong>of</strong> socialism.But so<strong>on</strong> after, owing <strong>to</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique’s betrayal, the Yugoslavsocial system began <strong>to</strong> degenerate step by step.In 1954, when Khrushchov proposed <strong>to</strong> improve relati<strong>on</strong>swith Yugoslavia, we agreed <strong>to</strong> treat it as a fraternal socialistcountry for the purpose <strong>of</strong> winning it back <strong>to</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> socialismand watching how the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique would develop.We did not entertain very much hope for the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliqueeven then. In its letter <strong>of</strong> June 10, 1954 <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPCpointed out that the fact should be taken in<strong>to</strong> account that asthe leaders <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia had already g<strong>on</strong>e quite far in theirdealings with imperialism, they might reject our effort <strong>to</strong> winit over and refuse <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> socialism; “but eventhough this should occur, it would not involve any politicalloss <strong>to</strong> the camp <strong>of</strong> peace, democracy and socialism — <strong>on</strong> thec<strong>on</strong>trary, it would further expose the hypocrisy <strong>of</strong> the Yugoslavleaders before the people <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia and <strong>of</strong> the world.”Unfortunately, our words have proved all <strong>to</strong>o true! Indeedthe Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has flatly rejected our effort <strong>to</strong> win it over andg<strong>on</strong>e farther and farther al<strong>on</strong>g the path <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.After it refused <strong>to</strong> sign the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>, the Ti<strong>to</strong> cliqueput forward its out-and-out revisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme in 1958 andset this banner <strong>of</strong> modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism against the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong>which is the comm<strong>on</strong> programme acknowledged byall Communist and Workers’ Parties. The process <strong>of</strong> res<strong>to</strong>ringcapitalism in Yugoslavia has been realized step by step.And internati<strong>on</strong>ally, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is serving more and moreenergetically as a counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary special detachment<strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.In these circumstances, the attitude every <strong>Marx</strong>ist-LeninistParty should take <strong>to</strong>wards the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique is no l<strong>on</strong>ger the <strong>on</strong>eit should take <strong>to</strong>wards a fraternal Party or a fraternal country,nor should it be that <strong>of</strong> winning the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique over, but itshould be <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> thoroughly exposing and firmly combating176
this gang <strong>of</strong> renegades. The 1960 Statement has given its clearc<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> this point.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hasdeliberately evaded the series <strong>of</strong> important events which occurredafter the meeting <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties in November1957 and also the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s unanimously reached at themeeting <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties in 1960, and tries <strong>to</strong> defendthe err<strong>on</strong>eous stand <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU by quotinga sentence from the edi<strong>to</strong>rial <strong>on</strong> Yugoslavia in Renmin Ribao<strong>of</strong> September 12, 1957. This is futile.The facts prove that our positi<strong>on</strong> with regard <strong>to</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique c<strong>on</strong>forms with reality, is a principled positi<strong>on</strong>, and is inaccord with the comm<strong>on</strong> agreement <strong>of</strong> the meeting <strong>of</strong> thefraternal Parties in 1960. On the other hand, the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU have tried in a thousand and <strong>on</strong>e ways <strong>to</strong> reversethe verdict <strong>on</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique, which testifies <strong>to</strong> their betrayal<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, their aband<strong>on</strong>ment <strong>of</strong> the 1960 Statement,and their rendering <strong>of</strong> assistance <strong>to</strong> the U.S. imperialistsand their lackeys in deceiving the people <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia and <strong>of</strong>the whole world.HAS TITO “REMOVED HIS ERRORS”? OR DOESKHRUSHCHOV REGARD TITO AS HIS TEACHER?Khrushchov says that the Yugoslav leaders have removedvery much <strong>of</strong> what was c<strong>on</strong>sidered err<strong>on</strong>eous. But the Ti<strong>to</strong>itesdo not admit that they have committed any errors, much lessremoved them. The Ti<strong>to</strong>ites say that they have “no need” <strong>to</strong>correct any error 1 and that “it would just be a waste <strong>of</strong> time” 2and “simply superfluous and ridiculous” <strong>to</strong> expect them <strong>to</strong> doso. 31J. B. Ti<strong>to</strong>, Speech at the Belgrade Railway Stati<strong>on</strong>, December 20, 1962.2J. B. Ti<strong>to</strong>, Speech at the Seventh C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Communists<strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia, April 1958.3J. B. Ti<strong>to</strong>, Speech at the Belgrade Railway Stati<strong>on</strong>, December 20, 1962.177
Let us look at the facts. Have the Ti<strong>to</strong>ites changed theirrevisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme? No, they have not. Have they acceptedthe 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement? No, theyhave not. Have they changed their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist domestic andforeign policies? Again, no.The new c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> adopted by the Yugoslav Federal People’sAssembly in April 1963 most clearly shows that the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique has not in the least changed its revisi<strong>on</strong>ist stand. Thec<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> is the legal embodiment <strong>of</strong> the out-and-out revisi<strong>on</strong>istprogramme <strong>of</strong> the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique. Edvard Kardelj said inhis report <strong>on</strong> the draft <strong>of</strong> the new c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> that it is the“legal-political and organizati<strong>on</strong>al embodiment” <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>cepts<strong>of</strong> the programme <strong>of</strong> the L.C.Y.Khrushchov is warmly fraternizing with the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique notbecause it has corrected any <strong>of</strong> its errors but because he isfollowing in Ti<strong>to</strong>’s footsteps.C<strong>on</strong>sider the following facts:1. Ti<strong>to</strong> denounces Stalin in order <strong>to</strong> oppose <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismin its very fundamentals. Khrushchov completely negatesStalin for the same purpose.2. Both Ti<strong>to</strong> and Khrushchov repudiate the fundamentaltheories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, both malign as dogmatists theChinese and other Communists who firmly uphold <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and both describe their own revisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism as a “creative development” <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.3. Both Ti<strong>to</strong> and Khrushchov laud the chieftains <strong>of</strong> U.S.imperialism. Ti<strong>to</strong> says that Eisenhower “is a man who persistentlydefends peace”, 1 and that Kennedy’s effort “will behelpful <strong>to</strong> the improvement <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>to</strong>the peaceful settlement <strong>of</strong> pressing world problems”. 2 Khrushchovsays that Eisenhower “has a sincere desire for peace”, 31J. B. Ti<strong>to</strong>, Talk with a New York Times Commenta<strong>to</strong>r, February28, 1958.2J. B. Ti<strong>to</strong>, Message <strong>of</strong> Greetings <strong>to</strong> J. F. Kennedy, Borba, January 21,1961.3N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong>the USSR, May 1960.178
and that Kennedy “shows solicitude for the preservati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>peace”. 14. Both Ti<strong>to</strong> and Khrushchov play up the horrors <strong>of</strong> nuclearwar in order <strong>to</strong> intimidate the people <strong>of</strong> the world in<strong>to</strong> aband<strong>on</strong>ingrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle. Ti<strong>to</strong> says that <strong>on</strong>ce a nuclearwar breaks out, it will be the “annihilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> mankind”. 2Likewise, Khrushchov says that <strong>on</strong>ce a nuclear war breaks out,“we will destroy our Noah’s Ark — the globe”. 35. Both Ti<strong>to</strong> and Khrushchov preach that a world withoutweap<strong>on</strong>s, without armed forces and without wars can bebrought in<strong>to</strong> being while imperialism still exists.6. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique proclaims that “active peaceful coexistence”is the cornerst<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia’s foreign policy, 4while Khrushchov declares that peaceful coexistence is the“general line <strong>of</strong> the foreign policy” <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. 57. Both Ti<strong>to</strong> and Khrushchov proclaim that the possibility<strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism has increased.The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique says that “mankind is irresistiblyentering a l<strong>on</strong>g way in<strong>to</strong> the era <strong>of</strong> socialism through differentways”. 6 Khrushchov says that the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>can be replaced by the “parliamentary road”.8. Ti<strong>to</strong> advocates the introducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> “political and ec<strong>on</strong>omicintegrati<strong>on</strong> 7 <strong>of</strong> the world through “peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>”.Khrushchov also advocates “all-round co-operati<strong>on</strong>”with imperialism through “peaceful ec<strong>on</strong>omic competiti<strong>on</strong>”.1N. S. Khrushchov, Letter <strong>to</strong> J. F. Kennedy, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 27, 1962.2J. B. Ti<strong>to</strong>, Report <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Federal People’s Assembly<strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia, April 19, 1958.3N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Austro-Soviet Society,July 2, 1960.4Koča Popović, Report <strong>on</strong> Foreign Policy <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the FederalPeople’s Assembly <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia, Borba, February 27, 1957.5N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, February1956.6Programme <strong>of</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Communists <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia.7J. B. Ti<strong>to</strong>, Replies <strong>to</strong> Questi<strong>on</strong>s by Washingt<strong>on</strong> Post Corresp<strong>on</strong>dentDrew Pears<strong>on</strong>, Borba, August 12, 1962.179
9. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique sabotages the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movementand nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> wars in every way. Khrushchovopposes the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement and nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>wars <strong>on</strong> the pretext that “any small ‘local war’ mightspark <strong>of</strong>f the c<strong>on</strong>flagrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a world war”. 110. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique has renounced the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat. Under the slogan <strong>of</strong> “the state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”,Khrushchov also renounces the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat.11. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique denies that the Communist Party shouldbe the vanguard <strong>of</strong> the working class. Likewise, Khrushchovsays that the CPSU “has become a party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”. 212. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique, flaunting the “n<strong>on</strong>-bloc” label, is opposingthe socialist camp. Khrushchov also says that “expressi<strong>on</strong>slike blocs etc., are temporary phenomena”. 3 They bothwant <strong>to</strong> liquidate the socialist camp.<strong>From</strong> these facts <strong>on</strong>e must c<strong>on</strong>clude that, both in domesticand foreign policy, Khrushchov really regards Ti<strong>to</strong> as histeacher and is sliding down the path <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism hard <strong>on</strong>Ti<strong>to</strong>’s heels.Khrushchov has aband<strong>on</strong>ed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, scrappedthe 1960 Statement and wallowed in the mire with the renegadeTi<strong>to</strong> clique, in complete violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, the Soviet people and the people <strong>of</strong> thewhole world. This will not be <strong>to</strong>lerated by the great Sovietpeople, the overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> the members <strong>of</strong> theCPSU and cadres at various levels, all <strong>of</strong> whom have a gloriousrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary traditi<strong>on</strong>.The great Soviet people and the membership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwill never agree with Khrushchov’s collusi<strong>on</strong> with the Ti<strong>to</strong>1N. S. Khrushchov, Statement at the Press C<strong>on</strong>ference in Vienna,July 8, 1960.2N. S. Khrushchov, “On the Programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU”, delivered atthe 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1961.3N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Corresp<strong>on</strong>dents at Bri<strong>on</strong>iin Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963.180
clique in oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the fraternal Parties which uphold<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.The great Soviet people and the membership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwill never agree with Khrushchov’s collusi<strong>on</strong> with the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique and collaborati<strong>on</strong> with imperialism in opposing socialistChina, Albania and other fraternal countries and in disruptingthe socialist camp.The great Soviet people and the membership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwill never agree with Khrushchov’s collusi<strong>on</strong> with the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique and collaborati<strong>on</strong> with the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countriesin oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the world and <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>.The great Soviet people and the membership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUwill never agree with Khrushchov’s efforts <strong>to</strong> follow theexample <strong>of</strong> the Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, change the nature <strong>of</strong> theParty and the state and pave the way for the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>capitalism.Khrushchov has caused dark clouds <strong>to</strong> overcast the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>, the first socialist country in the world. But this can<strong>on</strong>ly be an interlude in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and <strong>of</strong> theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. People who are deceived and hoodwinked fora time will gradually wake up in the end. His<strong>to</strong>ry has c<strong>on</strong>firmed,and will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>firm, that whoever wants <strong>to</strong>turn back the Soviet people in their advance is like the grasshopperin the fable which wanted <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>p the chariot. He willnever succeed in his aim.BRIEF CONCLUSIONThe res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in Yugoslavia provides a newhis<strong>to</strong>rical less<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.This less<strong>on</strong> shows us that when the working class has seizedpower, struggle c<strong>on</strong>tinues between the bourgeoisie and theproletariat, struggle for vic<strong>to</strong>ry c<strong>on</strong>tinues between the tworoads <strong>of</strong> capitalism and socialism, and there is a danger that181
capitalism may be res<strong>to</strong>red. Yugoslavia presents a typicalexample <strong>of</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism.It shows us that not <strong>on</strong>ly is it possible for a working-classparty <strong>to</strong> fall under the c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong> a labour aris<strong>to</strong>cracy, degeneratein<strong>to</strong> a bourgeois party and become a flunkey <strong>of</strong> imperialismbefore it seizes power, but even after it seizes powerit is possible for a working-class party <strong>to</strong> fall under the c<strong>on</strong>trol<strong>of</strong> new bourgeois elements, degenerate in<strong>to</strong> a bourgeois partyand become a flunkey <strong>of</strong> imperialism. The League <strong>of</strong> Communists<strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia typifies such degenerati<strong>on</strong>.It shows us that the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in a socialistcountry can be achieved not necessarily through a counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>arycoup d’état or armed imperialist invasi<strong>on</strong> andthat it can also be achieved through the degradati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theleading group in that country. The easiest way <strong>to</strong> capture afortress is from within. Yugoslavia provides a typical casein point.It shows us that revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is the product <strong>of</strong> imperialistpolicy. Old-line revisi<strong>on</strong>ism arose as a result <strong>of</strong> the imperialistpolicy <strong>of</strong> buying over and fostering a labour aris<strong>to</strong>cracy. Modernrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism has arisen in the same way. Sparing no cost,imperialism has now extended the scope <strong>of</strong> its operati<strong>on</strong>s andis buying over leading groups in socialist countries and pursuesthrough them its desired policy <strong>of</strong> “peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>”. U.S.imperialism regards Yugoslavia as the “bellwether” because ithas set an example in this respect.The res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in Yugoslavia will make all<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists see better and enable people <strong>to</strong> realizemore keenly the necessity and urgency <strong>of</strong> combating modernrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism.So l<strong>on</strong>g as imperialism exists, there is apparently no groundfor saying that the danger <strong>of</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism inthe socialist countries has been eliminated.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU proclaim that they have alreadyeliminated the danger <strong>of</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism and arebuilding communism. If this were true, it would <strong>of</strong> course be182
heartening. But we see that in fact they are imitating Yugoslaviain every way and have taken a most dangerous road.This deeply worries and pains us.Out <strong>of</strong> our warm love for the great Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and thegreat CPSU, we would like sincerely <strong>to</strong> appeal <strong>to</strong> the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU: Comrades and friends! Do not follow the Yugoslavroad. Turn back at <strong>on</strong>ce. Or it will be <strong>to</strong>o late!
APOLOGISTSOF NEO-COLONIALISM?Fourth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 22, 1963)
great revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary s<strong>to</strong>rm has spread through Asia,A Africa and Latin America since World War II. Independencehas been proclaimed in more than fifty Asian and Africancountries. China, Viet Nam, Korea and Cuba have takenthe road <strong>of</strong> socialism. The face <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica has underg<strong>on</strong>e a tremendous change.While revoluti<strong>on</strong> in the col<strong>on</strong>ies and semi-col<strong>on</strong>ies sufferedserious setbacks after World War I owing <strong>to</strong> suppressi<strong>on</strong> by theimperialists and their lackeys, the situati<strong>on</strong> after World War IIis fundamentally different. The imperialists are no l<strong>on</strong>gerable <strong>to</strong> extinguish the prairie fire <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>. Theirold col<strong>on</strong>ial system is fast disintegrating. Their rear has becomea fr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> raging anti-imperialist struggles. Imperialistrule has been overthrown in some col<strong>on</strong>ial and dependentcountries, and in others it has suffered heavy blows and is <strong>to</strong>ttering.This inevitably weakens and shakes the rule <strong>of</strong> imperialismin the metropolitan countries.The vic<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>of</strong> the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in Asia, Africa andLatin America, <strong>to</strong>gether with the rise <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp,sound a triumphant paean <strong>to</strong> our day and age.The s<strong>to</strong>rm <strong>of</strong> the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong> in Asia, Africa andLatin America requires every political force in the world <strong>to</strong>take a stand. This mighty revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary s<strong>to</strong>rm makes the imperialistsand col<strong>on</strong>ialists tremble and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people<strong>of</strong> the world rejoice. The imperialists and col<strong>on</strong>ialists say,“Terrible, terrible!” The revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people say, “Fine,fine!” The imperialists and col<strong>on</strong>ialists say, “It is rebelli<strong>on</strong>,which is forbidden.” The revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people say, “It is revoluti<strong>on</strong>,which is the people’s right and an inexorable current<strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry.”An important line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong> between the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and the modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ists is the attitude taken <strong>to</strong>-187
wards this extremely sharp issue <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>temporary world politics.The <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists firmly side with the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>sand actively support the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement.The modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ists in fact side with the imperialists andcol<strong>on</strong>ialists and repudiate and oppose the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement in every possible way.In their words, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU dare not completelydiscard the slogans <strong>of</strong> support for the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement,and at times, for the sake <strong>of</strong> their own interests, theyeven take certain measures which create the appearance <strong>of</strong>support. But if we probe in<strong>to</strong> the essence and c<strong>on</strong>sider theirviews and policies over a number <strong>of</strong> years, we see clearly thattheir attitude <strong>to</strong>wards the liberati<strong>on</strong> struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressednati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and Latin America is a passive or scornfulor negative <strong>on</strong>e, and that they serve as apologists for neocol<strong>on</strong>ialism.In the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>of</strong>July 14, 1963 and in a number <strong>of</strong> articles and statements, thecomrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have worked hard at defending theirwr<strong>on</strong>g views and attacking the Chinese Communist Party <strong>on</strong>the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement. But thesole outcome is <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>firm the anti-<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist and antirevoluti<strong>on</strong>arystand <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>on</strong> the subject.Let us now look at the theory and practice <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement.ABOLITION OF THE TASK OF COMBATINGIMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISMVic<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>of</strong> great his<strong>to</strong>ric significance have already been w<strong>on</strong>by the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement in Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica. This no <strong>on</strong>e can deny. But can any<strong>on</strong>e assert thatthe task <strong>of</strong> combating imperialism and col<strong>on</strong>ialism and theiragents has been completed by the people <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa andLatin America?188
Our answer is, no. This fighting task is far from completed.However, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU frequently spread theview that col<strong>on</strong>ialism has disappeared or is disappearing fromthe present-day world. They emphasize that “there are fiftymilli<strong>on</strong> people <strong>on</strong> earth still groaning under col<strong>on</strong>ial rule”, 1that the remnants <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism are <strong>to</strong> be found <strong>on</strong>ly in suchplaces as Portuguese Angola and Mozambique in Africa, andthat the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ial rule has already entered the “finalphase”. 2What are the facts?C<strong>on</strong>sider, first, the situati<strong>on</strong> in Asia and Africa. There awhole group <strong>of</strong> countries have declared their independence.But many <strong>of</strong> these countries have not completely shaken <strong>of</strong>fimperialist and col<strong>on</strong>ial c<strong>on</strong>trol and enslavement and remainobjects <strong>of</strong> imperialist plunder and aggressi<strong>on</strong> as well as arenas<strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tenti<strong>on</strong> between the old and new col<strong>on</strong>ialists. In some,the old col<strong>on</strong>ialists have changed in<strong>to</strong> neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialists andretain their col<strong>on</strong>ial rule through their trained agents. Inothers, the wolf has left by the fr<strong>on</strong>t door, but the tiger hasentered through the back door, the old col<strong>on</strong>ialism being replacedby the new, more powerful and more dangerous U.S.col<strong>on</strong>ialism. The peoples <strong>of</strong> Asia and Africa are seriouslymenaced by the tentacles <strong>of</strong> neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism, represented byU.S. imperialism.Next, listen <strong>to</strong> the voice <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> Latin America.The Sec<strong>on</strong>d Havana Declarati<strong>on</strong> says, “Latin America <strong>to</strong>dayis under a more ferocious imperialism, more powerfuland ruthless than the Spanish col<strong>on</strong>ial empire.”It adds:Since the end <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d World War, . . . North Americaninvestments exceed 10 billi<strong>on</strong> dollars. Latin America1Speech <strong>of</strong> Mirzo Tursun-Zade, Leader <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Delegati<strong>on</strong>, atthe Third Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity C<strong>on</strong>ference, February 5, 1963.2N. S. Khrushchov, “Report <strong>on</strong> the Programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU”, deliveredat the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1961.189
moreover supplies cheap raw materials and pays high pricesfor manufactured articles.It says further:. . . there flows from Latin America <strong>to</strong> the United Statesa c<strong>on</strong>stant <strong>to</strong>rrent <strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>ey: some $4,000 per minute, $5milli<strong>on</strong> per day, $2 billi<strong>on</strong> per year, $10 billi<strong>on</strong> each fiveyears. For each thousand dollars which leaves us, <strong>on</strong>e deadbody remains. $1,000 per death, that is the price <strong>of</strong> whatis called imperialism.The facts are clear. After World War II the imperialistshave certainly not given up col<strong>on</strong>ialism, but have merelyadopted a new form, neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism. An important characteristic<strong>of</strong> such neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism is that the imperialists havebeen forced <strong>to</strong> change their old style <strong>of</strong> direct col<strong>on</strong>ial rule insome areas and <strong>to</strong> adopt a new style <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ial rule and exploitati<strong>on</strong>by relying <strong>on</strong> the agents they have selected andtrained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslaveor c<strong>on</strong>trol the col<strong>on</strong>ial countries and countries which have alreadydeclared their independence by organizing military blocs,setting up military bases, establishing “federati<strong>on</strong>s” or “communities”,and fostering puppet regimes. By means <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic“aid” or other forms, they retain these countries as marketsfor their goods, sources <strong>of</strong> raw material and outlets fortheir export <strong>of</strong> capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood<strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> these countries. Moreover, they use the UnitedNati<strong>on</strong>s as an important <strong>to</strong>ol for interfering in the internalaffairs <strong>of</strong> such countries and for subjecting them <strong>to</strong> military,ec<strong>on</strong>omic and cultural aggressi<strong>on</strong>. When they are unable <strong>to</strong>c<strong>on</strong>tinue their rule over these countries by “peaceful” means,they engineer military coups d’etat, carry out subversi<strong>on</strong> oreven resort <strong>to</strong> direct armed interventi<strong>on</strong> and aggressi<strong>on</strong>.The United States is most energetic and cunning in promotingneo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism. With this weap<strong>on</strong>, the U.S. imperialistsare trying hard <strong>to</strong> grab the col<strong>on</strong>ies and spheres <strong>of</strong> influence<strong>of</strong> other imperialists and <strong>to</strong> establish world dominati<strong>on</strong>.190
This neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism is a more pernicious and sinister form<strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism.We would like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, under suchcircumstances how can it be said that the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialrule has already entered the “final phase”?In trying <strong>to</strong> bolster up such falsehoods, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU have the temerity <strong>to</strong> seek help from the 1960 Statement.They say, does not the 1960 Statement menti<strong>on</strong> the vigorousprocess <strong>of</strong> disintegrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ial system? But this thesisabout the rapid disintegrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> old col<strong>on</strong>ialism cannot possiblyhelp their argument about the disappearance <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism.The Statement clearly points out that “the United Statesis the mainstay <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism <strong>to</strong>day”, that “the imperialists,headed by the U.S.A., make desperate efforts <strong>to</strong> preserve col<strong>on</strong>ialexploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> the former col<strong>on</strong>ies by newmethods and in new forms” and that they “try <strong>to</strong> retain theirhold <strong>on</strong> the levers <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic c<strong>on</strong>trol and political influencein Asian, African and Latin American countries”. In thesephrases the Statement exposes just what the leadership <strong>of</strong>the CPSU is trying so hard <strong>to</strong> cover up.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have also created the theory thatthe nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement has entered up<strong>on</strong> a “newstage” having ec<strong>on</strong>omic tasks as its core. Their argument isthat, whereas “formerly, the struggle was carried <strong>on</strong> mainlyin the political sphere”, <strong>to</strong>day the ec<strong>on</strong>omic questi<strong>on</strong> has becomethe “central task” and “the basic link in the further development<strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>”. 1The nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement has entered a new stage.But this is by no means the kind <strong>of</strong> “new stage” described bythe leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. In the new stage, the level <strong>of</strong> politicalc<strong>on</strong>sciousness <strong>of</strong> the Asian, African and Latin Americanpeoples has risen higher than ever and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movementis surging forward with unprecedented intensity. They1“To the Detriment <strong>of</strong> the Struggle <strong>of</strong> the Peoples”, Pravda, September17, 1973.191
urgently demand the thorough eliminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> imperialismand its lackeys in their own countries and strive forcomplete political and ec<strong>on</strong>omic independence. The primaryand most urgent task facing these countries is still the furtherdevelopment <strong>of</strong> the struggle against imperialism, old and newcol<strong>on</strong>ialism, and their lackeys. This struggle is still being wagedfiercely in the political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic, military, cultural, ideologicaland other spheres. And the struggles in all these spheres stillfind their most c<strong>on</strong>centrated expressi<strong>on</strong> in political struggle,which <strong>of</strong>ten unavoidably develops in<strong>to</strong> armed struggle whenthe imperialists resort <strong>to</strong> direct or indirect armed suppressi<strong>on</strong>.It is important for the newly independent countries <strong>to</strong> developtheir independent ec<strong>on</strong>omy. But this task must never be separatedfrom the struggle against imperialism, old and newcol<strong>on</strong>ialism, and their lackeys.Like “the disappearance <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism”, this theory <strong>of</strong> a“new stage” advocated by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is clearlyintended <strong>to</strong> whitewash the aggressi<strong>on</strong> against and plunder <strong>of</strong>Asia, Africa and Latin America by neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism, as representedby the United States, <strong>to</strong> cover up the sharp c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>between imperialism and the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>to</strong>paralyse the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> these c<strong>on</strong>tinents.According <strong>to</strong> this theory <strong>of</strong> theirs, the fight against imperialism,old and new col<strong>on</strong>ialism, and their lackeys is, <strong>of</strong> course,no l<strong>on</strong>ger necessary, for col<strong>on</strong>ialism is disappearing and ec<strong>on</strong>omicdevelopment has become the central task <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movement. Does it not follow that the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement can be d<strong>on</strong>e away with al<strong>to</strong>gether? Therefore,the kind <strong>of</strong> “new stage” described by the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, in which ec<strong>on</strong>omic tasks are in the centre <strong>of</strong> the picture,is clearly nothing but <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> no oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> imperialism, oldand new col<strong>on</strong>ialism, and their lackeys, a stage in which thenati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement is no l<strong>on</strong>ger desired.192
PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ABOLISHING THE REVOLUTIONOF THE OPPRESSED NATIONSIn line with their err<strong>on</strong>eous theories the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhave sedulously worked out a number <strong>of</strong> nostrums for all theills <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s. Let us examine them.The first prescripti<strong>on</strong> is labelled peaceful coexistence andpeaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU c<strong>on</strong>stantly attribute the great postwarvic<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement w<strong>on</strong> by theAsian, African and Latin American peoples <strong>to</strong> what they call“peaceful coexistence” and “peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>”. The OpenLetter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU says:In c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence, new important vic<strong>to</strong>rieshave been scored in recent years in the class struggle<strong>of</strong> the proletariat and in the struggle <strong>of</strong> the peoples for nati<strong>on</strong>alfreedom. The world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary process is developingsuccessfully.They also say that the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement is developingunder c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence betweencountries with different social systems, and <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic competiti<strong>on</strong>between the two opposing social systems 1 and thatpeaceful coexistence and peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong> “assist the unfolding<strong>of</strong> a process <strong>of</strong> liberati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> peoples fighting<strong>to</strong> free themselves from the dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> foreign m<strong>on</strong>opolies”,2 and can deliver “a crushing blow” <strong>to</strong> “the entire system<strong>of</strong> capitalist relati<strong>on</strong>ships”. 3All socialist countries should practise the Leninist policy <strong>of</strong>peaceful coexistence between countries with different social1“The <strong>General</strong> <strong>Line</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Communist Movement andthe Schismatic Platform <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Leaders”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial board articlein Kommunist, Moscow, No. 14, 1963.2Ibid.3B. N. P<strong>on</strong>omaryov, “Some Problems <strong>of</strong> the Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Movement”,World <strong>Marx</strong>ist Review, No. 12, 1962.193
systems. But peaceful coexistence and peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>cannot replace the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the people. Thevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all col<strong>on</strong>ies and dependentcountries must be w<strong>on</strong> primarily through the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggle <strong>of</strong> their own masses, which can never be replaced bythat <strong>of</strong> any other countries.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hold that the vic<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> are not due primarily <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the masses, and that the people cannotemancipate themselves, but must wait for the natural collapse<strong>of</strong> imperialism through peaceful coexistence and peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>.In fact, this is equivalent <strong>to</strong> telling the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>to</strong> put up with imperialist plunder and enslavement forever, and not <strong>to</strong> rise up in resistance and revoluti<strong>on</strong>.The sec<strong>on</strong>d prescripti<strong>on</strong> is labelled aid <strong>to</strong> backward countries.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU boast <strong>of</strong> the role played by theirec<strong>on</strong>omic aid <strong>to</strong> the newly independent countries. ComradeKhrushchov has said that such aid can enable these countries“<strong>to</strong> avoid the danger <strong>of</strong> a new enslavement”, and that “it stimulatestheir progress and c<strong>on</strong>tributes <strong>to</strong> the normal developmentand even accelerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> those internal processes whichmay take these countries <strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the highway leading <strong>to</strong> socialism”.1It is necessary and important for the socialist countries <strong>to</strong>give the newly independent countries ec<strong>on</strong>omic aid <strong>on</strong> the basis<strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alism. But in no case can it be said that theirnati<strong>on</strong>al independence and social progress are due solely <strong>to</strong>the ec<strong>on</strong>omic aid they receive from the socialist countries andnot mainly <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> their own people.To speak plainly, the policy and the purpose <strong>of</strong> the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU in their aid <strong>to</strong> newly independent countries inrecent years are open <strong>to</strong> suspici<strong>on</strong>. They <strong>of</strong>ten take an attitude<strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism and nati<strong>on</strong>al egoism in mattersc<strong>on</strong>cerning aid <strong>to</strong> newly independent countries, harm the eco-1N. S. Khrushchov, “Vital Questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Development <strong>of</strong> the SocialistWorld System”, World <strong>Marx</strong>ist Review, No. 9, 1962.194
nomic and political interests <strong>of</strong> the receiving countries, and asa result discredit the socialist countries. As for their aid <strong>to</strong>India, here their ulterior motives are especially clear. India<strong>to</strong>ps the list <strong>of</strong> newly independent countries <strong>to</strong> which the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> gives ec<strong>on</strong>omic aid. This aid is obviously intended<strong>to</strong> encourage the Nehru government in its policies directedagainst communism, against the people and against socialistcountries. Even the U.S. imperialists have stated that suchSoviet aid “is very much <strong>to</strong> our [U.S.] interest”. 1In additi<strong>on</strong>, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU openly propose cooperati<strong>on</strong>with U.S. imperialism in “giving aid <strong>to</strong> the backwardcountries”. Khrushchov said in a speech in the United Statesin September 1959:Your and our ec<strong>on</strong>omic successes will be hailed by thewhole world, which expects our two Great Powers <strong>to</strong> helpthe peoples who are centuries behind in their ec<strong>on</strong>omic development<strong>to</strong> get <strong>on</strong> their feet more quickly.Look! The mainstay <strong>of</strong> modern col<strong>on</strong>ialism [namely, U.S.imperialism] will help the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s “<strong>to</strong> get <strong>on</strong> theirfeet more quickly”! It is indeed ast<strong>on</strong>ishing that the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU are not <strong>on</strong>ly willing but even proud <strong>to</strong> be thepartners <strong>of</strong> the neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialists.The third prescripti<strong>on</strong> is labelled disarmament.Khrushchov has said:Disarmament means disarming the war forces, abolishingmilitarism, ruling out armed interference in the internal affairs<strong>of</strong> any country, and doing away completely and finallywith all forms <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism. 2He has also said:Disarmament would create proper c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for a tremendousincrease in the scale <strong>of</strong> assistance <strong>to</strong> the newly1W. A. Harriman, Radio and Televisi<strong>on</strong> Interview, December 9, 1962.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the World C<strong>on</strong>gress for <strong>General</strong> Disarmamentand Peace, July 10, 1962.195
established nati<strong>on</strong>al states. If a mere 8-10 per cent <strong>of</strong> the120,000 milli<strong>on</strong> dollars spent for military purposes throughoutthe world were turned <strong>to</strong> the purpose, it would be possible<strong>to</strong> end hunger, disease and illiteracy in the distressedareas <strong>of</strong> the globe within twenty years. 1We have always maintained that the struggle for generaldisarmament should be carried <strong>on</strong> in order <strong>to</strong> expose and opposeimperialist arms expansi<strong>on</strong> and war preparati<strong>on</strong>s. But<strong>on</strong>e cannot possibly say that col<strong>on</strong>ialism will be eliminatedthrough disarmament.Khrushchov here sounds like a preacher. Downtrodden people<strong>of</strong> the world, you are blessed! If <strong>on</strong>ly you are patient, if<strong>on</strong>ly you wait until the imperialists lay down their arms, freedomwill descend up<strong>on</strong> you. Wait until the imperialists showmercy, and the poverty-stricken areas <strong>of</strong> the world will becomean earthly paradise flowing with milk and h<strong>on</strong>ey! . . .This is not just the fostering <strong>of</strong> illusi<strong>on</strong>s, it is opium for thepeople.The fourth prescripti<strong>on</strong> is labelled eliminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialismthrough the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s.Khrushchov maintains that if the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s takes measures<strong>to</strong> uproot the col<strong>on</strong>ial system, “the peoples who are nowsuffering the humiliati<strong>on</strong> arising out <strong>of</strong> foreign dominati<strong>on</strong>,would acquire a clear and immediate prospect <strong>of</strong> peacefulliberati<strong>on</strong> from foreign oppressi<strong>on</strong>”. 2In a speech at the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>General</strong> Assembly in September1960, Khrushchov asked, “Who, if not the United Nati<strong>on</strong>sOrganizati<strong>on</strong>, should champi<strong>on</strong> the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thecol<strong>on</strong>ial system <strong>of</strong> government?”This is a strange questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> ask. According <strong>to</strong> Khrushchov,the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and Latin Americashould not and cannot themselves eliminate col<strong>on</strong>ialism, butmust look <strong>to</strong> the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s for help.1Ibid.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. <strong>General</strong> Assembly, September23, 1960.196
At the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>General</strong> Assembly, Khrushchov alsosaid:This is why we appeal <strong>to</strong> the reas<strong>on</strong> and far-sightedness<strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> the Western countries, <strong>to</strong> their governmentsand their representatives at this high assembly <strong>of</strong> theUnited Nati<strong>on</strong>s. Let us agree <strong>on</strong> measures for the aboliti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ial system <strong>of</strong> government and thereby acceleratethat natural his<strong>to</strong>rical process.It is apparent that what he really means by looking <strong>to</strong> theUnited Nati<strong>on</strong>s for help is looking <strong>to</strong> the imperialists for help.The facts show that the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s, which is still underthe c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong> the imperialists, can <strong>on</strong>ly defend and strengthenthe rule <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism but can never abolish it.In a word, the nostrums <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU for thenati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement have been c<strong>on</strong>cocted <strong>to</strong> makepeople believe that the imperialists will give up col<strong>on</strong>ialismand bes<strong>to</strong>w freedom and liberati<strong>on</strong> up<strong>on</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>sand peoples and that therefore all revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theories, demandsand struggles are outmoded and unnecessary and shouldand must be aband<strong>on</strong>ed.OPPOSITION TO WARS OF NATIONALLIBERATIONAlthough they talk about supporting the movements andwars <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have beentrying by every means <strong>to</strong> make the people <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa andLatin America aband<strong>on</strong> their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle, becausethey themselves are sorely afraid <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary s<strong>to</strong>rm.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have the famous “theory” that“even a tiny spark can cause a world c<strong>on</strong>flagrati<strong>on</strong>” 1 and thata world war must necessarily be a therm<strong>on</strong>uclear war, which1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong>the USSR, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1959.197
means the annihilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> mankind. Therefore, Khrushchovroars that “’local wars’ in our time are very dangerous”, 1 andthat “we will work hard . . . <strong>to</strong> put out the sparks that mayset <strong>of</strong>f the flames <strong>of</strong> war”. 2 Here Khrushchov makes nodistincti<strong>on</strong> between just and unjust wars and betrays the Communiststand <strong>of</strong> supporting just wars.The his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the eighteen years since World War II hasshown that wars <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> are unavoidable so l<strong>on</strong>gas the imperialists and their lackeys try <strong>to</strong> maintain theirbrutal rule by bay<strong>on</strong>ets and use force <strong>to</strong> suppress the revoluti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s. These large-scale and small-scalerevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary wars against the imperialists and their lackeys,which have never ceased, have hit hard at the imperialistforces <strong>of</strong> war, strengthened the forces defending world peaceand effectively prevented the imperialists from realizing theirplan <strong>of</strong> launching a world war. Frankly speaking, Khrushchov’sclamour about the need <strong>to</strong> “put out” the sparks <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>for the sake <strong>of</strong> peace is an attempt <strong>to</strong> oppose revoluti<strong>on</strong>in the name <strong>of</strong> safeguarding peace.Proceeding from these wr<strong>on</strong>g views and policies, the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU not <strong>on</strong>ly demand that the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>sshould aband<strong>on</strong> their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle for liberati<strong>on</strong>and “peacefully coexist” with the imperialists and col<strong>on</strong>ialists,but even side with imperialism and use a variety <strong>of</strong> methods<strong>to</strong> extinguish the sparks <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> in Asia, Africa andLatin America.Take the example <strong>of</strong> the Algerian people’s war <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU not <strong>on</strong>ly withheldsupport for a l<strong>on</strong>g period but actually <strong>to</strong>ok the side <strong>of</strong> Frenchimperialism. Khrushchov used <strong>to</strong> treat Algeria’s nati<strong>on</strong>al independenceas an “internal affair” <strong>of</strong> France. Speaking <strong>on</strong>the Algerian questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 3, 1955, he said, “I had and1N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Press C<strong>on</strong>ference in Vienna, July8, 1960.2N. S. Khrushchov, Replies <strong>to</strong> Questi<strong>on</strong>s by Newsmen at the U.S.Nati<strong>on</strong>al Press Club in Washingt<strong>on</strong>, September 16, 1959.198
have in view, first <strong>of</strong> all, that the USSR does not interfere inthe internal affairs <strong>of</strong> other states.” Receiving a corresp<strong>on</strong>dent<strong>of</strong> Le Figaro <strong>on</strong> March 19, 1958, he said, “We do not wantFrance <strong>to</strong> grow weaker, we want her <strong>to</strong> become still greater.”To curry favour with the French imperialists, the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU did not dare <strong>to</strong> recognize the provisi<strong>on</strong>al government<strong>of</strong> the Republic <strong>of</strong> Algeria for a l<strong>on</strong>g time; not until thevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Algerian people’s war <strong>of</strong> resistance againstFrench aggressi<strong>on</strong> was a foreg<strong>on</strong>e c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> and France wascompelled <strong>to</strong> agree <strong>to</strong> Algerian independence did they hurriedlyrecognize Algeria. This unseemly attitude broughtshame <strong>on</strong> the socialist countries. Yet the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUglory in their shame and assert that the vic<strong>to</strong>ry the Algerianpeople paid for with their blood should also be credited <strong>to</strong>the policy <strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence”.Again, let us examine the part played by the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU in the C<strong>on</strong>go questi<strong>on</strong>. Not <strong>on</strong>ly did they refuse <strong>to</strong>give active support <strong>to</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>golese people’s armed struggleagainst col<strong>on</strong>ialism, but they were anxious <strong>to</strong> “co-operate”with U.S. imperialism in putting out the spark in the C<strong>on</strong>go.On July 13, 1960 the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> joined with the UnitedStates in voting for the Security Council resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> thedispatch <strong>of</strong> U.N. forces <strong>to</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>go; thus it helped the U.S.imperialists use the flag <strong>of</strong> the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s in their armedinterventi<strong>on</strong> in the C<strong>on</strong>go. The Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> also providedthe U.N. forces with means <strong>of</strong> transportati<strong>on</strong>. In a cable <strong>to</strong>Kasavubu and Lumumba <strong>on</strong> July 15, Khrushchov said that“the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s Security Council has d<strong>on</strong>e a useful thing”.Thereafter, the Soviet press kept up a stream <strong>of</strong> praise for theUnited Nati<strong>on</strong>s for “helping the government <strong>of</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>goleseRepublic <strong>to</strong> defend the independence and sovereignty <strong>of</strong> thecountry”, 1 and expressed the hope that the United Nati<strong>on</strong>swould adopt “resolute measures”. 2 In its statements <strong>of</strong> August1Izvestia, July 21, 1960.2Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 30, 1960.199
21 and September 10, the Soviet Government c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong>praise the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s, which was suppressing the C<strong>on</strong>golesepeople.In 1961 the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU persuaded Gizenga <strong>to</strong> attendthe C<strong>on</strong>golese parliament, which had been c<strong>on</strong>venedunder the “protecti<strong>on</strong>” <strong>of</strong> U.N. troops, and <strong>to</strong> join the puppetgovernment. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU falsely allegedthat the c<strong>on</strong>vocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>golese parliament was “animportant event in the life <strong>of</strong> the young republic” and “asuccess <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al forces”. 1Clearly these wr<strong>on</strong>g policies <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSUrendered U.S. imperialism a great service in its aggressi<strong>on</strong>against the C<strong>on</strong>go. Lumumba was murdered, Gizenga wasimpris<strong>on</strong>ed, many other patriots were persecuted, and theC<strong>on</strong>golese struggle for nati<strong>on</strong>al independence suffered a setback.Does the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU feel no resp<strong>on</strong>sibilityfor all this?THE AREAS IN WHICH CONTEMPORARY WORLDCONTRADICTIONS ARE CONCENTRATEDIt is <strong>on</strong>ly natural that the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> Asia,Africa and Latin America have rejected the words and deeds<strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU against the movements and wars<strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>. But the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU havefailed <strong>to</strong> draw the appropriate less<strong>on</strong> and change their wr<strong>on</strong>gline and policies. Instead, angry at their humiliati<strong>on</strong>, they havelaunched a series <strong>of</strong> slanderous attacks <strong>on</strong> the Chinese CommunistParty and the other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU accusesthe Chinese Communist Party <strong>of</strong> putting forward a “newtheory”. It says:1Pravda, July 18, 1961.200
. . . according <strong>to</strong> which [the new theory] the chief c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> our time is not, we are <strong>to</strong>ld, between socialismand imperialism, but between the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movementand imperialism. In the Chinese comrades’ opini<strong>on</strong>,the decisive force in the battle against imperialism is notthe socialist world system, and not the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-classstruggle but, again we are <strong>to</strong>ld, the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>movement.In the first place, this is a fabricati<strong>on</strong>. In our letter <strong>of</strong> June14, we pointed out that the fundamental c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in thec<strong>on</strong>temporary world are the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the socialistcamp and the imperialist camp, the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> betweenthe proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries,the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and imperialism,and the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g imperialist countries andam<strong>on</strong>g m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalist groups.We also pointed out: The c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the socialistcamp and the imperialist camp is a c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> betweentwo fundamentally different social systems, socialism andcapitalism. It is undoubtedly very sharp. But <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists must not regard the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the world asc<strong>on</strong>sisting solely and simply <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between thesocialist camp and the imperialist camp.Our view is crystal clear.In our letter <strong>of</strong> June 14, we explained the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arysituati<strong>on</strong> in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the significanceand role <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement. This iswhat we said:1. “The various types <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the c<strong>on</strong>temporaryworld are c<strong>on</strong>centrated in the vast areas <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa andLatin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under imperialistrule and the s<strong>to</strong>rm centres <strong>of</strong> world revoluti<strong>on</strong> dealingdirect blows at imperialism.”2. “The nati<strong>on</strong>al democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement inthese areas and the internati<strong>on</strong>al socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movementare the two great his<strong>to</strong>rical currents <strong>of</strong> our time.”201
3. “The nati<strong>on</strong>al democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong> in these areas is animportant comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>temporary proletarian worldrevoluti<strong>on</strong>.”4. “The anti-imperialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the peoplein Asia, Africa and Latin America are pounding and underminingthe foundati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> imperialism andcol<strong>on</strong>ialism, old and new, and are now a mighty force in defence<strong>of</strong> world peace.”5. “In a sense, therefore, the whole cause <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> hinges <strong>on</strong> the outcome <strong>of</strong> therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> these areas, who c<strong>on</strong>stitutethe overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>.”6. “Therefore, the anti-imperialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle<strong>of</strong> the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America is definitelynot merely a matter <strong>of</strong> regi<strong>on</strong>al significance but <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> overallimportance for the whole cause <strong>of</strong> proletarian worldrevoluti<strong>on</strong>.”These are <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theses, c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s drawn byscientific analysis from the realities <strong>of</strong> our time.No <strong>on</strong>e can deny that an extremely favourable revoluti<strong>on</strong>arysituati<strong>on</strong> now exists in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Todaythe nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica are the most important forces dealing imperialismdirect blows. The c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the world are c<strong>on</strong>centratedin Asia, Africa and Latin America.The centre <strong>of</strong> world c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> world political struggles,is not fixed but shifts with changes in the internati<strong>on</strong>alstruggles and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong>. We believe that,with the development <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> and struggle betweenthe proletariat and the bourgeoisie in Western Europeand North America, the momen<strong>to</strong>us day <strong>of</strong> battle will arrivein these homes <strong>of</strong> capitalism and heartlands <strong>of</strong> imperialism.When that day comes, Western Europe and North Americawill undoubtedly become the centre <strong>of</strong> world political struggles,<strong>of</strong> world c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s.202
Lenin said in 1913, “. . . a new source <strong>of</strong> great world s<strong>to</strong>rmsopened up in Asia. . . . It is in this era <strong>of</strong> s<strong>to</strong>rms and their‘repercussi<strong>on</strong>’ <strong>on</strong> Europe that we are now living.” 1Stalin said in 1925:The col<strong>on</strong>ial countries c<strong>on</strong>stitute the principal rear <strong>of</strong> imperialism.The revoluti<strong>on</strong>isati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this rear is bound <strong>to</strong>undermine imperialism not <strong>on</strong>ly in the sense that imperialismwill be deprived <strong>of</strong> its rear, but also in the sense thatthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>isati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the East is bound <strong>to</strong> give a powerfulimpulse <strong>to</strong> the intensificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary crisis inthe West. 2Is it possible that these statements <strong>of</strong> Lenin and Stalin arewr<strong>on</strong>g? The theses they enunciated have l<strong>on</strong>g been elementary<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist knowledge. Obviously, now that the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU are bent <strong>on</strong> belittling the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement, they are completely ignoring elementary <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the plain facts under their noses.DISTORTION OF THE LENINIST VIEW OFLEADERSHIP IN THE REVOLUTIONIn its Open Letter <strong>of</strong> July 14, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU also attacks the standpoint <strong>of</strong> the Chinese CommunistParty <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> proletarian leadership in the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movement. It says:. . . the Chinese comrades want <strong>to</strong> “correct” Lenin andprove that hegem<strong>on</strong>y in the world struggle against imperialismshould go not <strong>to</strong> the working class, but <strong>to</strong> the petty1V. I. Lenin, “The His<strong>to</strong>rical Destiny <strong>of</strong> the Doctrine <strong>of</strong> Karl <strong>Marx</strong>”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943,Vol. XI, p. 51.2J. V. Stalin, “The Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Movement in the East”, Works,Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. VII, pp. 235-36.203
ourgeoisie or the nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisie, even <strong>to</strong> “certainpatriotically-minded kings, princes and aris<strong>to</strong>crats.”This is a deliberate dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the views <strong>of</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party.In discussing the need for the proletariat <strong>to</strong> insist <strong>on</strong> leadingthe nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement, the letter <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPC <strong>of</strong> June 14 says:His<strong>to</strong>ry has entrusted <strong>to</strong> the proletarian parties in theseareas [Asia, Africa and Latin America] the glorious missi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> holding high the banner <strong>of</strong> struggle against imperialism,against old and new col<strong>on</strong>ialism and for nati<strong>on</strong>al independenceand people’s democracy, <strong>of</strong> standing in the forefr<strong>on</strong>t<strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement andstriving for a socialist future.. . . . . . . . . . . .On the basis <strong>of</strong> the worker-peasant alliance the proletariatand its party must unite all the strata that can be unitedand organize a broad united fr<strong>on</strong>t against imperialism andits lackeys. In order <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate and expand this unitedfr<strong>on</strong>t it is necessary that the proletarian party shouldmaintain its ideological, political and organizati<strong>on</strong>al independenceand insist <strong>on</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>.In discussing the need for establishing a broad antiimperialistunited fr<strong>on</strong>t in the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement,the letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC says:The oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and peoples <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa andLatin America are faced with the urgent task <strong>of</strong> fightingimperialism and its lackeys.. . . . . . . . . . . .In these areas, extremely broad secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the populati<strong>on</strong>refuse <strong>to</strong> be slaves <strong>of</strong> imperialism. They include not<strong>on</strong>ly the workers, peasants, intellectuals and petty bour-204
geoisie, but also the patriotic nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisie and evencertain kings, princes and aris<strong>to</strong>crats who are patriotic.Our views are perfectly clear. In the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement it is necessary both <strong>to</strong> insist <strong>on</strong> leadership by theproletariat and <strong>to</strong> establish a broad anti-imperialist unitedfr<strong>on</strong>t. What is wr<strong>on</strong>g with these views? Why should theleadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU dis<strong>to</strong>rt and attack these correct views?It is not we, but the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, who haveaband<strong>on</strong>ed Lenin’s views <strong>on</strong> proletarian leadership in therevoluti<strong>on</strong>.The wr<strong>on</strong>g line <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU completely aband<strong>on</strong>sthe task <strong>of</strong> fighting imperialism and col<strong>on</strong>ialism and opposeswars <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>; this means it wants theproletariat and the Communist Parties <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>sand countries <strong>to</strong> roll up their patriotic banner <strong>of</strong> opposing imperialismand struggling for nati<strong>on</strong>al independence and surrenderit <strong>to</strong> others. In that case, how could <strong>on</strong>e even talk aboutan anti-imperialist united fr<strong>on</strong>t or <strong>of</strong> proletarian leadership?Another idea <strong>of</strong>ten propagated by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUis that a country can build socialism under no matter whatleadership, including even that <strong>of</strong> a reacti<strong>on</strong>ary nati<strong>on</strong>alist likeNehru. This is still farther removed from the idea <strong>of</strong> proletarianleadership.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUmisinterprets the proper relati<strong>on</strong>ship <strong>of</strong> mutual support whichshould exist between the socialist camp and the working-classmovement in the capitalist countries <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand and thenati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement <strong>on</strong> the other, asserting that thenati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement should be “led” by the socialistcountries and the working-class movement in the metropolitancountries. It has the audacity <strong>to</strong> claim that this is “based” <strong>on</strong>Lenin’s views <strong>on</strong> proletarian leadership. Obviously this is agross dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong> and revisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s thinking. It shows thatthe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU want <strong>to</strong> impose their line <strong>of</strong> abolishingrevoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s.205
THE PATH OF NATIONALISM ANDDEGENERATIONIn their Open Letter <strong>of</strong> July 14, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUattempt <strong>to</strong> pin <strong>on</strong> the Chinese Communist Party the charge<strong>of</strong> “isolating the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement from the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking class and its creati<strong>on</strong>, the socialist worldsystem”. They also accuse us <strong>of</strong> “separating” the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movement from the socialist system and theworking-class movement in the Western capitalist countriesand “counterposing” the former <strong>to</strong> the latter. There are otherCommunists, like the leaders <strong>of</strong> the French Communist Party,who loudly echo the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.But what are the facts? Those who counterpose the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movement <strong>to</strong> the socialist camp and the workingclassmovement in the Western capitalist countries are n<strong>on</strong>eother than the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and their followers, whodo not support, and even oppose, the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement.The Chinese Communist Party has c<strong>on</strong>sistently maintainedthat the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> all peoples support eachother. We always c<strong>on</strong>sider the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movementfrom the viewpoint <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism,from the viewpoint <strong>of</strong> the proletarian worldrevoluti<strong>on</strong> as a whole. We believe the vic<strong>to</strong>rious development<strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> is <strong>of</strong> tremendous significancefor the socialist camp, the working-class movement inthe capitalist countries and the cause <strong>of</strong> defending world peace.But the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and their followers refuse <strong>to</strong>acknowledge this significance. They talk <strong>on</strong>ly about the supportwhich the socialist camp gives the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement and ignore the support which the latter gives theformer. They talk <strong>on</strong>ly about the role <strong>of</strong> the working-classmovement in the Western capitalist countries in dealing blowsat imperialism and belittle or ignore the role <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movement in the same c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>. Their stand c<strong>on</strong>-206
tradicts <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and disregards the facts, and istherefore wr<strong>on</strong>g.The questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> what attitude <strong>to</strong> take <strong>to</strong>wards the relati<strong>on</strong>shipbetween the socialist countries and the revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theoppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s, and <strong>to</strong>wards the relati<strong>on</strong>ship between theworking-class movement in the capitalist countries and therevoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s, involves the importantprinciple <strong>of</strong> whether <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismare <strong>to</strong> be upheld or aband<strong>on</strong>ed.According <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism,every socialist country which has achieved vic<strong>to</strong>ry inits revoluti<strong>on</strong> must actively support and assist the liberati<strong>on</strong>struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s. The socialist countries mustbecome, base areas for supporting and developing the revoluti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and peoples throughout the world,form the closest alliance with them and carry the proletarianworld revoluti<strong>on</strong> through <strong>to</strong> completi<strong>on</strong>.But the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU virtually regard the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong>socialism in <strong>on</strong>e country or several countries as the end <strong>of</strong> theproletarian world revoluti<strong>on</strong>. They want <strong>to</strong> subordinate thenati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> their general line <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence and <strong>to</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al interests <strong>of</strong> their own country.When in 1925 Stalin fought the liquidati<strong>on</strong>ists, representedby the Trotskyites and Zinovievites, he pointed out that <strong>on</strong>e<strong>of</strong> the dangerous characteristics <strong>of</strong> liquidati<strong>on</strong>ism was:. . . lack <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fidence in the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong>; lack <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fidence in its vic<strong>to</strong>ry; a sceptical attitude<strong>to</strong>wards the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement in thecol<strong>on</strong>ies and dependent countries . . . failure <strong>to</strong> understandthe elementary demand <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alism, by virtue <strong>of</strong>which the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism in <strong>on</strong>e country is not an endin itself, but a means <strong>of</strong> developing and supporting therevoluti<strong>on</strong> in other countries. 11J. V. Stalin, “Questi<strong>on</strong>s and Answers”, Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,1954, Vol. VII, p. 169.207
He added:That is the path <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>alism and degenerati<strong>on</strong>, the path<strong>of</strong> the complete liquidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletariat’s internati<strong>on</strong>alpolicy, for people afflicted with this disease regard ourcountry not as a part <strong>of</strong> the whole that is called the worldrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement, but as the beginning and the end<strong>of</strong> that movement, believing that the interests <strong>of</strong> all othercountries should be sacrificed <strong>to</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong> our country. 1Stalin depicted the line <strong>of</strong> thinking <strong>of</strong> the liquidati<strong>on</strong>ists asfollows:Support the liberati<strong>on</strong> movement in China? But why?Wouldn’t that be dangerous? Wouldn’t it bring us in<strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>flictwith other countries? Wouldn’t it be better if we established“spheres <strong>of</strong> influence” in China in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong> withother “advanced” powers and snatched something fromChina for our own benefit? That would be both useful andsafe. . . . And so <strong>on</strong> and so forth. 2He c<strong>on</strong>cluded:Such is the new type <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>alist “frame <strong>of</strong> mind,”which is trying <strong>to</strong> liquidate the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong> and is cultivating the elements <strong>of</strong> degenerati<strong>on</strong>.3The present leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have g<strong>on</strong>e farther than theold liquidati<strong>on</strong>ists. Priding themselves <strong>on</strong> their cleverness,they <strong>on</strong>ly take up what is “both useful and safe”. Mortallyafraid <strong>of</strong> being involved in c<strong>on</strong>flict with the imperialist countries,they have set their minds <strong>on</strong> opposing the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement. They are in<strong>to</strong>xicated with the idea <strong>of</strong> the two“super-powers” establishing spheres <strong>of</strong> influence throughoutthe world.1Ibid., pp. 169-70.2Ibid., p. 170.3Ibid.208
Stalin’s criticism <strong>of</strong> the liquidati<strong>on</strong>ists is a fair descripti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the present leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. Following in the footsteps <strong>of</strong>the liquidati<strong>on</strong>ists, they have liquidated the foreign policy <strong>of</strong>the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and taken the path <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>alism anddegenerati<strong>on</strong>.Stalin warned:. . . it is obvious that the first country <strong>to</strong> be vic<strong>to</strong>riouscan retain the role <strong>of</strong> standard-bearer <strong>of</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymovement <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistent internati<strong>on</strong>alism,<strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong>, and that the path <strong>of</strong> least resistance and <strong>of</strong>nati<strong>on</strong>alism in foreign policy is the path <strong>of</strong> the isolati<strong>on</strong> anddecay <strong>of</strong> the first country <strong>to</strong> be vic<strong>to</strong>rious. 1This warning by Stalin is <strong>of</strong> serious, practical significance forthe present leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.AN EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL-CHAUVINISMSimilarly, according <strong>to</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism, theproletariat and the Communists <strong>of</strong> the oppressor nati<strong>on</strong>s mustactively support both the right <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>alindependence and their struggles for liberati<strong>on</strong>. Withthe support <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s, the proletariat <strong>of</strong> the oppressornati<strong>on</strong>s will be better able <strong>to</strong> win its revoluti<strong>on</strong>.Lenin hit the nail <strong>on</strong> the head when he said:The revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement in the advanced countrieswould actually be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle againstcapital, the workers <strong>of</strong> Europe and America were not closelyand completely united with the hundreds up<strong>on</strong> hundreds <strong>of</strong>milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> “col<strong>on</strong>ial” slaves who are oppressed by capital. 21Ibid., p. 171.2V. I. Lenin, “The Sec<strong>on</strong>d C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Communist Internati<strong>on</strong>al”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp.472-73.209
However, some self-styled <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists have aband<strong>on</strong>ed<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism <strong>on</strong> this very questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> fundamental principle.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the French Communist Party are typicalin this respect.Over a l<strong>on</strong>g period <strong>of</strong> time, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPF haveaband<strong>on</strong>ed the struggle against U.S. imperialism, refusing <strong>to</strong>put up a firm fight against U.S. imperialist c<strong>on</strong>trol over andrestricti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> France in the political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic and militaryfields and surrendering the banner <strong>of</strong> French nati<strong>on</strong>al struggleagainst the United States <strong>to</strong> people like de Gaulle; <strong>on</strong> theother hand, they have been using various devices and excuses<strong>to</strong> defend the col<strong>on</strong>ial interests <strong>of</strong> the French imperialists, haverefused <strong>to</strong> support, and indeed opposed, the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movements in the French col<strong>on</strong>ies, and particularly opposednati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary wars; they have sunk in<strong>to</strong> the quagmire<strong>of</strong> chauvinism.Lenin said, “Europeans <strong>of</strong>ten forget that col<strong>on</strong>ial peoples arealso nati<strong>on</strong>s, but <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>lerate such ‘forgetfulness’ is <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>leratechauvinism.” 1 Yet the leadership <strong>of</strong> the French CommunistParty, represented by Comrade Thorez, has not <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong>leratedthis “forgetfulness”, but has openly regarded the peoples <strong>of</strong> theFrench col<strong>on</strong>ies as “naturalized Frenchmen”, 2 refused <strong>to</strong>acknowledge their right <strong>to</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al independence in dissociati<strong>on</strong>from France and publicly supported the policy <strong>of</strong> “nati<strong>on</strong>alassimilati<strong>on</strong>” pursued by the French imperialists.For the past ten years and more, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the FrenchCommunist Party have followed the col<strong>on</strong>ial policy <strong>of</strong> theFrench imperialists and served as an appendage <strong>of</strong> Frenchm<strong>on</strong>opoly capital. In 1946, when the French m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalistrulers played a neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialist trick by proposing <strong>to</strong> forma French Uni<strong>on</strong>, they followed suit and proclaimed that “wehave always envisaged the French Uni<strong>on</strong> as a ‘free uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>1V. I. Lenin, “A Caricature <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism and ‘Imperialist Ec<strong>on</strong>omism’”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York,1942, Vol. XIX, p. 250.2Maurice Thorez, Speech in Algiers, February 1939.210
free peoples’ ” 1 and that “the French Uni<strong>on</strong> will permit the regulati<strong>on</strong>,<strong>on</strong> a new basis, <strong>of</strong> the relati<strong>on</strong>s between the people <strong>of</strong>France and the overseas peoples who have in the past been attached<strong>to</strong> France”. 2 In 1958, when the French Uni<strong>on</strong> collapsedand the French Government proposed the establishment <strong>of</strong> aFrench Community <strong>to</strong> preserve its col<strong>on</strong>ial system, the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPF again followed suit and proclaimed, “We believethat the creati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a genuine community will be a positiveevent.” 3Moreover, in opposing the demand <strong>of</strong> the people in theFrench col<strong>on</strong>ies for nati<strong>on</strong>al independence, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPF have even tried <strong>to</strong> intimidate them, saying that “anyattempt <strong>to</strong> break away from the Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> France will <strong>on</strong>lylead <strong>to</strong> the strengthening <strong>of</strong> imperialism; although independencemay be w<strong>on</strong>, it will be temporary, nominal and false”.They further openly declared:The questi<strong>on</strong> is whether this already unavoidable independencewill be with France, or without France and againstFrance. The interest <strong>of</strong> our country requires that thisindependence should be with France. 4On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Algeria, the chauvinist stand <strong>of</strong> theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPF is all the more evident. They have recentlytried <strong>to</strong> justify themselves by asserting that they had l<strong>on</strong>g recognizedthe correct demand <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> Algeria forfreedom. But what are the facts?For a l<strong>on</strong>g time the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPF refused <strong>to</strong> recognizeAlgeria’s right <strong>to</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al independence; they followed the1Lé<strong>on</strong> Feix, Speech at the 15th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> France, June 1959.2Maurice Thorez, Speech at the Opening Cerem<strong>on</strong>y <strong>of</strong> the New Termat the Party School <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> France, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 10, 1955.3Lé<strong>on</strong> Feix, Speech at the 15th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> France, June 1959.4Raym<strong>on</strong>d Barbé, “Black Africa in the Age <strong>of</strong> Guinea?”, DémocratieNouvelle <strong>of</strong> the French Communist Party, No. 11, 1958.211
French m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalists, crying that “Algeria is aninalienable part <strong>of</strong> France” 1 and that France “should be a greatAfrican power, now and in the future”. 2 Thorez and otherswere most c<strong>on</strong>cerned about the fact that Algeria could provideFrance with “a milli<strong>on</strong> head <strong>of</strong> sheep” and large quantities <strong>of</strong>wheat yearly <strong>to</strong> solve her problem <strong>of</strong> “the shortage <strong>of</strong> meat”and “make up our deficit in grain”. 3Just see! What feverish chauvinism <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPF! Do they show an iota <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism?Is there anything <strong>of</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary inthem? By taking this chauvinistic stand they have betrayedthe fundamental interests <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat, thefundamental interests <strong>of</strong> the French proletariat and the true interests<strong>of</strong> the French nati<strong>on</strong>.AGAINST THE “THEORY OF RACISM” ANDTHE “THEORY OF THE YELLOW PERIL”Having used up all their w<strong>on</strong>der-working weap<strong>on</strong>s for opposingthe nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU are now reduced <strong>to</strong> seeking help from racism, the mostreacti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>of</strong> all imperialist theories. They describe thecorrect stand <strong>of</strong> the CPC in resolutely supporting the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movement as “creating racial and geographicalbarriers”, “replacing the class approach with the racial approach”,and “playing up<strong>on</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al and even racialprejudices <strong>of</strong> the Asian and African peoples”.If <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism did not exist, perhaps such lies coulddeceive people. Unfortunately for the manufacturers <strong>of</strong> these1Documents <strong>of</strong> the September 24, 1946 Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>stituentNati<strong>on</strong>al Assembly <strong>of</strong> France, Appendix II, No. 1013.2Florim<strong>on</strong>d B<strong>on</strong>te, Speech at the C<strong>on</strong>stituent Assembly <strong>of</strong> France,1944.3Maurice Thorez, Report <strong>to</strong> the Tenth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> France, 1945.212
lies, they live in the wr<strong>on</strong>g age, for <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism hasalready found its way deep in<strong>to</strong> people’s hearts. As Stalinrightly pointed out, Leninism “broke down the wall betweenwhites and blacks, between Europeans and Asiatics, betweenthe ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’ slaves <strong>of</strong> imperialism”. 1 It isfutile for the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> try and rebuild this wall<strong>of</strong> racism.In the last analysis, the nati<strong>on</strong>al questi<strong>on</strong> in the c<strong>on</strong>temporaryworld is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> class struggle and anti-imperialiststruggle. Today the workers, peasants, revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary intellectuals,anti-imperialist and patriotic bourgeois elements andother patriotic and anti-imperialist enlightened people <strong>of</strong> allraces — white, black, yellow or brown — have formed a broadunited fr<strong>on</strong>t against the imperialists, headed by the UnitedStates, and their lackeys. This united fr<strong>on</strong>t is expanding andgrowing str<strong>on</strong>ger. The questi<strong>on</strong> here is not whether <strong>to</strong> sidewith the white people or the coloured people, but whether <strong>to</strong>side with the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s or with the handful<strong>of</strong> imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries.According <strong>to</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist class stand, oppressednati<strong>on</strong>s must draw a clear line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong> between themselvesand the imperialists and col<strong>on</strong>ialists. To blur this linerepresents a chauvinist view serving imperialism and col<strong>on</strong>ialism.Lenin said:. . . the central point in the Social-Democratic programmemust be the distincti<strong>on</strong> between oppressing and oppressednati<strong>on</strong>s, which is the essence <strong>of</strong> imperialism, whichis falsely evaded by the social-chauvinists, and by Kautsky. 2By slandering the unity <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica in the anti-imperialist struggle as being “based <strong>on</strong>1J. V. Stalin, “The Foundati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Leninism”, Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 144.2V. I. Lenin, “The Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Proletariat and the Right <strong>of</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>to</strong> Self-Determinati<strong>on</strong>”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>alPublishers, New York, 1943, Vol. V, p. 284.213
the geographical and racial principles”, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU have obviously placed themselves in the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the social-chauvinists and <strong>of</strong> Kautsky.When they peddle the “theory <strong>of</strong> racism”, describing thenati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement in Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica as <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the coloured against the white race, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are clearly aiming at inciting racial hatredam<strong>on</strong>g the white people in Europe and North America, atdiverting the people <strong>of</strong> the world from the struggle againstimperialism and at turning the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-classmovement away from the struggle against modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have raised a hue and cry aboutthe “Yellow Peril” and the “imminent menace <strong>of</strong> GenghisKhan”. This is really not worth refuting. We do not intendin this article <strong>to</strong> comment <strong>on</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rical role <strong>of</strong> GenghisKhan or <strong>on</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> the M<strong>on</strong>golian, Russian andChinese nati<strong>on</strong>s and the process <strong>of</strong> their formati<strong>on</strong> in<strong>to</strong> states.We would <strong>on</strong>ly remind the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>of</strong> their need<strong>to</strong> review their his<strong>to</strong>ry less<strong>on</strong>s before manufacturing suchtales. Genghis Khan was a Khan <strong>of</strong> M<strong>on</strong>golia, and in his dayboth China and Russia were subjected <strong>to</strong> M<strong>on</strong>golian aggressi<strong>on</strong>.He invaded part <strong>of</strong> northwestern and northern Chinain 1215 and Russia in 1223. After his death, his successorssubjugated Russia in 1240 and thirty-nine years later, in 1279,c<strong>on</strong>quered the whole <strong>of</strong> China.Lu Hsun, the well-known Chinese writer, has a paragraphabout Genghis Khan in an article he wrote in 1934. We includeit here for your reference as it may be useful <strong>to</strong> you.He wrote that, as a young man <strong>of</strong> twenty,I had been <strong>to</strong>ld that “our” Genghis Khan had c<strong>on</strong>queredEurope and ushered in the most splendid period in “our”his<strong>to</strong>ry. Not until I was twenty-five did I discover that thisso-called most splendid period <strong>of</strong> “our” his<strong>to</strong>ry was actuallythe time when the M<strong>on</strong>golians c<strong>on</strong>quered China and webecame slaves. And not until last August, when browsing214
through three books <strong>on</strong> M<strong>on</strong>golian his<strong>to</strong>ry, looking for his<strong>to</strong>rys<strong>to</strong>ries, did I find out that the c<strong>on</strong>quest <strong>of</strong> “Russia” bythe M<strong>on</strong>golians and their invasi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Hungary and Austriaactually preceded their c<strong>on</strong>quest <strong>of</strong> China, and that theGenghis Khan <strong>of</strong> that time was not yet our Khan. TheRussians were enslaved before we were, and presumably itis they who ought <strong>to</strong> be able <strong>to</strong> say, “When our GenghisKhan c<strong>on</strong>quered China, he ushered in the most splendidperiod <strong>of</strong> our his<strong>to</strong>ry.” 1Any<strong>on</strong>e with a little knowledge <strong>of</strong> modern world his<strong>to</strong>ryknows that the “theory <strong>of</strong> the Yellow Peril” about which theCPSU leadership has been making such a noise is a legacy <strong>of</strong>the German Kaiser William II. Half a century ago, WilliamII stated, “I am a believer in the Yellow Peril.”The Kaiser’s purpose in propagating the “theory <strong>of</strong> theYellow Peril” was <strong>to</strong> carry the partiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> China further,<strong>to</strong> invade Asia, <strong>to</strong> suppress revoluti<strong>on</strong> in Asia, <strong>to</strong> divertthe attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the European people from revoluti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>to</strong> useit as a smokescreen for his active preparati<strong>on</strong>s for the imperialistworld war and for his attempt <strong>to</strong> gain world hegem<strong>on</strong>y.When William II spread this “theory <strong>of</strong> the Yellow Peril”,the European bourgeoisie was in deep decline and extremelyreacti<strong>on</strong>ary, and democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>s were sweepingthrough China, Turkey and Persia and affecting India, aroundthe time <strong>of</strong> the 1905 Russian Revoluti<strong>on</strong>. That was the period,<strong>to</strong>o, when Lenin made his famous remark about “backwardEurope and advanced Asia”.William II was a bigwig in his day. But in reality he proved<strong>to</strong> be <strong>on</strong>ly a snow man in the sun. In a very short time thisreacti<strong>on</strong>ary chieftain vanished from the scene, <strong>to</strong>gether withthe reacti<strong>on</strong>ary theory he invented. The great Lenin and hisbrilliant teachings live <strong>on</strong> for ever.1Lu Hsun, Collected Works, Chin. ed., People’s Literature PublishingHouse, Peking, 1958, Vol. VI, p. 109.215
Fifty years have g<strong>on</strong>e by; imperialism in Western Europeand North America has become still more moribund and reacti<strong>on</strong>ary,and its days are numbered. Meanwhile, the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arys<strong>to</strong>rm raging over Asia, Africa and Latin America hasgrown many times str<strong>on</strong>ger than in Lenin’s time. It is hardlycredible that <strong>to</strong>day there are still people who wish <strong>to</strong> step in<strong>to</strong>the shoes <strong>of</strong> William II. This is indeed a mockery <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry.RESURRECTING THE OLD REVISIONISMIN A NEW GUISEThe policy <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>on</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>alcol<strong>on</strong>ialquesti<strong>on</strong> is identical with the bankrupt policy <strong>of</strong> therevisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al. The <strong>on</strong>ly differenceis that the latter served the imperialists’ old col<strong>on</strong>ialism, whilethe modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ists serve the imperialists’ neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism.The old revisi<strong>on</strong>ists sang <strong>to</strong> the tune <strong>of</strong> the old col<strong>on</strong>ialists,and Khrushchev sings <strong>to</strong> the tune <strong>of</strong> the neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialists.The heroes <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al, represented byBernstein and Kautsky, were apologists for the old col<strong>on</strong>ialrule <strong>of</strong> imperialism. They openly declared that col<strong>on</strong>ial rulewas progressive, that it brought a high civilizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>iesand developed the productive forces there. They evenasserted that the “aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ies would mean barbarism”.1In this respect Khrushchov is somewhat different from theold revisi<strong>on</strong>ists. He is bold enough <strong>to</strong> denounce the old col<strong>on</strong>ialsystem.How is it that Khrushchev is so bold? Because the imperialistshave changed their tune.After World War II, under the twin blows <strong>of</strong> the socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong> and the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the im-1Eduard David, Speech <strong>on</strong> the Col<strong>on</strong>ial Questi<strong>on</strong> at the Internati<strong>on</strong>alSocialist C<strong>on</strong>gress in Stuttgart, Internati<strong>on</strong>aler Sozialistenk<strong>on</strong>gress,Stuttgart, 1907, Verlag Buchhandlung Vorwärts, Berlin, 1907, p. 30.216
perialists were forced <strong>to</strong> recognize that “if the West had attempted<strong>to</strong> perpetuate the status quo <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism, it wouldhave made violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> inevitable and defeat inevitable”.1 The old col<strong>on</strong>ialist forms <strong>of</strong> rule “<strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary, . . .are likely <strong>to</strong> prove ‘running sores’ which destroy both theec<strong>on</strong>omic and the moral vigour <strong>of</strong> a nati<strong>on</strong>’s life”. 2 Thusit became necessary <strong>to</strong> change the form and practise neocol<strong>on</strong>ialism.Thus, <strong>to</strong>o, Khrushchov singing <strong>to</strong> the tune <strong>of</strong> the neocol<strong>on</strong>ialistsflaunts the “theory <strong>of</strong> the disappearance <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism”in order <strong>to</strong> cover up the new col<strong>on</strong>ialism. What ismore, he tries <strong>to</strong> induce the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> embrace thisnew col<strong>on</strong>ialism. He actively propagates the view that“peaceful coexistence” between the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s andcivilized imperialism will make “the nati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omy growrapidly” and bring about an “uplift <strong>of</strong> their productive forces”,enable the home market in the oppressed countries <strong>to</strong> “becomeincomparably greater” and “furnish more raw materials, andvarious products and goods required by the ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>of</strong> theindustrially developed countries” 3 and, at the same time, will“c<strong>on</strong>siderably raise the living standard <strong>of</strong> the inhabitants in thehighly developed capitalist countries”. 4Nor has Khrushchov forgotten <strong>to</strong> collect certain worn-outweap<strong>on</strong>s from the arsenal <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al.Here are some examples.The old revisi<strong>on</strong>ists opposed wars <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> andheld that the nati<strong>on</strong>al questi<strong>on</strong> “can be settled <strong>on</strong>ly through1J. F. Dulles, War or Peace, Eng. ed., the MacMillan Company, NewYork, 1957, p. 76.2John Strachey, The End <strong>of</strong> Empire, Eng. ed., L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> 1959, p. 194.3N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. <strong>General</strong> Assembly, September23, 1960.4“Liquidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Col<strong>on</strong>ialism — Command <strong>of</strong> the Times”, Kommunist,Moscow, No. 2, 1961.217
internati<strong>on</strong>al agreements”. 1 On this questi<strong>on</strong>, Khrushchov hastaken over the line <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al;he advocates a “quiet burial <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ial system”. 2The old revisi<strong>on</strong>ists attacked the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>Marx</strong>ists,hurling at them the slander that “Bolshevism is in essence awarlike type <strong>of</strong> socialism” 3 and that “the Communist Internati<strong>on</strong>alharbours the illusi<strong>on</strong> that the liberati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the workerscan be achieved by means <strong>of</strong> the bay<strong>on</strong>ets <strong>of</strong> the vic<strong>to</strong>riousRed Army and that a new world war is necessary for theworld revoluti<strong>on</strong>”. They also spread the s<strong>to</strong>ry that this positi<strong>on</strong>had “created the greatest danger <strong>of</strong> a new world war”. 4The language Khrushchov uses <strong>to</strong>day <strong>to</strong> slander the ChineseCommunist Party and other fraternal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Partiesis exactly the language used by the old revisi<strong>on</strong>ists inslandering the Bolsheviks. It is hard <strong>to</strong> find any difference.It must be said that in serving the imperialists’ neocol<strong>on</strong>ialism,Khrushchov is not a whit inferior <strong>to</strong> the oldrevisi<strong>on</strong>ists in their service <strong>of</strong> the imperialists’ old col<strong>on</strong>ialism.Lenin showed how the policy <strong>of</strong> imperialism caused the internati<strong>on</strong>alworkers’ movement <strong>to</strong> split in<strong>to</strong> two secti<strong>on</strong>s, therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary and the opportunist. The revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary secti<strong>on</strong>sided with the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and opposed the imperialistsand col<strong>on</strong>ialists. On the other hand, the opportunist secti<strong>on</strong>fed <strong>on</strong> crumbs from the spoils which the imperialists and col<strong>on</strong>ialistssqueezed out <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ies and semicol<strong>on</strong>ies.It sided with the imperialists and col<strong>on</strong>ialists andopposed the revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s for liberati<strong>on</strong>.1“Resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the Terri<strong>to</strong>rial Questi<strong>on</strong>”, adopted by the Internati<strong>on</strong>alSocialist C<strong>on</strong>ference in Berne, 1919, Material <strong>on</strong> the First and Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>als, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 380.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. <strong>General</strong> Assembly, September23, 1960.3Ot<strong>to</strong> Bauer, Speech <strong>on</strong> the Oriental Questi<strong>on</strong> at the Internati<strong>on</strong>alSocialist C<strong>on</strong>gress in Marseilles, 1925, Material <strong>on</strong> the First and Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>als, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, pp. 468.4“Resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the Oriental Questi<strong>on</strong>”, adopted by the Internati<strong>on</strong>alSocialist C<strong>on</strong>gress in Marseilles, 1925, Material <strong>on</strong> the First and Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>als, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 474.218
The same kind <strong>of</strong> divisi<strong>on</strong> between revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries and opportunistsin the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement asthat described by Lenin is now taking shape not <strong>on</strong>ly in theworking-class movement in capitalist countries but also insocialist countries where the proletariat wields state power.The experience <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry shows that if the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement is <strong>to</strong> achieve complete vic<strong>to</strong>ry it must form asolid alliance with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary working-class movement,draw a clear line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong> between itself and therevisi<strong>on</strong>ists who serve the imperialists and col<strong>on</strong>ialists, andfirmly eradicate their influence.The experience <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry shows that if the working-classmovement <strong>of</strong> the capitalist countries in Western Europe andNorth America is <strong>to</strong> achieve complete vic<strong>to</strong>ry, it must form aclose alliance with the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement in Asia,Africa and Latin America, draw a clear line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong>between itself and the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, and firmly eradicate theirinfluence.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ists are agents <strong>of</strong> imperialism who have hiddenthemselves am<strong>on</strong>g the ranks <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-classmovement. Lenin said, “. . . the fight against imperialism isa sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up withthe fight against opportunism.” 1 Thus it is clear that thepresent fight against imperialism and old and new col<strong>on</strong>ialismmust be linked closely with the fight against the apologists <strong>of</strong>neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism.However hard the imperialists disguise their intenti<strong>on</strong>s andbestir themselves, however hard their apologists whitewashand help neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism, imperialism and col<strong>on</strong>ialism cannotescape their doom. The vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>revoluti<strong>on</strong> is irresistible. So<strong>on</strong>er or later the apologists <strong>of</strong> neocol<strong>on</strong>ialismwill go bankrupt.Workers <strong>of</strong> the world and the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s, unite!1V. I. Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage <strong>of</strong> Capitalism”, SelectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 560.219
TWO DIFFERENT LINESON THE QUESTION OFWAR AND PEACEFifth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(November 19, 1964)
HE whole world is discussing the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war andT peace.The criminal system <strong>of</strong> imperialism has brought up<strong>on</strong> thepeople <strong>of</strong> the world numerous wars, including two disastrousworld wars. Wars launched by imperialism have caused thepeople heavy suffering, but have also educated them.Since World War II, people everywhere have been vigorouslydemanding world peace. More and more people havecome <strong>to</strong> understand that <strong>to</strong> defend world peace it is imperative<strong>to</strong> wage struggles against the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>and war.<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists throughout the world are duty bound <strong>to</strong>treasure the peace sentiments <strong>of</strong> the people and <strong>to</strong> stand inthe forefr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> the struggle for world peace. They are dutybound <strong>to</strong> struggle against the imperialists’ policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>and war, <strong>to</strong> expose their decepti<strong>on</strong>s and defeat theirplans for war. They are duty bound <strong>to</strong> educate the people,raise their political c<strong>on</strong>sciousness and guide the struggle forworld peace in the proper directi<strong>on</strong>.In c<strong>on</strong>trast <strong>to</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, the modern revisi<strong>on</strong>istshelp the imperialists <strong>to</strong> deceive the people, divert the people’sattenti<strong>on</strong>, weaken and undermine their struggle against imperialismand cover up the imperialists’ plans for a new worldwar, thus meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> imperialist policy.The <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peaceis diametrically opposed <strong>to</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line.The <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line is the correct line c<strong>on</strong>ducive <strong>to</strong>the winning <strong>of</strong> world peace. It is the line c<strong>on</strong>sistently upheldby all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties, including the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China, and by all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists.223
The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line is a wr<strong>on</strong>g line which serves <strong>to</strong> increasethe danger <strong>of</strong> a new war. It is the line gradually developedby the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU since its 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress.On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peace many lies slandering theChinese Communists have been fabricated in the Open Letter<strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and in numerous statementsby the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, but these cannot c<strong>on</strong>cealthe essence <strong>of</strong> the differences.In what follows we shall analyse the main differences betweenthe <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist and the modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ist lines<strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peace.THE LESSONS OF HISTORYEver since capitalism evolved in<strong>to</strong> imperialism, the questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> war and peace has been a vital <strong>on</strong>e in the struggle between<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.Imperialism is the source <strong>of</strong> wars in modern times. Theimperialists alternately use a deceptive policy <strong>of</strong> peace and apolicy <strong>of</strong> war. They <strong>of</strong>ten cover their crimes <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>and their preparati<strong>on</strong>s for a new war with lies about peace.Lenin and Stalin tirelessly called up<strong>on</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> allcountries <strong>to</strong> combat the peace frauds <strong>of</strong> the imperialists.Lenin said that the imperialist governments “pay lip service<strong>to</strong> peace and justice, but in fact wage annexati<strong>on</strong>ist and preda<strong>to</strong>rywars”. 1Stalin said that the imperialists “have <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e aim in resorting<strong>to</strong> pacifism: <strong>to</strong> dupe the masses with high-sounding phrasesabout peace in order <strong>to</strong> prepare for a new war”. 2 He also said:1V. I. Lenin, “Report <strong>on</strong> Peace”, Delivered at the Sec<strong>on</strong>d All-RussianC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> Soviets <strong>of</strong> Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, Selected Works,Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p. 332.2J. V. Stalin, “C<strong>on</strong>cerning the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Situati<strong>on</strong>”, Works, Eng.ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 297.224
Many think that imperialist pacifism is an instrument <strong>of</strong>peace. That is absolutely wr<strong>on</strong>g. Imperialist pacifism isan instrument for the preparati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and for disguisingthis preparati<strong>on</strong> by hypocritical talk <strong>of</strong> peace. Without thispacifism and its instrument, the League <strong>of</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>s, preparati<strong>on</strong>for war in the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>to</strong>day would be impossible.1In c<strong>on</strong>trast <strong>to</strong> Lenin and Stalin, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al, who were renegades from the workingclass, helped the imperialists <strong>to</strong> deceive the people and becametheir accomplices in unleashing the two World Wars.Before World War I, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists represented by Bernsteinand Kautsky endeavoured by hypocritical talk aboutpeace <strong>to</strong> paralyse the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary fighting will <strong>of</strong> the peopleand cover up the imperialist plans for a world war.As World War I was breaking out, the old revisi<strong>on</strong>istsspeedily shed their peace masks, sided with their respectiveimperialist governments, supported the imperialist war forthe redivisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the world, voted for military appropriati<strong>on</strong>sin parliament, and incited the working class <strong>of</strong> their owncountries <strong>to</strong> plunge in<strong>to</strong> the war and slaughter their classbrothers in other countries under the hypocritical slogan <strong>of</strong>“defending the motherland”.When the imperialists needed an armistice in their own interests,the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists typified by Kautsky tried <strong>to</strong> pois<strong>on</strong>people’s minds and <strong>to</strong> oppose revoluti<strong>on</strong> by such glib talk as“nothing would make me happier than a c<strong>on</strong>cilia<strong>to</strong>ry peacebased <strong>on</strong> the principle, ‘Live and let live’ ”. 2After World War I, the renegade Kautsky and his successorsbecame still more brazen trumpeters <strong>of</strong> the imperialists’peace frauds.1J. V. Stalin, “Results <strong>of</strong> the July Plenum <strong>of</strong> the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.)”,Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, p. 209.2Karl Kautsky, Nati<strong>on</strong>al Problems, Russ. ed., Petrograd, 1918, p. 88.225
The revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al spread a pack<strong>of</strong> lies <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peace.1. They prettified imperialism and turned the minds <strong>of</strong>the people away from their struggles. Kautsky said:. . . the danger <strong>to</strong> world peace from imperialism is <strong>on</strong>lyslight. The greater danger appears <strong>to</strong> come from the nati<strong>on</strong>alstrivings in the East and from the various dicta<strong>to</strong>rships.1Thus people were asked <strong>to</strong> believe that the source <strong>of</strong> warwas not imperialism but the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the East andthe Soviet state, the great bulwark <strong>of</strong> peace.2. They helped the imperialists cover up the danger <strong>of</strong> anew war and blunted the fighting will <strong>of</strong> the people. Kautskysaid in 1928, “If <strong>to</strong>day you keep <strong>on</strong> talking loudly about thedangers <strong>of</strong> imperialist war, you are relying <strong>on</strong> a traditi<strong>on</strong>alformula and not <strong>on</strong> present-day c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>s.” 2 Old revisi<strong>on</strong>ists<strong>of</strong> his brand described those believing in the inevitability<strong>of</strong> imperialist wars as “committed <strong>to</strong> a fatalistic c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry”. 33. They intimidated the people with the noti<strong>on</strong> that warwould destroy mankind. Kautsky said:. . . the next war will not <strong>on</strong>ly bring want and misery,but will basically put an end <strong>to</strong> civilisati<strong>on</strong> and, at leastin Europe, will leave behind nothing but smoking ruins andputrefying corpses. 4These old revisi<strong>on</strong>ists said:1Karl Kautsky, The Questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Defence and Social-Democracy,Ger. ed., Berlin, 1928, p. 37.2Ibid., p. 28.3Hugo Haase, Speech <strong>on</strong> the Questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Imperialism at the C<strong>on</strong>gress<strong>of</strong> the German Social-Democratic Party in Chemnitz, 1912, publishedin the Handbook <strong>of</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Social-Democratic Partyin 1910-1913, Ger. ed., Munich, Vol. II, p. 234.4Karl Kautsky, Preface <strong>to</strong> War and Democracy, Ger. ed., Berlin,1932, p. xii.226
The last war brought the entire world <strong>to</strong> the brink <strong>of</strong>the precipice; the next <strong>on</strong>e would destroy it completely.The mere preparati<strong>on</strong> for a new war would ruin the world. 14. They made no distincti<strong>on</strong> between just and unjust warsand forbade revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Kautsky said in 1914:. . . in present-day c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, there is no such thing asa war which is not a misfortune for nati<strong>on</strong>s in general andfor the proletariat in particular. What we discussed wasthe means by which we could prevent a threatening war,and not which wars are useful and which harmful. 2He also said:The yearning for perpetual peace increasingly inspiresthe majority <strong>of</strong> cultured nati<strong>on</strong>s. It temporarily pushesthe essentially great problem <strong>of</strong> our times in<strong>to</strong> thebackground. . . . 35. They propagated the theory that weap<strong>on</strong>s decideeverything and they opposed revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary armed struggle.Kautsky said:As has been <strong>of</strong>ten stated, <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the reas<strong>on</strong>s why thecoming revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles will more rarely be fough<strong>to</strong>ut by military means lies in the colossal superiority inarmaments <strong>of</strong> the armies <strong>of</strong> modern states over the armswhich are at the disposal <strong>of</strong> “civilians” and which usuallyrender any resistance <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the latter hopelessfrom the very outset. 41“Resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>s”, adopted by the Internati<strong>on</strong>alSocialist C<strong>on</strong>ference in Berne, 1919, Material <strong>on</strong> the First and Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>als, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 378.2Karl Kautsky, “Social-Democracy in War”, Die Neue Zeit, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber2, 1914.3Karl Kautsky, Preface <strong>to</strong> War and Democracy, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1932,p. xii.4Karl Kautsky, “A Catechism <strong>of</strong> Social-Democracy”, Die Neue Zeit,December 13, 1893.227
6. They spread the absurd theory that world peace can besafeguarded and equality <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>s achieved through disarmament.Bernstein said:Peace <strong>on</strong> earth and good will <strong>to</strong> all men! We should notpause or rest and must attend <strong>to</strong> the unhindered advance<strong>of</strong> society <strong>to</strong>wards prosperity in the interests <strong>of</strong> all, <strong>to</strong>wardsequality <strong>of</strong> rights am<strong>on</strong>g nati<strong>on</strong>s through internati<strong>on</strong>alagreement and disarmament. 17. They spread the fallacy that the m<strong>on</strong>ey saved fromdisarmament can be used <strong>to</strong> assist backward countries.Kautsky said:. . . the lighter the burden <strong>of</strong> military expenditures inWestern Europe, the greater the means available for buildingrailways in China, Persia, Turkey, South America, etc.,and these public works are a far more effective means <strong>of</strong>promoting industrial development than the building <strong>of</strong>dreadnoughts. 28. They submitted schemes for the “peace strategy” <strong>of</strong>the imperialists. Kautsky said:The nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> civilised Europe (and likewise the Americans)can maintain peace in the Near and Far East moreeffectively through their ec<strong>on</strong>omic and intellectual resourcesthan through ir<strong>on</strong>clads and planes. 39. They ex<strong>to</strong>lled the League <strong>of</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>s which was c<strong>on</strong>trolledby the imperialists. Kautsky said:The mere existence <strong>of</strong> the League <strong>of</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>s is itselfalready a great achievement for the cause <strong>of</strong> peace. It rep-1Eduard Bernstein, Speech <strong>on</strong> the Questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Disarmament at theC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the German Social-Democratic Party in Chemnitz, 1912,published in the Handbook <strong>of</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Social-DemocraticParty in 1910-1913, Ger. ed., Munich, Vol. II, p. 9.2Karl Kautsky, “Once More <strong>on</strong> Disarmament”, Die Neue Zeit, September6, 1912.3Karl Kautsky, The Questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Defence and Social-Democracy,Ger. ed., Berlin, 1928, p. 32.228
esents a lever for the preservati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peace such as noother instituti<strong>on</strong> can <strong>of</strong>fer. 110. They spread the illusi<strong>on</strong> that reliance could be placed<strong>on</strong> U.S. imperialism <strong>to</strong> defend world peace. Kautsky said:Today the United States is the str<strong>on</strong>gest power in theworld and will make the League <strong>of</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>s irresistible asso<strong>on</strong> as it works inside it or with it <strong>to</strong> prevent war. 2Lenin ruthlessly exposed the ugly features <strong>of</strong> Kautsky andhis ilk. He pointed out that the pacifist phrases <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists<strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al served <strong>on</strong>ly “as a means<strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>soling the people, as a means <strong>of</strong> helping the governments<strong>to</strong> keep the masses in submissi<strong>on</strong> in order <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinuethe imperialist slaughter!” 3Stalin pointed out:And the most important thing in all this is that Social-Democracy is the main channel <strong>of</strong> imperialist pacifismwithin the working class — c<strong>on</strong>sequently, it is capitalism’smain support am<strong>on</strong>g the working class in preparing for newwars and interventi<strong>on</strong>. 4Even a cursory comparis<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Comrade Khrushchov’sstatements <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peace with those <strong>of</strong>Bernstein, Kautsky and others shows that there is nothing newin his views, which are a mere reproducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ism<strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al.On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peace, which has a vital bearing<strong>on</strong> the destiny <strong>of</strong> mankind, Khrushchov is following in1Ibid., p. 25.2Karl Kautsky, Socialists and War, Ger. ed., Prague, 1937, p. 639.3V. I. Lenin, “To the Workers Who Support the Struggle Againstthe War and Against the Socialists Who Have Deserted <strong>to</strong> the Side<strong>of</strong> Their Governments”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers,New York, 1942, Vol. XIX, p. 435.4J. V. Stalin, “Results <strong>of</strong> the July Plenum <strong>of</strong> the C.C., C.P.S.U. (B.)”,Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, p. 210.229
the footsteps <strong>of</strong> Bernstein and Kautsky. As his<strong>to</strong>ry shows,this is a road extremely dangerous <strong>to</strong> world peace.In order effectively <strong>to</strong> defend world peace and prevent anew world war, <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and peace-loving peopleall over the world must reject and oppose Khrushchov’s err<strong>on</strong>eousline.THE GREATEST FRAUDThere is no bigger lie than the designati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the arch enemy<strong>of</strong> world peace as a peace-loving angel.Since World War II, U.S. imperialism, stepping in<strong>to</strong> theshoes <strong>of</strong> the German, Italian and Japanese fascists, has beenendeavouring <strong>to</strong> set up a vast world empire such as has neverbeen known before. The “global strategy” <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialismhas been <strong>to</strong> grab and dominate the intermediate z<strong>on</strong>elying between the United States and the socialist camp, putdown the revoluti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s,proceed <strong>to</strong> destroy the socialist countries, and thus <strong>to</strong> dominatethe whole world.In the eighteen years since the end <strong>of</strong> World War II, inorder <strong>to</strong> realize its ambiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> world dominati<strong>on</strong>, U.S. imperialismhas been carrying <strong>on</strong> aggressive wars or counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>aryaimed interventi<strong>on</strong>s in various parts <strong>of</strong> theworld and has been actively preparing for a new world war.It is obvious that imperialism remains the source <strong>of</strong> modernwars and that U.S. imperialism is the main force <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>and war in the c<strong>on</strong>temporary world. This has beenclearly affirmed in both the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960Statement.Yet the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hold that the chief representatives<strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism love peace. They say that a“reas<strong>on</strong>able” group has emerged capable <strong>of</strong> soberly assessingthe situati<strong>on</strong>. And Eisenhower and Kennedy are representatives<strong>of</strong> this “reas<strong>on</strong>able” group.230
Khrushchov praised Eisenhower as <strong>on</strong>e who “enjoys theabsolute c<strong>on</strong>fidence <strong>of</strong> his people”, who “has a sincere desirefor peace” and who “also worries about ensuring peace justas we do”.Now Khrushchov praises Kennedy as even better qualified<strong>to</strong> shoulder the resp<strong>on</strong>sibility <strong>of</strong> preserving world peace thanwas Eisenhower. He showed “solicitude for the preservati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> peace”, 1 and it is reas<strong>on</strong>able <strong>to</strong> expect him <strong>to</strong> “create reliablec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for a peaceful life and creative labour <strong>on</strong>earth”. 2Khrushchov works as hard as the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al at telling lies about imperialism and prettifyingit.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUasks those who do not believe in these lies: “Do they reallythink that all bourgeois governments, in all their doings,lack reas<strong>on</strong>?”Obviously, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU ignore the ABC <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. In a class society there is no reas<strong>on</strong> thatcan transcend class. The proletariat has proletarian reas<strong>on</strong>and the bourgeoisie bourgeois reas<strong>on</strong>. Reas<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>notes that<strong>on</strong>e must be good at formulating policies in the fundamentalinterests <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s own class and at taking acti<strong>on</strong>s according <strong>to</strong><strong>on</strong>e’s basic class stand. The reas<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Kennedy and his likelies in acting according <strong>to</strong> the fundamental interests <strong>of</strong> U.S.m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital, and it is imperialist reas<strong>on</strong>.At a time when the internati<strong>on</strong>al balance <strong>of</strong> class forcesis becoming increasingly unfavourable <strong>to</strong> imperialism and theU.S. imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war are meetingwith c<strong>on</strong>stant setbacks, the U.S. imperialists have <strong>to</strong> disguisethemselves more frequently under the cloak <strong>of</strong> peace.It is true that Kennedy is rather clever at spinning wordsabout peace and employing peace tactics. But as with his1N. S. Khrushchov, Letter <strong>to</strong> J. F. Kennedy, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 27, 1962.2New Year Message <strong>of</strong> Greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I.Brezhnev <strong>to</strong> J. F. Kennedy, Izvestia, January 3, 1963.231
war policy, Kennedy’s deceptive peace policy serves the“global strategy” <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.Kennedy’s “strategy <strong>of</strong> peace” aims at unifying the wholeworld in<strong>to</strong> the “world community <strong>of</strong> free nati<strong>on</strong>s” rooted inU.S. imperialist “law and justice”.The main points <strong>of</strong> Kennedy’s “strategy <strong>of</strong> peace” are:To promote U.S. neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism in Asia, Africa andLatin America by peaceful means;To penetrate and dominate other imperialist and capitalistcountries by peaceful means;To encourage by peaceful means the socialist countries<strong>to</strong> take the Yugoslav road <strong>of</strong> “peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>”;To weaken and undermine by peaceful means the struggle<strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the world against imperialism.In his recent speech at the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>General</strong> Assembly,Kennedy arrogantly announced the followingc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for peace between the United States and the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>:(1) The German Democratic Republic must be incorporatedin<strong>to</strong> West Germany.(2) Socialist Cuba must not be allowed <strong>to</strong> exist.(3) The socialist countries in Eastern Europe must begiven “free choice”, by which he means that capitalism mustbe res<strong>to</strong>red in these countries.(4) The socialist countries must not support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s.To attain their aims by “peaceful means” wherever possiblehas been a cus<strong>to</strong>mary tactic <strong>of</strong> imperialists and col<strong>on</strong>ialists.Reacti<strong>on</strong>ary classes always rely <strong>on</strong> two tactics <strong>to</strong> maintaintheir rule and <strong>to</strong> carry out foreign aggrandizement. One isthe tactic <strong>of</strong> priest-like decepti<strong>on</strong>, the other that <strong>of</strong> butcherlikesuppressi<strong>on</strong>. Imperialism always employs its deceptivepolicy <strong>of</strong> peace and its policy <strong>of</strong> war <strong>to</strong> reinforce each other,and they are complementary. The reas<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Kennedy, who232
is the representative <strong>of</strong> U.S. m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital, can expressitself <strong>on</strong>ly in a more cunning use <strong>of</strong> these two tactics.Violence is always the main tactic <strong>of</strong> reacti<strong>on</strong>ary rulingclasses. Priest-like decepti<strong>on</strong> plays <strong>on</strong>ly a supplementaryrole. Imperialists always rely <strong>on</strong> positi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> strength <strong>to</strong>carve out their spheres <strong>of</strong> influence. Kennedy has made thispoint very clear. He said, “In the end, the <strong>on</strong>ly way <strong>to</strong>maintain the peace is <strong>to</strong> be prepared in the final extreme t<strong>of</strong>ight for our country — and <strong>to</strong> mean it.” 1 Since Kennedy<strong>to</strong>ok <strong>of</strong>fice, he has followed the “strategy <strong>of</strong> flexible resp<strong>on</strong>se”,which requires the speedy building <strong>of</strong> “versatile militaryforces” and the strengthening <strong>of</strong> “all-round power” so thatthe United States will be able <strong>to</strong> fight any kind <strong>of</strong> war itpleases, whether a general war or a limited war, whether anuclear war or a c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al war, and whether a large war ora small war. This mad plan <strong>of</strong> Kennedy’s has pushed U.S.arms expansi<strong>on</strong> and war preparati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> an unprecedentedpeak. Let us look at the following facts published by <strong>of</strong>ficialU.S. sources:1. The military expenditures <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Governmenthave increased from 46,700 milli<strong>on</strong> dollars in the fiscal year1960 <strong>to</strong> an estimated 60,000 milli<strong>on</strong> dollars in the fiscal year1964, the highest <strong>to</strong>tal ever in peace time and greater thanduring the Korean War.2. Kennedy recently declared that in the past two yearsand more there has been a 100 per cent increase in thenumber <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the U.S. strategic alert forcesand a 45 per cent increase in the number <strong>of</strong> combat-readyarmy divisi<strong>on</strong>s, the procurement <strong>of</strong> airlift aircraft has beenincreased by 175 per cent and there has been an increase bynearly five times in the “special guerrilla and counter-insurgencyforces”. 21J. F. Kennedy, Speech at the Eighth Annual Veteran’s Day Cerem<strong>on</strong>y,November 11, 1961.2J. F. Kennedy, Speech at a Democratic Party Fund-Raising Dinner,Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 30, 1963.233
3. The U.S. Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff hasmapped out plans for nuclear war against the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>and other socialist countries. Robert McNamara, the U.S.Secretary <strong>of</strong> Defence, declared at the beginning <strong>of</strong> this year:. . . we have provided, throughout the period underc<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>, a capability <strong>to</strong> destroy virtually all <strong>of</strong> the“s<strong>of</strong>t-” [above-ground] and “semi-hard” [semi-protected]military targets in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and a large number<strong>of</strong> their fully hardened missile sites, with an additi<strong>on</strong>alcapability in the form <strong>of</strong> a protected force <strong>to</strong> be employedor held in reserve for use against urban and industrialareas. 1The United States has strengthened its network <strong>of</strong> nuclearmissile bases directed against the socialist camp and hasgreatly strengthened the dispositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> its missile-equippednuclear submarines abroad.At the same time, the troops <strong>of</strong> the NATO bloc under U.S.command have pushed eastward this year and approachedthe borders <strong>of</strong> the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia.4. The Kennedy Administrati<strong>on</strong> has reinforced its militarydispositi<strong>on</strong>s in Asia, Latin America and Africa and madegreat efforts <strong>to</strong> expand the “special forces” <strong>of</strong> its land, seaand air services in order <strong>to</strong> cope with the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymovement in those areas. The United States hasturned southern Viet Nam in<strong>to</strong> a proving ground for “specialwarfare” and increased its troops there <strong>to</strong> more than 16,000.5. It has strengthened its war commands. It has set upa “U.S. Strike Command” which c<strong>on</strong>trols a combined landand air force maintaining high combat readiness in peacetime, so that it can be readily sent <strong>to</strong> any place in the world<strong>to</strong> provoke wars. It has also set up nati<strong>on</strong>al military commandcentres both above and below ground, and organized an Emer-1R. S. McNamara, Statement Before the Armed Services Committee<strong>of</strong> the U.S. House <strong>of</strong> Representatives, January 30, 1963.234
gency Airborne Command Post operating from aircraft andan Emergency Sea Command Post operating from warships.These facts dem<strong>on</strong>strate that the U.S. imperialists are thewildest militarists <strong>of</strong> modern times, the wildest plotters <strong>of</strong> anew world war, and the most ferocious enemy <strong>of</strong> world peace.It is thus clear that the U.S. imperialists have not becomebeautiful angels in spite <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s bible-reading andpsalm-singing; they have not turned in<strong>to</strong> compassi<strong>on</strong>ateBuddhas in spite <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s prayers and incense-burning.However hard Khrushchov tries <strong>to</strong> serve the U.S. imperialists,they show not the slightest appreciati<strong>on</strong>. Theyc<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> expose their own peace camouflage by fresh andnumerous activities <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war, and thus theyc<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> slap Khrushchov in the face and reveal thebankruptcy <strong>of</strong> his ridiculous theories prettifying imperialism.The lot <strong>of</strong> the willing apologists <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism is indeeda sorry <strong>on</strong>e.THE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OFPREVENTING A NEW WORLD WARIt is a fact that the imperialists headed by the UnitedStates are actively preparing a new world war and that thedanger <strong>of</strong> such a war does exist. We should make this factclear <strong>to</strong> the people.But can a new world war be prevented?The views <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Communists <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong>have always been quite explicit.After the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> World War II, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tsetungscientifically analysed the post-war internati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong>and advanced the view that a new world war can beprevented.Back in 1946, in his well-known talk with the Americancorresp<strong>on</strong>dent Anna Louise Str<strong>on</strong>g, he said:235
But the fact that the U.S. reacti<strong>on</strong>aries are now trumpetingso loudly about a U.S.-Soviet war and creating afoul atmosphere, so so<strong>on</strong> after the end <strong>of</strong> World War II,compels us <strong>to</strong> take a look at their real aims. It turns outthat under the cover <strong>of</strong> anti-Soviet slogans they are franticallyattacking the workers and democratic circles in theUnited States and turning all the countries which are thetargets <strong>of</strong> U.S. external expansi<strong>on</strong> in<strong>to</strong> U.S. dependencies.I think the American people and the peoples <strong>of</strong> all countriesmenaced by U.S. aggressi<strong>on</strong> should unite and struggleagainst the attacks <strong>of</strong> the U.S. reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and their runningdogs in these countries. Only by vic<strong>to</strong>ry in this strugglecan a third world war be avoided; otherwise it isunavoidable. 1Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung’s remarks were directed against apessimistic appraisal <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong> at thetime The imperialists headed by the United States, <strong>to</strong>getherwith the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries in various countries, were daily intensifyingtheir anti-Soviet, anti-Communist and anti-popularactivities and trumpeting that “war between the UnitedStates and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> is inevitable” and that “the outbreak<strong>of</strong> a third world war is inevitable”. The Chiang, Kai-shekreacti<strong>on</strong>aries gave this great publicity in order <strong>to</strong> intimidatethe Chinese people. Frightened by such blackmail, somecomrades became faint-hearted in the face <strong>of</strong> the armedattacks launched by the Chiang Kai-shek reacti<strong>on</strong>aries withU.S. imperialist support and dared not firmly oppose thecounter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary war with a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary war. Comrade<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung held different views. He pointed out that anew world war could be prevented provided resolute andeffective struggles were waged against world reacti<strong>on</strong>.His scientific propositi<strong>on</strong> was c<strong>on</strong>firmed by the great vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> the Chinese Revoluti<strong>on</strong>.1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV,p. 100.236
The vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Revoluti<strong>on</strong> brought about atremendous change in the internati<strong>on</strong>al balance <strong>of</strong> class forces.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung pointed out in June 1950:The menace <strong>of</strong> war by the imperialist camp still existsthe possibility <strong>of</strong> a third world war still exists. But theforces thwarting the danger <strong>of</strong> war and preventing a thirdworld war are rapidly developing, and the political c<strong>on</strong>sciousness<strong>of</strong> the broad masses <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the worldis rising. A new world war can be prevented providedthe Communist Parties <strong>of</strong> the world keep <strong>on</strong> uniting andstrengthening all the forces <strong>of</strong> peace and democracy thatcan be united. 1In November 1957, at the meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties,Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung made a detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> thechanges in internati<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>s since the end <strong>of</strong> WorldWar II and showed that the internati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong> had reacheda new turning point. He vividly depicted the situati<strong>on</strong> witha metaphor from a classical Chinese novel — “The east windprevails over the west wind”. He said:It is characteristic <strong>of</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>day, I believe, thatthe East wind is prevailing over the West wind. That is<strong>to</strong> say, the forces <strong>of</strong> socialism are overwhelmingly superior<strong>to</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> imperialism. 2He arrived at this c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> by an analysis <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alclass relati<strong>on</strong>s. He explicitly placed <strong>on</strong> the side <strong>of</strong> “the Eastwind” the socialist camp, the internati<strong>on</strong>al working class, theCommunist Parties, the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s andthe peace-loving people and countries, while c<strong>on</strong>fining “theWest wind” <strong>to</strong> the war forces <strong>of</strong> imperialism and reacti<strong>on</strong>.1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better inthe Financial and Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Situati<strong>on</strong> in China”, Renmin Ribao, June13, 1950.2Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung <strong>on</strong> “Imperialism and All Reacti<strong>on</strong>aries ArePaper Tigers”, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p. 35.237
The political meaning Of this metaphor is very lucid anddefinite. The fact that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and theirfollowers are twisting this metaphor in<strong>to</strong> a geographical orethnical or meteorological c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>on</strong>ly shows that they want<strong>to</strong> squeeze themselves in<strong>to</strong> the ranks <strong>of</strong> the “West” in order<strong>to</strong> please the imperialists and <strong>to</strong> stir up chauvinism in Europeand North America.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung’s main aim in stating that “theEast wind prevails over the West wind” was <strong>to</strong> point <strong>to</strong> thegrowing possibility that a new world war could be preventedand that the socialist countries would be able <strong>to</strong> carry <strong>on</strong>their c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> in a peaceful envir<strong>on</strong>ment.These propositi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung’s have beenand are the c<strong>on</strong>sistent views <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China.It is thus clear that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are deliberatelyc<strong>on</strong>cocting a lie in alleging that the Chinese Communist Partydoes “not believe in the possibility <strong>of</strong> preventing a new worldwar.” 1Again, it is clear that the thesis <strong>on</strong> the possibility <strong>of</strong> preventinga third world war was advanced by <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistsl<strong>on</strong>g ago; it was not first put forward at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress<strong>of</strong> the CPSU, nor is it Khrushchov’s “creati<strong>on</strong>”.Is it then true that Khrushchov has created nothing at all?No. He has created something. Unfortunately, these “creati<strong>on</strong>s”are by no means <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist, but revisi<strong>on</strong>ist.First, Khrushchev has wilfully interpreted the possibility<strong>of</strong> preventing a new world war as the <strong>on</strong>ly possibility, holdingthat there is no possibility <strong>of</strong> a new world war.<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists hold that while pointing <strong>to</strong> the possibility<strong>of</strong> preventing a new world war, we must also call attenti<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the possibility that imperialism may unleash a world war.Only by pointing <strong>to</strong> both possibilities, pursuing correct policiesand preparing for both eventualities can we effectively1Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> All Party Organizati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> All Communists<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, July 14, 1963.238
mobilize the masses <strong>to</strong> wage struggles in defence <strong>of</strong> worldpeace. Only thus will the socialist countries and people andother peace-loving countries and people not be caught unawaresand utterly unprepared should imperialism force aworld war <strong>on</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the world.However, Khrushchov and others are against exposing thedanger <strong>of</strong> a new war which the imperialists are plotting.According <strong>to</strong> them, imperialism has actually become peaceloving.This is helping the imperialists <strong>to</strong> lull the massesand sap their fighting will so that they will lose their vigilanceagainst the danger <strong>of</strong> the new war the imperialists areplotting.Sec<strong>on</strong>d, Khrushchov has wilfully interpreted the possibility<strong>of</strong> preventing a new world war as the possibility <strong>of</strong>preventing all wars, holding that the Leninist axiom thatwar is inevitable so l<strong>on</strong>g as imperialism exists is outmoded.The possibility <strong>of</strong> preventing a new world war is <strong>on</strong>e thing;the possibility <strong>of</strong> preventing all wars, including revoluti<strong>on</strong>arywars, is another. And it is completely wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fuse thetwo.There is soil for wars so l<strong>on</strong>g as imperialism and the system<strong>of</strong> exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> man by man exist. This is an objective lawdiscovered by Lenin after abundant scientific study.Stalin said in 1952 after indicating the possibility <strong>of</strong> preventinga new world war, “To eliminate the inevitability <strong>of</strong>war, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> abolish imperialism.” 1Lenin and Stalin are right and Khrushchov is wr<strong>on</strong>g.His<strong>to</strong>ry shows that while the imperialists have succeededin launching two world wars, they have waged numerouswars <strong>of</strong> other kinds. Since World War II, by their policies<strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war the imperialists headed by the UnitedStates have brought about ceaseless local wars and armedc<strong>on</strong>flicts <strong>of</strong> every descripti<strong>on</strong> in many places, and especiallyin Asia, Africa and Latin America.1J. V. Stalin, Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Problems <strong>of</strong> Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Eng.ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, p. 41.239
It is clear that nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> wars are inevitable whenthe imperialists, and the U.S. imperialists in particular, sendtheir troops or use their lackeys <strong>to</strong> carry out sanguinary suppressi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and countries fighting foror upholding nati<strong>on</strong>al independence.Lenin said:To deny all possibility <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al wars under imperialismis wr<strong>on</strong>g in theory, obviously mistaken his<strong>to</strong>rically,and in practice is tantamount <strong>to</strong> European chauvinism. 1It is equally clear that revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civil wars are inevitablewhen the bourgeois reacti<strong>on</strong>aries suppress the peoplein their oven countries by force <strong>of</strong> arms.Lenin said:. . . civil wars are also wars. Whoever recognizes theclass struggle cannot fail <strong>to</strong> recognize civil wars, which inevery class society are the natural, and under certain c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s,inevitable c<strong>on</strong>tinuati<strong>on</strong>, development and intensificati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the class struggle. All the great revoluti<strong>on</strong>sprove this. To repudiate civil war, or <strong>to</strong> forget about it,would mean sinking in<strong>to</strong> extreme opportunism and renouncingthe socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>. 2Nearly all the great revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in his<strong>to</strong>ry were madethrough revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary wars. The American War <strong>of</strong> Independenceand Civil War are cases in point. The French Revoluti<strong>on</strong>is another example. The Russian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the ChineseRevoluti<strong>on</strong> are <strong>of</strong> course examples <strong>to</strong>o. The revoluti<strong>on</strong>sin Viet Nam, Cuba, Algeria, etc. are also well-known examples.In 1871, summing up the less<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Paris Commune inhis speech commemorating the seventh anniversary <strong>of</strong> thefounding <strong>of</strong> the First Internati<strong>on</strong>al, <strong>Marx</strong> menti<strong>on</strong>ed the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sfor the eliminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> class dominati<strong>on</strong> and class oppressi<strong>on</strong>.He said:1V. I. Lenin, “The War Program <strong>of</strong> the Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 571.2Ibid.240
. . . before such a change can be c<strong>on</strong>summated, a dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat is necessary, and its first premiss isan army <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. The working class must win theright <strong>to</strong> its emancipati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the battlefield. 1In accordance with <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong>Tse-tung advanced the celebrated thesis that “political powergrows out <strong>of</strong> the barrel <strong>of</strong> a gun”, when discussing the less<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the Russian and Chinese Revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in 1938. This thesis,<strong>to</strong>o, has now become a target <strong>of</strong> attack by the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU. They say it is evidence <strong>of</strong> China’s being “warlike”.Respected friends, slanders like yours were refuted by Comrade<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung as far back as twenty-five years ago:According <strong>to</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist theory <strong>of</strong> the state, the army isthe chief comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> state power. Whoever wants <strong>to</strong>seize and retain state power must have a str<strong>on</strong>g army. Somepeople ridicule us as advocates <strong>of</strong> the “omnipotence <strong>of</strong> war”.Yes, we are advocates <strong>of</strong> the omnipotence <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>arywar; that is good, not bad, it is <strong>Marx</strong>ist. 2What is wr<strong>on</strong>g with Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung’s remark? Onlythose who reject all the his<strong>to</strong>rical experience gained in thebourgeois and proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>s over the last few hundredyears would reject this view <strong>of</strong> his.With their guns, the Chinese people have created socialistpolitical power. All except imperialists and their lackeys canreadily understand that this is a fine thing and that it is animportant fac<strong>to</strong>r in safeguarding world peace and preventinga third world war.<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists never c<strong>on</strong>ceal their views. We wholeheartedlysupport every people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary war. As Leninsaid <strong>of</strong> such revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary war, “Of all the wars known in1Works <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Ger. ed., Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962,Vol. XVII, p. 433.2<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Problems <strong>of</strong> War and Strategy”, Selected MilitaryWritings, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p. 273.241
his<strong>to</strong>ry it is the <strong>on</strong>ly lawful, rightful, just, and truly greatwar.” 1 If we are accused <strong>of</strong> being warlike simply because <strong>of</strong>this, it <strong>on</strong>ly goes <strong>to</strong> prove that we genuinely side with theoppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s and are true <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists.The imperialists and revisi<strong>on</strong>ists always denounced theBolsheviks and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary leaders like Lenin and Stalinas being “warlike”. The very fact that <strong>to</strong>day we are likewiseabused by imperialists and revisi<strong>on</strong>ists shows that we havebeen holding al<strong>of</strong>t the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary banner <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.Khrushchov and others vigorously propagate the view thatall wars can be prevented and “a world without weap<strong>on</strong>s, withoutarmed forces and without wars” can be brought in<strong>to</strong> beingwhile imperialism still exists. This is nothing but Kautsky’stheory <strong>of</strong> “ultra-imperialism” which has l<strong>on</strong>g been bankrupt.Their purpose is all <strong>to</strong>o clear; it is <strong>to</strong> make the people believethat permanent peace can be realized under imperialism andthereby <strong>to</strong> abolish revoluti<strong>on</strong> and nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> wars andrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civil wars against imperialism and its lackeys,and in fact <strong>to</strong> help the imperialists in their preparati<strong>on</strong>s fora new war.NUCLEAR FETISHISM AND NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL ARETHE THEORETICAL BASIS AND GUIDING POLICYOF MODERN REVISIONISMThe heart <strong>of</strong> the theory <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>on</strong> warand peace is their thesis that the emergence <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>shas changed everything including the laws <strong>of</strong> class struggle.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUsays, “The nuclear and rocket weap<strong>on</strong>s created in the middle<strong>of</strong> this century have changed former c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> war.” Inwhat way were they changed?1V. I. Lenin. “Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Days”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1969, Vol. VIII, p. 107.242
The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hold that with the appearance <strong>of</strong>nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s there is no l<strong>on</strong>ger any difference betweenjust and unjust wars. They say that “the a<strong>to</strong>mic bomb doesnot draw class distincti<strong>on</strong>s” and that “the a<strong>to</strong>mic bomb doesnot distinguish between imperialists and working people, itstrikes at areas, so that milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> workers would be killedfor every m<strong>on</strong>opolist destroyed”. 1They hold that with the appearance <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>sthe oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s must aband<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>and refrain from waging just popular revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary wars andwars <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>, or else such wars would lead <strong>to</strong>the destructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> mankind. They say, “. . . any small ‘localwar’ might spark <strong>of</strong>f the c<strong>on</strong>flagrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a world war” and“Today, any sort <strong>of</strong> war, though it may break out as an ordinaryn<strong>on</strong>-nuclear war, is likely <strong>to</strong> develop in<strong>to</strong> a destructivenuclear-missile c<strong>on</strong>flagrati<strong>on</strong>.” 2 Thus, “We will destroy ourNoah’s Ark — the globe”.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hold that the socialist countriesmust not resist but must yield <strong>to</strong> imperialist nuclear blackmailand war threats. Khrushchov said:There can be no doubt that a world nuclear war, if startedby the imperialist maniacs, would inevitably result in thedownfall <strong>of</strong> the capitalist system, a system breeding wars.But would the socialist countries and the cause <strong>of</strong> socialismall over the world benefit from a world nuclear disaster?Only people who deliberately shut their eyes <strong>to</strong> the factscan think so. As regards <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, they cannotpropose <strong>to</strong> establish a Communist civilisati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the ruins<strong>of</strong> centres <strong>of</strong> world culture, <strong>on</strong> land laid waste and c<strong>on</strong>taminatedby nuclear fall-out. We need hardly add that in thecase <strong>of</strong> many peoples, the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialism would be1Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> All Party Organizati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> All Communists <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, July 14, 1963.2N. S. Khrushchov, Radio and Televisi<strong>on</strong> Speech, June 15, 1961.243
eliminated al<strong>to</strong>gether because they would have disappearedbodily from our planet. 1In short, according <strong>to</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, with theemergence <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s, the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between thesocialist and the imperialist camps, the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> betweenthe proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries,and the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and imperialismhave all disappeared. The world no l<strong>on</strong>ger has anyclass c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s. They regard the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in thec<strong>on</strong>temporary world as boiling down <strong>to</strong> a single c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>,that is, their fictitious c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the so-called comm<strong>on</strong>survival <strong>of</strong> imperialism and the oppressed classes andnati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand and their <strong>to</strong>tal destructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> theother.As far as the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are c<strong>on</strong>cerned, <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement, and socialismand communism have all been cast <strong>to</strong> the winds.How frankly Pravda puts it! “What is the use <strong>of</strong> principlesif <strong>on</strong>e’s head is chopped <strong>of</strong>f?” 2This is tantamount <strong>to</strong> saying that the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries whodied under the sabres <strong>of</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong>the Russian Revoluti<strong>on</strong>s and the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the warriorswho bravely gave up their lives in the anti-fascist war,the heroes who shed their blood in the struggle against imperialismand for nati<strong>on</strong>al independence and the martyrs <strong>to</strong>the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause through the ages were all fools. Whyshould they have given up their heads for adherence <strong>to</strong> principle?This is the philosophy <strong>of</strong> out-and-out renegades. It is ashameless statement, <strong>to</strong> be found <strong>on</strong>ly in the c<strong>on</strong>fessi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>renegades.1N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Sixth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the SocialistUnity Party <strong>of</strong> Germany, January 16, 1963.2“Left <strong>of</strong> Comm<strong>on</strong> Sense”, Pravda, August 16, 1963.244
Guided by this theory <strong>of</strong> nuclear fetishism and nuclearblackmail, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU maintain that the way<strong>to</strong> defend world peace is not for all existing peace forces <strong>to</strong>unite and form the broadest united fr<strong>on</strong>t against U.S. imperialismand its lackeys but for the two nuclear powers, theUnited States and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong> co-operate in settlingthe world’s problems.Khrushchov has said:We [the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States] are thestr<strong>on</strong>gest countries in the world and if we unite for peacethere can be no war. Then if any madman wanted war,we would but have <strong>to</strong> shake our fingers <strong>to</strong> warn him <strong>of</strong>f. 1It is thus apparent <strong>to</strong> everybody how far the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU have g<strong>on</strong>e in regarding the enemy as their friend.In order <strong>to</strong> cover up their error, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhave not hesitated <strong>to</strong> attack the correct line <strong>of</strong> the CPC bylies and slanders. They assert that by advocating support forthe peoples’ wars <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civilwars the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China wants <strong>to</strong> provoke a nuclearworld war.This is a curious lie.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has always held that thesocialist countries should actively support the peoples’ revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles, including wars <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> andrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civil wars. To fail <strong>to</strong> do so would be <strong>to</strong> renouncetheir proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alist duty. At the same time, wehold that the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s can achieve liberati<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong>ly by their own resolute revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle and thatno <strong>on</strong>e else can do it for them.We have always maintained that socialist countries mustnot use nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> support the peoples’ wars <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civil wars and have n<strong>on</strong>eed <strong>to</strong> do so.1N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with the U.S. Corresp<strong>on</strong>dent C. L. Sulzberger<strong>on</strong> September 5, 1961, Pravda, September 10, 1961.245
We have always maintained that the socialist countriesmust achieve and maintain nuclear superiority. Only thiscan prevent the imperialists from launching a nuclear war andhelp bring about the complete prohibiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s.We c<strong>on</strong>sistently hold that in the hands <strong>of</strong> a socialist country,nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s must always be defensive weap<strong>on</strong>s forresisting imperialist nuclear threats. A socialist country absolutelymust not be the first <strong>to</strong> use nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s, nor shouldit in any circumstances play with them or engage in nuclearblackmail and nuclear gambling.We are opposed both <strong>to</strong> the wr<strong>on</strong>g practice <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong>the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>of</strong> withholding support from the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the peoples and <strong>to</strong> their wr<strong>on</strong>g approach<strong>to</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s. Instead <strong>of</strong> examining their own errors,they accuse us <strong>of</strong> hoping for a “head-<strong>on</strong> clash” 1 between theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States and trying <strong>to</strong> push themin<strong>to</strong> a nuclear war.Our answer is: No, friends. You had better cut out yoursensati<strong>on</strong> m<strong>on</strong>gering calumny. The Chinese Communist Partyis firmly opposed <strong>to</strong> a “head-<strong>on</strong> clash” between the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> and the United States, and not in words <strong>on</strong>ly. In deeds<strong>to</strong>o it has worked hard <strong>to</strong> avert direct armed c<strong>on</strong>flict betweenthem. Examples <strong>of</strong> this are the Korean War against U.S. aggressi<strong>on</strong>in which we fought side by side with the Koreancomrades and our struggle against the United States in theTaiwan Straits. We ourselves preferred <strong>to</strong> shoulder the heavysacrifices necessary and s<strong>to</strong>od in the first line <strong>of</strong> defense <strong>of</strong> thesocialist camp so that the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> might stay in thesec<strong>on</strong>d line. Have the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU any sense <strong>of</strong> proletarianmorality when they c<strong>on</strong>coct such lies?In fact, it is not we but the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU who havefrequently boasted that they would use nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong>help the anti-imperialist struggle <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e country or another.1“The <strong>General</strong> <strong>Line</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Communist Movement andthe Schismatic Platform <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Leaders”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial board articlein Kommunist, Moscow, No. 14, 1963.246
As every<strong>on</strong>e knows, the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s haveno nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s and they cannot use them <strong>to</strong> makerevoluti<strong>on</strong>s, nor is there any need for them <strong>to</strong> do so. Theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU admit that there is <strong>of</strong>ten no clear battleline between the two sides in nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> wars andcivil wars, and therefore the use <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s is out<strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong>. We should then like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU: What need is there for a socialist country <strong>to</strong> supportthe peoples’ revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles by nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s?We should also like <strong>to</strong> ask them: How would a socialistcountry use nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggle <strong>of</strong> an oppressed people or nati<strong>on</strong>? Would it usenuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> an area where a war <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>or a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civil war was in progress, therebysubjecting both the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people and the imperialists<strong>to</strong> a nuclear strike? Or would it be the first <strong>to</strong> use nuclearweap<strong>on</strong>s against an imperialist country which was waging ac<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al war <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> elsewhere? Obviously, ineither case it is absolutely impermissible for a socialist country<strong>to</strong> use nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s.The fact is that when the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU brandishtheir nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s, it is not really <strong>to</strong> support the people’santi-imperialist struggles.Sometimes, in order <strong>to</strong> gain cheap prestige, they just publishempty statements which they never intend <strong>to</strong> h<strong>on</strong>our.At other times, during the Caribbean crisis for instance,they engage in speculative, opportunistic and irresp<strong>on</strong>siblenuclear gambling for ulterior motives.As so<strong>on</strong> as their nuclear blackmail is seen through and iscountered in kind, they retreat <strong>on</strong>e step after another, switchfrom adventurism <strong>to</strong> capitulati<strong>on</strong>ism and lose all by theirnuclear gambling.We wish <strong>to</strong> point out that the great Soviet people and RedArmy have been and remain a great force safeguarding world247
peace. But Khrushchov’s military ideas based <strong>on</strong> nuclearfetishism and nuclear blackmail are entirely wr<strong>on</strong>g.Khrushchov sees <strong>on</strong>ly nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s. According <strong>to</strong> him,“The present level <strong>of</strong> military technique being what it is, theAir Force and the Navy have lost their former importance.These arms are being replaced and not reduced.” 1Of course, those units and men having combat duties <strong>on</strong> theground are even less significant. According <strong>to</strong> him, “In ourtime, a country’s defensive capacity is not determined by thenumber <strong>of</strong> men under arms, <strong>of</strong> men in uniform. . . . acountry’s defense potential depends in decisive measure <strong>on</strong>the fire-power and the means <strong>of</strong> delivery that country commands.”2As for the militia and the people, they are still more inc<strong>on</strong>sequential.Khrushchov has made the well-known remarkthat for those now having modern weap<strong>on</strong>s at their disposal,the militia is not an army but just human flesh. 3Khrushchov’s whole set <strong>of</strong> military theories runs completelycounter <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist teachings <strong>on</strong> war and the army.To follow his wr<strong>on</strong>g theories will necessarily involve disintegratingthe army and disarming <strong>on</strong>eself morally.Obviously, if any socialist country should accept Khrushchov’serr<strong>on</strong>eous military strategy, it would inevitably placeitself in a most dangerous positi<strong>on</strong>.Khrushchov may c<strong>on</strong>fer <strong>on</strong> himself such titles as “a greatpeace champi<strong>on</strong>”, award himself a peace prize and pin heroes’medals <strong>on</strong> himself, but no matter how much he may praisehimself, he will not be able <strong>to</strong> cover up his dangerous practice<strong>of</strong> recklessly playing with nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s or his fawningbefore imperialist nuclear blackmail.1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong>the USSR, January 1960.2Ibid.3N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Meeting <strong>of</strong> Representatives <strong>of</strong>Fraternal Parties in Bucharest, June 24, 1960.248
FIGHT OR CAPITULATE?World peace can be w<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly through struggle by thepeople <strong>of</strong> all countries and not by begging the imperialists forit. Peace can be effectively safeguarded <strong>on</strong>ly by relying <strong>on</strong>the masses <strong>of</strong> the people and waging a tit-for-tat struggleagainst the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war. Thisis the correct policy.Tit-for-tat struggle is an important c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> drawn bythe Chinese people from their prol<strong>on</strong>ged struggle against imperialismand its lackeys.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said:Chiang Kai-shek always tries <strong>to</strong> wrest every ounce <strong>of</strong>power and every ounce <strong>of</strong> gain from the people. And we?Our policy is <strong>to</strong> give him tit for tat and <strong>to</strong> fight for everyinch <strong>of</strong> land. We act after his fashi<strong>on</strong>. 1He added:He always tries <strong>to</strong> impose war <strong>on</strong> the people, <strong>on</strong>e swordin his left hand and another in his right. We take upswords, <strong>to</strong>o, following his example. 2Analysing the domestic political situati<strong>on</strong> in 1945, Comrade<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said:How <strong>to</strong> give “tit for tat” depends <strong>on</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong>. Sometimes,not going <strong>to</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s is tit-for-tat; and sometimes,going <strong>to</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s is also tit-for-tat. . . . If theystart fighting, we fight back, fight <strong>to</strong> win peace. Peace willnot come unless we strike hard blows at the reacti<strong>on</strong>arieswho dare <strong>to</strong> attack the Liberated Areas. 31<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “The Situati<strong>on</strong> and Our Policy After the Vic<strong>to</strong>ryin the War <strong>of</strong> Resistance Against Japan”, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 14.2Ibid.3<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “On the Chungking Negotiati<strong>on</strong>s”, Selected Works,Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 56.249
He drew the following his<strong>to</strong>rical less<strong>on</strong> from the failure<strong>of</strong> China’s Revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1924-27:C<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted by counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary attacks against thepeople, Chen Tu-hsiu did not adopt the policy <strong>of</strong> giving titfor tat and fighting for every inch <strong>of</strong> land; as a result, in1927, within the space <strong>of</strong> a few m<strong>on</strong>ths, the people lost allthe rights they had w<strong>on</strong>. 1The Chinese Communists understand and adhere <strong>to</strong> thepolicy <strong>of</strong> giving tit for tat. We oppose both capitulati<strong>on</strong>ismand adventurism. This correct policy ensured the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong>the Chinese Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Chinese people’s subsequentgreat successes in their struggle against imperialism.All revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people approve and welcome this correctfighting policy put forward by the Chinese Communists. Allimperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries fear and hate it.The policy <strong>of</strong> giving tit for tat as put forward by the CPCis virulently attacked by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. This <strong>on</strong>lygoes <strong>to</strong> show that they do not in the least want <strong>to</strong> oppose imperialism.Their sole purpose in attacking and smearing thepolicy <strong>of</strong> tit for tat is <strong>to</strong> cover up their wr<strong>on</strong>g line <strong>of</strong> catering<strong>to</strong> the needs <strong>of</strong> imperialism and surrendering <strong>to</strong> it.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU assert that a tit-for-tat struggleagainst imperialism will lead <strong>to</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al tensi<strong>on</strong>. Howterrible!According <strong>to</strong> their logic, the imperialists are allowed <strong>to</strong>commit aggressi<strong>on</strong> and make threats against others but thevictims <strong>of</strong> imperialist aggressi<strong>on</strong> are not allowed <strong>to</strong> fight, theimperialists are allowed <strong>to</strong> oppress others but the oppressedare not allowed <strong>to</strong> resist. This is a naked attempt <strong>to</strong> absolvethe imperialists <strong>of</strong> their crimes <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>. This is aphilosophy <strong>of</strong> the jungle, pure and simple.1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “The Situati<strong>on</strong> and Our Policy After the Vic<strong>to</strong>ryin the War <strong>of</strong> Resistance Against Japan”, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 16.250
Internati<strong>on</strong>al tensi<strong>on</strong> is the product <strong>of</strong> the imperialist policies<strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war. The peoples should <strong>of</strong> coursewage a firm struggle against imperialist aggressi<strong>on</strong> andthreats. Facts have shown that <strong>on</strong>ly through struggle canimperialism be compelled <strong>to</strong> retreat and a genuine relaxati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al tensi<strong>on</strong> be achieved. C<strong>on</strong>stant retreat beforethe imperialists cannot lead <strong>to</strong> genuine relaxati<strong>on</strong> but will<strong>on</strong>ly encourage their aggressi<strong>on</strong>.We have always opposed the creati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al tensi<strong>on</strong>by imperialism and s<strong>to</strong>od for the relaxati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> such tensi<strong>on</strong>.But the imperialists are bent <strong>on</strong> committing aggressi<strong>on</strong>and creating tensi<strong>on</strong> everywhere, and that can <strong>on</strong>ly lead <strong>to</strong>the opposite <strong>of</strong> what they desire.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said:The U.S. imperialists believe that they will always benefitfrom tense situati<strong>on</strong>s, but the fact is that tensi<strong>on</strong> createdby the United States has led <strong>to</strong> the opposite <strong>of</strong> what theydesire. It serves <strong>to</strong> mobilize the people <strong>of</strong> the whole worldagainst the U.S. aggressors. 1Further, “If the U.S. m<strong>on</strong>opoly groups persist in theirpolicies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war, the day is bound <strong>to</strong> come whenthe people <strong>of</strong> the world will hang them by the neck.” 2The Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957 rightly says, “By this policy theseanti-popular, aggressive imperialist forces are courting theirown ruin, creating their own grave-diggers.”This is the dialectic <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry. Those who revere the imperialistscan hardly understand this truth.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU assert that by advocating a titfor-tatstruggle the Chinese Communist Party has rejectednegotiati<strong>on</strong>s. This again is n<strong>on</strong>sense.1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, Speech at the Supreme State C<strong>on</strong>ference, RenminRibao, September 9, 1958.2Ibid.251
We c<strong>on</strong>sistently maintain that those who refuse negotiati<strong>on</strong>sunder all circumstances are definitely not <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists.The Chinese Communists c<strong>on</strong>ducted negotiati<strong>on</strong>s with theKuomintang many times during the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary civil wars.They did not refuse <strong>to</strong> negotiate even <strong>on</strong> the eve <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>wideliberati<strong>on</strong>.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said in March 1949:Whether the peace negotiati<strong>on</strong>s are overall or local, weshould be prepared for such an eventuality. We shouldnot refuse <strong>to</strong> enter in<strong>to</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s because we are afraid<strong>of</strong> trouble and want <strong>to</strong> avoid complicati<strong>on</strong>s, nor should weenter in<strong>to</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s with our minds in a haze. We shouldbe firm in principle; we should also have all the flexibilitypermissible and necessary for carrying out our principles. 1Internati<strong>on</strong>ally, in struggling against imperialism and reacti<strong>on</strong>,the Chinese Communists take the same correct attitude<strong>to</strong>wards negotiati<strong>on</strong>s.In Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1951, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung had this <strong>to</strong> sayabout the Korean armistice negotiati<strong>on</strong>s.We have l<strong>on</strong>g said that the Korean questi<strong>on</strong> should besettled by peaceful means. This still holds good now. Sol<strong>on</strong>g as the U.S. Government is willing <strong>to</strong> settle the questi<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong> a just and reas<strong>on</strong>able basis, and will s<strong>to</strong>p usingevery shameless means possible <strong>to</strong> wreck and obstruct theprogress <strong>of</strong> the negotiati<strong>on</strong>s, as it has d<strong>on</strong>e in the past,success in the Korean armistice negotiati<strong>on</strong> is possible;otherwise it is impossible. 21<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Report <strong>to</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Plenary Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the SeventhCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China”, Selected Works,Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 372.2<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Opening Speech at the Third Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the FirstNati<strong>on</strong>al Committee <strong>of</strong> the Chinese People’s Political C<strong>on</strong>sultative C<strong>on</strong>ference”,Renmin Ribao, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 24, 1951.252
Resolute struggle against the U.S. imperialists compelledthem <strong>to</strong> accept the Korean armistice agreement in the course<strong>of</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s.We <strong>to</strong>ok an active part in the 1954 Geneva C<strong>on</strong>ference andc<strong>on</strong>tributed <strong>to</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peace in Indo-China.We are in favour <strong>of</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s even with the UnitedStates, which has occupied our terri<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> Taiwan. TheSino-U.S. ambassadorial talks have been going <strong>on</strong> for morethan eight years now.We <strong>to</strong>ok an active part in the 1961 Geneva C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>on</strong>the Laotian questi<strong>on</strong> and promoted the signing <strong>of</strong> the Genevaagreements respecting the independence and neutrality <strong>of</strong>Laos.Do the Chinese Communists allow themselves al<strong>on</strong>e t<strong>on</strong>egotiate with imperialist countries while opposing negotiati<strong>on</strong>sby the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU with the leaders <strong>of</strong> the imperialistcountries?No, <strong>of</strong> course not.In fact, we have always actively supported all such negotiati<strong>on</strong>sby the Soviet Government with imperialist countries asare beneficial and not detrimental <strong>to</strong> the defence <strong>of</strong> worldpeace.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said <strong>on</strong> May 14, 1960:We support the holding <strong>of</strong> the summit c<strong>on</strong>ference whetheror not this sort <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ference yields achievements, orwhether the achievements are big or small. But the winning<strong>of</strong> world peace should depend primarily <strong>on</strong> resolute struggleby the people <strong>of</strong> all countries. 1We favour negotiati<strong>on</strong>s with imperialist countries. Butit is absolutely impermissible <strong>to</strong> pin hopes for world peace <strong>on</strong>negotiati<strong>on</strong>s, spread illusi<strong>on</strong>s about them and thereby paralysethe fighting will <strong>of</strong> the peoples, as Khrushchov has d<strong>on</strong>e.1Chairman <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung’s Talk with Guests from Asia and LatinAmerica”, Renmin Ribao, May 15, 1960.253
Actually Khrushchov’s wr<strong>on</strong>g approach <strong>to</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s isitself harmful <strong>to</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s. The more Khrushchov retreatsbefore the imperialists and the more he begs, the more theappetite <strong>of</strong> the imperialists will grow. Khrushchov, whoposes as the greatest devotee <strong>of</strong> negotiati<strong>on</strong>s in his<strong>to</strong>ry, isalways an unrequited lover and <strong>to</strong>o <strong>of</strong>ten a laughing-s<strong>to</strong>ck.Countless his<strong>to</strong>rical facts have shown that the imperialistsand reacti<strong>on</strong>aries never care <strong>to</strong> save the face <strong>of</strong> the capitulati<strong>on</strong>ists.THE ROAD IN DEFENCE OF PEACE ANDTHE ROAD LEADING TO WARTo sum up, our difference with the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>on</strong>the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peace is <strong>on</strong>e between two differentlines — whether or not <strong>to</strong> oppose imperialism, whether or not<strong>to</strong> support revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles, whether or not <strong>to</strong> mobilizethe people <strong>of</strong> the world against the imperialist war plots andwhether or not <strong>to</strong> adhere <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.Like all other genuine revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary parties, the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China has always been in the forefr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> the struggleagainst imperialism and for world peace. We hold that <strong>to</strong>defend world peace it is necessary c<strong>on</strong>stantly <strong>to</strong> expose imperialismand <strong>to</strong> arouse and organize the people in struggleagainst the imperialists headed by the United States, and itis necessary <strong>to</strong> place reliance <strong>on</strong> the growth <strong>of</strong> the strength<strong>of</strong> the socialist camp, <strong>on</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> theproletariat and working people <strong>of</strong> all countries, <strong>on</strong> the liberati<strong>on</strong>struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>on</strong> the struggles <strong>of</strong>all peace-loving peoples and countries and <strong>on</strong> the broad unitedfr<strong>on</strong>t against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.This line <strong>of</strong> ours is in keeping with the comm<strong>on</strong> line for allCommunist Parties laid down in the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the1960 Statement.254
With this line, it is possible ceaselessly <strong>to</strong> raise the politicalc<strong>on</strong>sciousness <strong>of</strong> the people and <strong>to</strong> expand the struggle forworld peace in the right directi<strong>on</strong>.With this line, it is possible c<strong>on</strong>stantly <strong>to</strong> strengthen theforces for world peace with the socialist camp as their coreand strike at and weaken the imperialist forces for war.With this line, it is possible c<strong>on</strong>stantly <strong>to</strong> expand the peoples’revoluti<strong>on</strong>s and manacle imperialism.With this line, it is possible <strong>to</strong> turn <strong>to</strong> account all availablefac<strong>to</strong>rs, including the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s between U.S. imperialismand the other imperialist powers, and <strong>to</strong> isolate U.S. imperialism<strong>to</strong> the fullest extent.With this line, it is possible <strong>to</strong> smash the nuclear blackmailpractised by U.S. imperialism and defeat its plan forlaunching a new world war.This is the line for the people <strong>of</strong> all countries <strong>to</strong> win bothvic<strong>to</strong>ry in revoluti<strong>on</strong> and world peace. It is the sure and effectiveroad in defence <strong>of</strong> world peace.But the line pursued by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is diametricallyopposed <strong>to</strong> our line, <strong>to</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong> line <strong>of</strong> all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU direct the edge <strong>of</strong> their strugglenot at the enemy <strong>of</strong> world peace but at the socialist camp,thus weakening and undermining the very core <strong>of</strong> strengthwhich defends world peace.They use nuclear blackmail <strong>to</strong> intimidate the people <strong>of</strong> thesocialist countries and forbid them <strong>to</strong> support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s, thushelping U.S. imperialism <strong>to</strong> isolate the socialist camp andsuppress peoples’ revoluti<strong>on</strong>s.They use nuclear blackmail <strong>to</strong> intimidate the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>to</strong> prohibit them from making revoluti<strong>on</strong>,and they collaborate with U.S. imperialism in stampingout the “sparks” <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>, thus enabling it freely <strong>to</strong>carry <strong>on</strong> its policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war in the intermediatez<strong>on</strong>e lying between the United States and the socialist camp.255
They also intimidate the allies <strong>of</strong> the United States andforbid them <strong>to</strong> struggle against the c<strong>on</strong>trol it has imposed <strong>on</strong>them, thus helping U.S. imperialism <strong>to</strong> enslave these countriesand c<strong>on</strong>solidate its positi<strong>on</strong>.By this line <strong>of</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU haveal<strong>to</strong>gether relinquished the struggle against the imperialistpolicies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war.This line <strong>of</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> denies the united fr<strong>on</strong>t against U.S. imperialismand its lackeys and in defence <strong>of</strong> world peace.It tries <strong>to</strong> impose the greatest isolati<strong>on</strong> not <strong>on</strong> the archenemy <strong>of</strong> world peace but <strong>on</strong> the peace forces.It means the liquidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the fighting task <strong>of</strong> defendingworld peace.This is a line that serves the “global strategy” <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.It is not the road <strong>to</strong> world peace but the road leading <strong>to</strong>greater danger <strong>of</strong> war and <strong>to</strong> war itself.Today the world is no l<strong>on</strong>ger what it was <strong>on</strong> the eve <strong>of</strong>World War II. There is the powerful socialist camp. Thenati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement in Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica is surging forward. The political c<strong>on</strong>sciousness <strong>of</strong>the people <strong>of</strong> the world has been very much raised. Thestrength <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary peoples has been very muchenhanced. The people <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong> the socialistcountries and <strong>of</strong> the whole world will never allow their owndestiny <strong>to</strong> be manipulated by the imperialist forces for warand their trumpeters.The aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war activities <strong>of</strong> the imperialists andreacti<strong>on</strong>aries are teaching the people <strong>of</strong> the world gradually<strong>to</strong> raise their political c<strong>on</strong>sciousness. Social practice is thesole criteri<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> truth. We are c<strong>on</strong>fident that as a result <strong>of</strong>such teaching by the imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries, manypeople now holding wr<strong>on</strong>g views <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war andpeace will change their minds. We have high hopes <strong>on</strong> thisscore.256
We firmly believe that the Communists and the people <strong>of</strong>the world will surely smash the imperialist plan for launchinga new world war and safeguard world peace provided theyexpose the imperialist frauds, see through the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist liesand shoulder the task <strong>of</strong> defending world peace.
PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE— TWO DIAMETRICALLYOPPOSED POLICIESSixth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(December 12, 1964)
INCE the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU Khrushchov andS other comrades have talked more about the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>peaceful coexistence than about anything else.Again and again the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU claim that theyhave been faithful <strong>to</strong> Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistenceand have creatively developed it. They ascribe <strong>to</strong> their policy<strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence” all the credit for the vic<strong>to</strong>ries w<strong>on</strong>by the peoples <strong>of</strong> the world in prol<strong>on</strong>ged revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles.They advertise the noti<strong>on</strong> that imperialism, and U.S. imperialismin particular, supports peaceful coexistence, andthey want<strong>on</strong>ly malign the Chinese Communist Party and all<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties as being opp<strong>on</strong>ents <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence. The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the CPSU even slanders China as favouring “competiti<strong>on</strong> inunleashing war” with the imperialists.They describe the words and deeds by which they havebetrayed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, the proletarian world revoluti<strong>on</strong>and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>sas being in c<strong>on</strong>formity with Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence.But can the words “peaceful coexistence” really serve asa talisman for the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU in their betrayal <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism? No, absolutely not.We are now c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted with two diametrically opposedpolicies <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.One is Lenin and Stalin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence,which all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, including the Chinese Communists,stand for.The other is the anti-Leninist policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence,the so-called general line <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistenceadvocated by Khrushchov and others.261
Let us now examine Lenin and Stalin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence and the stuff Khrushchov and others call thegeneral line <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.LENIN AND STALIN’S POLICY OF PEACEFULCOEXISTENCEIt was Lenin who advanced the idea that the socialist stateshould pursue a policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence <strong>to</strong>wards countrieswith different social systems. This correct policy wasl<strong>on</strong>g followed by the Communist Party and the Government<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> under the leadership <strong>of</strong> Lenin and Stalin.The questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence between socialist andcapitalist countries could not possibly have arisen prior <strong>to</strong> theOc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, since there was no socialist country inexistence. Nevertheless, <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> his scientific analysis<strong>of</strong> imperialism, Lenin foresaw in 1915-16 that “socialism cannotachieve vic<strong>to</strong>ry simultaneously in all countries. It willachieve vic<strong>to</strong>ry first in <strong>on</strong>e or several countries, while theothers will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time”. 1In other words, within a certain period <strong>of</strong> time, socialist countrieswould exist side by side with capitalist or pre-capitalistcountries. The very nature <strong>of</strong> the socialist system determinesthat socialist countries must pursue a foreign policy <strong>of</strong> peace.Lenin said, “Only the working class, when it wins power, canpursue a policy <strong>of</strong> peace not in words . . . but in deeds.” 2These views <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s can be said <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>stitute the theoreticalbasis <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.After the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, Lenin proclaimed<strong>to</strong> the world <strong>on</strong> many occasi<strong>on</strong>s that the foreign policy<strong>of</strong> the Soviet state was <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> peace. But the imperialists1V. I. Lenin, “The War Program <strong>of</strong> the Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1950, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 571.2V. I. Lenin, “Draft Resoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the Current Moment in Politics”,Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXV, pp. 291-92.262
were bent <strong>on</strong> strangling the new-born socialist republic in itscradle. They launched armed interventi<strong>on</strong> against the Sovietstate. Lenin rightly pointed out that c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted with thissituati<strong>on</strong> “unless we defended the socialist republic by force<strong>of</strong> arms, we could not exist”. 1By 1920 the great Soviet people had defeated the imperialistarmed interventi<strong>on</strong>. A relative equilibrium <strong>of</strong> forces hadcome in<strong>to</strong> being between the Soviet state and the imperialistcountries. After trials <strong>of</strong> strength over several years, theSoviet state had s<strong>to</strong>od its ground. It began <strong>to</strong> turn from war<strong>to</strong> peaceful c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>. It was in these circumstances thatLenin advanced the idea <strong>of</strong> a policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.In fact, from that time <strong>on</strong>wards the imperialists had no choicebut <strong>to</strong> “coexist” with the Soviet state.During Lenin’s lifetime, this equilibrium was always highlyunstable and the Soviet Socialist Republic was subject <strong>to</strong>stringent capitalist encirclement. Time and again Leninpointed out that owing <strong>to</strong> the aggressive nature <strong>of</strong> imperialismthere was no guarantee that socialism and capitalism wouldlive in peace for l<strong>on</strong>g.In the prevailing c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, it was not yet possible for him<strong>to</strong> define at length the c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistencebetween countries with different social systems. Butthe great Lenin laid down the correct foreign policy for thefirst state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and advancedthe basic ideas <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.What were Lenin’s basic ideas <strong>on</strong> this policy?First, Lenin pointed out that the socialist state existed indefiance <strong>of</strong> the imperialists’ will. Although it adhered <strong>to</strong> theforeign policy <strong>of</strong> peace, the imperialists had no desire <strong>to</strong> livein peace with it and would do everything possible and seizeevery opportunity <strong>to</strong> oppose or even destroy the socialist state.1V. I. Lenin, “Report <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Russian CommunistParty (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party C<strong>on</strong>gress”, SelectedWorks, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII,pp. 33.263
Lenin said:Internati<strong>on</strong>al imperialism . . . could not . . . live side byside with the Soviet Republic, both because <strong>of</strong> its objectivepositi<strong>on</strong> and because <strong>of</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omic interests <strong>of</strong> the capitalistclass which are embodied in it. . . . 1Further:. . . the existence <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Republic side by side withimperialist states for a l<strong>on</strong>g time is unthinkable. One orthe other must triumph in the end. And before that endsupervenes, a series <strong>of</strong> frightful collisi<strong>on</strong>s between the SovietRepublic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable. 2He therefore stressed time and again that the socialist stateshould maintain c<strong>on</strong>stant vigilance against imperialism.. . . the less<strong>on</strong> all workers and peasants must master isthat we must be <strong>on</strong> our guard and remember that we aresurrounded by men, classes anti- governments openly expressingtheir extreme hatred for us. We must rememberthat we are always at a hair’s breadth from all kinds <strong>of</strong>invasi<strong>on</strong>s. 3Sec<strong>on</strong>dly. Lenin pointed out that it was <strong>on</strong>ly throughstruggle that the Soviet state was able <strong>to</strong> live in peace withthe imperialist countries. This was the result <strong>of</strong> repeatedtrials <strong>of</strong> strength between the imperialist countries and theSoviet state, which adopted a correct policy, relied <strong>on</strong> the1V. I. Lenin, “Report <strong>on</strong> War and Peace, Delivered <strong>to</strong> the SeventhC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), March 7, 1918”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 422.2V. I. Lenin, “Report <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Russian CommunistParty (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party C<strong>on</strong>gress, March 18,1919”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York,1943, Vol. VIII, p. 33.3V. I. Lenin. “On the Domestic and Foreign Policies <strong>of</strong> the Republic,Report Delivered at the Ninth All-Russian C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> Soviets”, CollectedWorks, Russ. ed., Moscow, SPPL, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 122.264
support <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the worldand utilized the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the imperialists.Lenin said in November 1919:That is the way it always is — when the enemy is beaten,he begins talking peace. We have <strong>to</strong>ld these gentlemen,the imperialists <strong>of</strong> Europe, time and again that we agree <strong>to</strong>make peace, but they c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> dream <strong>of</strong> enslavingRussia. Now they have realized that their dreams are notfated <strong>to</strong> come true. 1He pointed out in 1921:. . . the imperialist powers, with all their hatred <strong>of</strong> SovietRussia and desire <strong>to</strong> throw themselves up<strong>on</strong> her, have had<strong>to</strong> reject this thought, because the decay <strong>of</strong> the capitalistworld is increasingly advancing, its unity is becoming lessand less, and the pressure <strong>of</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> the oppressedcol<strong>on</strong>ial peoples, with a populati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> over 1,000 milli<strong>on</strong>, isbecoming str<strong>on</strong>ger with each year, each m<strong>on</strong>th and eveneach week. 2Thirdly, in carrying out the, policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.Lenin adopted different principles with regard <strong>to</strong> the differenttypes <strong>of</strong> countries in the capitalist world.He attached particular importance <strong>to</strong> establishing friendlyrelati<strong>on</strong>s with countries which the imperialists were bullyingand oppressing. He pointed out that “the fundamental interests<strong>of</strong> all peoples suffering from the yoke <strong>of</strong> imperialismcoincide” and that the “world policy <strong>of</strong> imperialism is leading<strong>to</strong> the establishment <strong>of</strong> closer relati<strong>on</strong>s, alliance and friendshipam<strong>on</strong>g all the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s”. He said that the peace1V. I. Lenin, “Speech Delivered at the First All-Russian C<strong>on</strong>ference<strong>on</strong> Party Work in the Countryside”, Alliance <strong>of</strong> the Working Class andthe Peasantry, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 326.2V. I. Lenin, “Speech at the C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Tenth Nati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>ference<strong>of</strong> the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, Collected Works,Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, pp. 412-13.265
policy <strong>of</strong> the Soviet state “will increasingly compel the establishment<strong>of</strong> closer ties between the R.S.F.S.R. [Russian SovietFederated Socialist Republic] and a growing number <strong>of</strong> neighbouringstates”. 1Lenin also said:We now set as the main task for ourselves: <strong>to</strong> defeat theexploiters and win the waverers <strong>to</strong> our side — this task isa world-wide <strong>on</strong>e. The waverers include a whole series <strong>of</strong>bourgeois states, which as bourgeois states hate us, but <strong>on</strong>the other hand, as oppressed states, prefer peace with us. 2As for the basis for peace with the imperialist countries,such as the United States, he said, “Let the U.S. capitalistsrefrain from <strong>to</strong>uching us.” “ ‘The obstacle <strong>to</strong> such a peace?’<strong>From</strong> our side, there is n<strong>on</strong>e. <strong>From</strong> the side <strong>of</strong> the American(and all the other) capitalists, it is imperialism.” 3Fourthly, Lenin advanced the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistenceas a policy <strong>to</strong> be pursued by the proletariat in power <strong>to</strong>wardscountries with different social systems. He never made it thesum <strong>to</strong>tal <strong>of</strong> a socialist country’s foreign policy. Time andagain Lenin made it clear that the fundamental principle <strong>of</strong>this foreign policy was proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.He said. “Soviet Russia c<strong>on</strong>siders it her greatest pride <strong>to</strong>help the workers <strong>of</strong> the whole world in their difficult strugglefor the overthrow <strong>of</strong> capitalism.” 41V. I. Lenin. “The Work <strong>of</strong> the Council <strong>of</strong> People’s Commissars, ReportDelivered at the Eighth All-Russian C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> Soviets”, SelectedWorks, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII,pp. 251 and 252.2V. I. Lenin, “Report <strong>on</strong> the Work <strong>of</strong> the All-Russian Central ExecutiveCommittee and the Council <strong>of</strong> People’s Commissars”, CollectedWorks, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 299.3V. I. Lenin, “Reply <strong>to</strong> Questi<strong>on</strong>s by the Corresp<strong>on</strong>dent <strong>of</strong> the AmericanNewspaper, New York Evening Journal”, Collected Works, Russ.ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 340.4V. I. Lenin, “To the Fourth World C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Comintern andthe Petrograd Soviet <strong>of</strong> Workers and Red Army Deputies”, CollectedWorks, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 379.266
In the Decree <strong>on</strong> Peace issued after the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>,while proposing an immediate peace without annexati<strong>on</strong>or indemnities <strong>to</strong> all the belligerent countries, Lenin calledup<strong>on</strong> the class-c<strong>on</strong>scious workers in the capitalist countries <strong>to</strong>help, by comprehensive, determined, and supremely vigorousacti<strong>on</strong> “<strong>to</strong> bring <strong>to</strong> a successful c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> the cause <strong>of</strong> peace,and at the same time the cause <strong>of</strong> the emancipati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the<strong>to</strong>iling and exploited masses <strong>of</strong> the populati<strong>on</strong> from all forms<strong>of</strong> slavery and all forms <strong>of</strong> exploitati<strong>on</strong>”. 1The Draft Programme <strong>of</strong> the Party which Lenin drew upfor the Seventh C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Russian Communist Partylaid down explicitly that “support <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement<strong>of</strong> the socialist proletariat in the advanced countriesand “support <strong>of</strong> the democratic and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movementin all countries in general, and particularly in the col<strong>on</strong>ies anddependent countries” c<strong>on</strong>stituted the important aspects <strong>of</strong> theParty’s internati<strong>on</strong>al policy. 2Fifthly, Lenin c<strong>on</strong>sistently held that it was impossible forthe oppressed classes and nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> coexist peacefully withthe oppressor classes and nati<strong>on</strong>s.In the “Theses <strong>on</strong> the Fundamental Tasks <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Communist Internati<strong>on</strong>al”, he pointed out:. . . the bourgeoisie, even the most educated and democratic,now no l<strong>on</strong>ger hesitates <strong>to</strong> resort <strong>to</strong> any fraud orcrime, <strong>to</strong> massacre milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> workers and peasants in order<strong>to</strong> save the private ownership <strong>of</strong> the means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>.” 3Lenin’s c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s were:1V. I. Lenin, “Report <strong>on</strong> Peace”, delivered at the Sec<strong>on</strong>d All-RussianC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> Soviets <strong>of</strong> Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, Selected Works,Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 331.2V. I. Lenin, “Rough Draft <strong>of</strong> a Programme”, delivered at the SeventhC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Selected Works,Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, p. 334.3V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, NewYork, 1943, Vol. X, p 164.267
. . . the very thought <strong>of</strong> peacefully subordinating thecapitalists <strong>to</strong> the will <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> the exploited, <strong>of</strong>the peaceful, reformist transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> Socialism is not <strong>on</strong>lyextreme philistine stupidity, but also downright decepti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the workers, the embellishment <strong>of</strong> capitalist wage slavery,c<strong>on</strong>cealment <strong>of</strong> the truth. 1He repeatedly pointed <strong>to</strong> the hypocrisy <strong>of</strong> what the imperialistscalled the equality <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>s. He said:The League <strong>of</strong> Nati<strong>on</strong>s and the whole postwar policy <strong>of</strong>the Entente reveal this truth more clearly and distinctlythan ever; they are everywhere intensifying the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggle both <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in the advancedcountries and <strong>of</strong> the masses <strong>of</strong> the working people in thecol<strong>on</strong>ial and dependent countries, and are hastening thecollapse <strong>of</strong> the petty-bourgeois nati<strong>on</strong>al illusi<strong>on</strong> that nati<strong>on</strong>scan live <strong>to</strong>gether in peace and equality under capitalism. 2The above c<strong>on</strong>stitute Lenin’s basic ideas <strong>on</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong>peaceful coexistence.Stalin upheld Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence. Inthe thirty years during which he was the leader <strong>of</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>, he c<strong>on</strong>sistently pursued this policy. It was <strong>on</strong>ly whenthe imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries made armed provocati<strong>on</strong>sor launched aggressive wars against the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> that shehad <strong>to</strong> wage the Great Patriotic War and <strong>to</strong> fight back in selfdefence.Stalin pointed out that “our relati<strong>on</strong>s with the capitalistcountries are based <strong>on</strong> the assumpti<strong>on</strong> that the coexistence <strong>of</strong>two opposite systems is possible” and that “the maintenance1Ibid.2V. I. Lenin. “Preliminary Draft <strong>of</strong> Theses <strong>on</strong> the Nati<strong>on</strong>al and Col<strong>on</strong>ialQuesti<strong>on</strong>s”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II,Part 2, p. 464.268
<strong>of</strong> peaceful relati<strong>on</strong>s with the capitalist countries is an obliga<strong>to</strong>rytask for us”. 1He also pointed out:The peaceful coexistence <strong>of</strong> capitalism and communism isquite possible provided there is a mutual desire <strong>to</strong> cooperate,readiness <strong>to</strong> carry out undertaken commitments,and observance <strong>of</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong> equality and n<strong>on</strong>-interferencein the internal affairs <strong>of</strong> other states. 2While upholding Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence,Stalin firmly opposed withholding support from other people’srevoluti<strong>on</strong>s in order <strong>to</strong> curry favour with imperialism. Heforcefully pointed out two opposite lines in foreign policy,“either <strong>on</strong>e or the other” <strong>of</strong> which must be followed.One line was that “we c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> pursue a revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypolicy, rallying the proletarians and the oppressed <strong>of</strong> all countriesaround the working class Of the U.S.S.R. — in which caseinternati<strong>on</strong>al capital will do everything it can <strong>to</strong> hinder ouradvance”.The other was that “we renounce our revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary policyand agree <strong>to</strong> make a number <strong>of</strong> fundamental c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong>internati<strong>on</strong>al capital — in which case internati<strong>on</strong>al capital, nodoubt, will not be averse <strong>to</strong> ‘assisting’ us in c<strong>on</strong>verting oursocialist country in<strong>to</strong> a ‘good’ bourgeois republic”.Stalin cited an example. “America demands that we renouncein principle the policy <strong>of</strong> supporting the emancipati<strong>on</strong>movement <strong>of</strong> the working class in other countries, and saysthat if we made this c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong> everything would go smoothly.. . . perhaps we should make this c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong>?”1J. V. Stalin, “Political Report <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee”, deliveredat the Fifteenth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the C.P.S.U.(B.), Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1954, Vol. X, p. 296.2J. V. Stalin, “Replies <strong>to</strong> Questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> American Edi<strong>to</strong>rs”, Pravda,April 2, 1952.269
And he answered in the negative, “. . . we cannot agree<strong>to</strong> these or similar c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong>s without being false <strong>to</strong> ourselves.. . .” 1These remarks <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s are still <strong>of</strong> great practical significance.There are indeed two diametrically opposed foreignpolicies, two diametrically opposed policies <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.It is an important task for all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists <strong>to</strong> distinguishbetween them, uphold Lenin and Stalin’s policy andfirmly oppose the policy <strong>of</strong> betrayal, capitulati<strong>on</strong> and withholdingsupport from revoluti<strong>on</strong> as well as the policy whichc<strong>on</strong>verts a socialist country in<strong>to</strong> a “good” bourgeois republic— policies which Stalin denounced.THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA UPHOLDSLENIN’S POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCEThe Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUalleges that the Chinese Communist Party “disbelieves in thepossibility <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence” and slanderously accusesit <strong>of</strong> opposing Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.Is this true? No. Of course not.Any<strong>on</strong>e who respects facts can see clearly that the ChineseCommunist Party and the Government <strong>of</strong> the People’s Republic<strong>of</strong> China have unswervingly pursued Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong>peaceful coexistence with great success.Since World War II, a fundamental change has taken placein the internati<strong>on</strong>al balance <strong>of</strong> class forces. Socialism hastriumphed in a number <strong>of</strong> countries and the socialist camphas come in<strong>to</strong> being. The nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement isgrowing apace and there have emerged many nati<strong>on</strong>alist stateswhich have newly acquired political independence. The imperialistcamp has been greatly weakened and the c<strong>on</strong>tradic-1J. V. Stalin, “The Work <strong>of</strong> the April Joint Plenum <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee and Central C<strong>on</strong>trol Commissi<strong>on</strong>”, Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, pp. 58, 59 and 60.270
ti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the imperialist countries are becoming increasinglyacute. This situati<strong>on</strong> provides more favourable c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sfor the socialist countries <strong>to</strong> carry out the policy <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence <strong>to</strong>wards countries with different social systems.In these new his<strong>to</strong>rical c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, the Chinese CommunistParty and the Chinese Government have enriched Lenin’spolicy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence in the course <strong>of</strong> applying it.On the eve <strong>of</strong> the birth <strong>of</strong> the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China,Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said:. . . we proclaim <strong>to</strong> the whole world that what we opposeis exclusively the imperialist system and its plots against theChinese people. We are willing <strong>to</strong> discuss with any foreigngovernment the establishment <strong>of</strong> diplomatic relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> thebasis <strong>of</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> equality, mutual benefit and mutualrespect for terri<strong>to</strong>rial integrity and sovereignty, provided itis willing <strong>to</strong> sever relati<strong>on</strong>s with the Chinese reacti<strong>on</strong>aries,s<strong>to</strong>ps c<strong>on</strong>spiring with them or helping them and adopts anattitude <strong>of</strong> genuine, and not hypocritical, friendship <strong>to</strong>wardsPeople’s China. The Chinese people wish <strong>to</strong> have friendlyco-operati<strong>on</strong> with the people <strong>of</strong> all countries and <strong>to</strong> resumeand expand internati<strong>on</strong>al trade in order <strong>to</strong> develop producti<strong>on</strong>and promote ec<strong>on</strong>omic prosperity. 1In accordance with these principles set forth by Comrade<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, we laid down our foreign policy <strong>of</strong> peace in explicitterms first in the Comm<strong>on</strong> Programme adopted by theChinese People’s Political C<strong>on</strong>sultative C<strong>on</strong>ference in September1949 and subsequently in the C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the People’sRepublic <strong>of</strong> China adopted by the Nati<strong>on</strong>al People’s C<strong>on</strong>gressin September 1954.In 1954 the Chinese Government initiated the celebratedFive Principles <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Coexistence. They are mutual respectfor terri<strong>to</strong>rial integrity and sovereignty, mutual n<strong>on</strong>-1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Address <strong>to</strong> the Prepara<strong>to</strong>ry Committee <strong>of</strong> the NewPolitical C<strong>on</strong>sultative C<strong>on</strong>ference”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking,1961, Vol. IV, p. 408.271
aggressi<strong>on</strong>, n<strong>on</strong>-interference in each other’s internal affairs,equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. Togetherwith other Asian and African countries, we formulatedthe Ten Principles <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the Five Principles at theBanding C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>of</strong> 1955.In 1956 Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung summed up our country’spractical experience in internati<strong>on</strong>al affairs and further explainedthe general principles <strong>of</strong> our foreign policy.To achieve a lasting world peace, we must further developour friendship and co-operati<strong>on</strong> with the fraternal countriesin the camp <strong>of</strong> socialism and strengthen our solidarity with allpeace-loving countries. We must endeavour <strong>to</strong> establishnormal diplomatic relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> mutual respectfor terri<strong>to</strong>rial integrity and sovereignty and <strong>of</strong> equality andmutual benefit with all countries willing <strong>to</strong> live <strong>to</strong>getherwith us in peace. We must give active support <strong>to</strong> thenati<strong>on</strong>al independence and liberati<strong>on</strong> movement in countriesin Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as <strong>to</strong> the peacemovement and <strong>to</strong> just struggles in all countries throughoutthe world. 1In 1957 he said:To strengthen our unity With the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong>strengthen our unity with all socialist countries — this is ourfundamental policy, herein lies our basic interest.Then, there are the Asian and African countries, and allthe peace-loving countries and peoples — we must strengthenand develop our unity with them.As for the imperialist countries, we should also unitewith their peoples and strive <strong>to</strong> coexist in peace with thesecountries, do business with them and prevent any possiblewar, but under no circumstances should we harbour anyunrealistic noti<strong>on</strong>s about them. 21<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Opening Address <strong>to</strong> the Eighth Nati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>gress<strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China”.2<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, On the Correct Handling <strong>of</strong> C<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s Am<strong>on</strong>gthe People.272
In our foreign affairs over the past fourteen years, we haveadopted different policies <strong>to</strong>wards different types <strong>of</strong> countriesand varied our policies according <strong>to</strong> the different c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sin countries <strong>of</strong> the same type.1. We differentiate between socialist and capitalist countries.We persevere in the proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alist principle<strong>of</strong> mutual assistance with regard <strong>to</strong> socialist countries.We take the upholding and strengthening <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> allthe countries in the socialist camp as the fundamental policyin our foreign relati<strong>on</strong>s.2. We differentiate between the nati<strong>on</strong>alist countries whichhave newly attained political independence and the imperialistcountries.Although fundamentally different from the socialist countriesin their social and political systems, the nati<strong>on</strong>alist countriesstand in pr<strong>of</strong>ound c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> imperialism. They havecomm<strong>on</strong> interests with the socialist countries — oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>imperialism, the safeguarding <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al independence andthe defense <strong>of</strong> world peace. Therefore, it is quite possibleand feasible for the socialist countries <strong>to</strong> establish relati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence and friendly co-operati<strong>on</strong> with thesecountries. The establishment <strong>of</strong> such relati<strong>on</strong>s is <strong>of</strong> greatsignificance for the strengthening <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> the antiimperialistforces and for the advancement <strong>of</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong>struggle <strong>of</strong> the peoples against imperialism.We have c<strong>on</strong>sistently adhered <strong>to</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidatingand further developing peaceful coexistence and friendly cooperati<strong>on</strong>with countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.At the same time, we have waged appropriate and necessarystruggles against countries such as India which have violatedor wrecked the Five Principles.3. We differentiate between the ordinary capitalist countriesand the imperialist countries and also between differentimperialist countries.As the internati<strong>on</strong>al balance <strong>of</strong> class forces grows increasinglyfavourable <strong>to</strong> socialism and as the imperialist forces become273
daily weaker and the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g them daily sharper,it is possible for the socialist countries <strong>to</strong> compel <strong>on</strong>e imperialistcountry or another <strong>to</strong> establish some sort <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistencewith them by relying <strong>on</strong> their own growing strength,the expansi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary forces <strong>of</strong> the peoples, theunity with the nati<strong>on</strong>alist countries and the struggle <strong>of</strong> all thepeace-loving people, and by utilizing the internal c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> imperialism.While persevering in peaceful coexistence with countrieshaving different social systems, we unswervingly perform ourproletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alist duty. We actively support the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movements <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and Latin America,the working-class movements <strong>of</strong> Western Europe, NorthAmerica and Oceania, the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles,and the people’s struggles against the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong>aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war and for world peace.In all this we have but <strong>on</strong>e objective in view, that is, withthe socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat as thenucleus, <strong>to</strong> unite all the forces that can be united in order t<strong>of</strong>or a broad united fr<strong>on</strong>t against U.S. imperialism and itslackeys.On the basis <strong>of</strong> the Five Principles <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Coexistence,the Chinese Government over the past ten years and morehas established friendly relati<strong>on</strong>s with many countries havingdifferent social systems and promoted ec<strong>on</strong>omic and culturalexchanges with them. China has c<strong>on</strong>cluded treaties <strong>of</strong> friendship,<strong>of</strong> peace and friendship or <strong>of</strong> friendship, mutual assistanceand mutual n<strong>on</strong>-aggressi<strong>on</strong> with the Yemen, Burma, Nepal,Afghanistan, Guinea, Cambodia, Ind<strong>on</strong>esia and Ghana. Shehas successfully settled her boundary questi<strong>on</strong>s with Burma,Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc., questi<strong>on</strong>s which were lef<strong>to</strong>ver by his<strong>to</strong>ry.No <strong>on</strong>e can obliterate the great achievements <strong>of</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party and the Chinese Government in upholdingLenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.274
In manufacturing the lie that China opposes peaceful coexistence,the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are prompted by ulterior motives.To put it bluntly, their aim is <strong>to</strong> draw a veil over theirown ugliness in betraying proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism andcolluding with imperialism.THE GENERAL LINE OF “PEACEFULCOEXISTENCE” OF THE CPSU LEADERSIt is not we, but the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, who in fact violateLenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have lauded their c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence in superlative terms. What are their mainviews <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence?1. The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU maintain that peaceful coexistenceis the overriding and supreme principle for solvingc<strong>on</strong>temporary social problems. They assert that it is “thecategorical imperative <strong>of</strong> modern times” and “the imperiousdemand <strong>of</strong> the epoch”. 1 They say that “peaceful coexistenceal<strong>on</strong>e is the best and the sole acceptable way <strong>to</strong> solve the vitallyimportant problems c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting society” 2 and that the principle<strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence should be made the “basic law<strong>of</strong> life for the whole <strong>of</strong> modern society”. 32. They hold that imperialism has become willing <strong>to</strong> acceptpeaceful coexistence and is no l<strong>on</strong>ger the obstacle <strong>to</strong> it.They say that “not a few government and state leaders <strong>of</strong>Western countries are now also coming out for peace andpeaceful coexistence”, 4 and that they “understand more and1B. N. P<strong>on</strong>omaryov, “Vic<strong>to</strong>rious Banner <strong>of</strong> the Communists <strong>of</strong> theWorld”, Pravda, November 18, 1962.2A. Rumyantsev, “Our Comm<strong>on</strong> Ideological Weap<strong>on</strong>”, World <strong>Marx</strong>istReview, No. 1, 1962.3N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. <strong>General</strong> Assembly, September23, 1960.4N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Gadjah Mada University, Djokjakarta,Ind<strong>on</strong>esia, February 21, 1960.275
more clearly the necessity <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence”. 1 In particularthey have loudly announced a U.S. President’s “admissi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the reas<strong>on</strong>ableness and practicability <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistencebetween countries with different social systems”. 23. They advocate “all-round co-operati<strong>on</strong>” with imperialistcountries, and especially with the United States. They saythat the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States “will be able t<strong>of</strong>ind a basis for c<strong>on</strong>certed acti<strong>on</strong>s and efforts for the good <strong>of</strong>all humanity” 3 and can “march hand in hand for the sake <strong>of</strong>c<strong>on</strong>solidating peace and establishing real internati<strong>on</strong>al cooperati<strong>on</strong>between all states”. 44. They assert that peaceful coexistence is “the general line<strong>of</strong> foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the countries <strong>of</strong> thesocialist camp”. 55. They also assert that “the principle <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistencedetermines the general line <strong>of</strong> foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the CPSUand other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties”, 6 that it is “the basis <strong>of</strong>the strategy <strong>of</strong> communism” in the world <strong>to</strong>day, and that allCommunists “have made the struggle for peaceful coexistencethe general principle <strong>of</strong> their policy”. 76. They regard peaceful coexistence as the prerequisite forvic<strong>to</strong>ry in the peoples’ revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles. They holdthat the vic<strong>to</strong>ries w<strong>on</strong> by the people <strong>of</strong> different countries have1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong>the USSR, January 1960.2“On the Interview <strong>of</strong> the U.S. President J. Kennedy”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial boardarticle in Izvestia, December 4, 1961.3Telegram <strong>of</strong> Greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. Brezhnev<strong>to</strong> J. F. Kennedy, December 30, 1961.4N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. <strong>General</strong> Assembly, September23, 1960.5N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Recepti<strong>on</strong> Given by the Embassy<strong>of</strong> the Democratic People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> Korea in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>,July 5, 1961.6B. N. P<strong>on</strong>omaryov, “Some Problems <strong>of</strong> the Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Movement”,World <strong>Marx</strong>ist Review, No. 12, 1962.7“Peaceful Coexistence and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Kommunist, Moscow, No. 2,1962.276
een achieved under “c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence betweenstates with different social systems”. 1 They assert that“it was precisely in c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence betweenstates with different social systems that the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>triumphed in Cuba, that the Algerian people gainednati<strong>on</strong>al independence, that more than forty countries w<strong>on</strong>nati<strong>on</strong>al independence, that the fraternal Parties grew innumber and strength, and that the influence <strong>of</strong> the worldcommunist movement increased”. 27. They hold that peaceful coexistence is “the best way <strong>of</strong>helping the internati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary labour movementachieve its basic class aims”. 3 They declare that under peacefulcoexistence the possibility <strong>of</strong> a peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialismin capitalist countries has grown. They believe, moreover,that the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism in ec<strong>on</strong>omic competiti<strong>on</strong>“will mean delivering a crushing blow <strong>to</strong> the entire system <strong>of</strong>capitalist relati<strong>on</strong>ships”. 4 They state that “when the Sovietpeople enjoy the blessings <strong>of</strong> communism, new hundreds <strong>of</strong>milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> people <strong>on</strong> earth will say: ‘We are for communism!’” 5 and that by then even capitalists may “go over <strong>to</strong> theCommunist Party”.Just c<strong>on</strong>sider. What do these views have in comm<strong>on</strong> withLenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence?Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence is <strong>on</strong>e followed by asocialist country in its relati<strong>on</strong>s with countries having differentsocial systems, whereas Khrushchov describes peacefulcoexistence as the supreme principle governing the life <strong>of</strong>modern society.1B. N. P<strong>on</strong>omaryov, “A New Stage in the <strong>General</strong> Crisis <strong>of</strong> Capitalism”,Pravda, February 8, 1961.2Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPC, March 30, 1963.3Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> All PartyOrganizati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> All Communists <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, July 14, 1963.4B. N. P<strong>on</strong>omaryov, “Some Problems <strong>of</strong> the Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Movement”,World <strong>Marx</strong>ist Review, No. 12, 1962.5Programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, adopted by the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.277
Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence c<strong>on</strong>stitutes <strong>on</strong>e aspect<strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al policy <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in power, whereasKhrushchev stretches peaceful coexistence in<strong>to</strong> the generalline <strong>of</strong> foreign policy for the socialist countries and even furtherin<strong>to</strong> the general line for all Communist Parties.Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence was directed againstthe imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war, whereas Khrushchov’speaceful coexistence caters <strong>to</strong> imperialism and abetsthe imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war.Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence is based <strong>on</strong> the standpoint<strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al class struggle, whereas Khrushchov’speaceful coexistence strives <strong>to</strong> replace internati<strong>on</strong>al classstruggle with internati<strong>on</strong>al class collaborati<strong>on</strong>.Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence proceeds from thehis<strong>to</strong>rical missi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and thereforerequires the socialist countries <strong>to</strong> give firm support <strong>to</strong>the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> all the oppressed peoples andnati<strong>on</strong>s while pursuing this policy, whereas Khrushchov’speaceful coexistence seeks <strong>to</strong> replace the proletarian worldrevoluti<strong>on</strong> with pacifism and thus renounces proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.Khrushchov has changed the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistencein<strong>to</strong> <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> class capitulati<strong>on</strong>. In the name <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence,he has renounced the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong>the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957 and the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960, robbed<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism <strong>of</strong> its revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary soul, and dis<strong>to</strong>rted andmutilated it bey<strong>on</strong>d recogniti<strong>on</strong>.This is a brazen betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism!THREE DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLEOn the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence the difference betweenthe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand, and ourselvesand all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties and indeed all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists,<strong>on</strong> the other, is not whether socialist countries should278
pursue the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence. It is an issue <strong>of</strong>principle c<strong>on</strong>cerning the correct attitude <strong>to</strong>wards Lenin’s policy<strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence. It manifests itself mainly in threequesti<strong>on</strong>s.The first questi<strong>on</strong> is: In order <strong>to</strong> attain peaceful coexistence,is it necessary <strong>to</strong> ravage struggles against imperialism andbourgeois reacti<strong>on</strong>? Is it possible through peaceful coexistence<strong>to</strong> abolish the antag<strong>on</strong>ism and struggle between socialismand imperialism?<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists c<strong>on</strong>sistently maintain that as far as thesocialist countries are c<strong>on</strong>cerned, there is no obstacle <strong>to</strong> thepractice <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence between countries with differentsocial systems. The obstacles always come from theimperialists and the bourgeois reacti<strong>on</strong>aries.The Five Principles <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Coexistence were advanced<strong>to</strong> combat the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war. Underthese principles, it is impermissible in internati<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>to</strong> encroach up<strong>on</strong> the terri<strong>to</strong>ry and sovereignty <strong>of</strong> other countries,interfere in their internal affairs, impair their interestsand equal status or wage aggressive wars against them. But itis in the very nature <strong>of</strong> imperialism <strong>to</strong> commit aggressi<strong>on</strong>against other countries and nati<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>to</strong> desire <strong>to</strong> enslavethem. As l<strong>on</strong>g as imperialism exists, its nature will neverchange. That is why intrinsically the imperialists are unwilling<strong>to</strong> accept the Five Principles <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Coexistence.Whenever possible, they try <strong>to</strong> disrupt and destroy the socialistcountries and they commit aggressi<strong>on</strong> against othercountries and nati<strong>on</strong>s and try <strong>to</strong> enslave them.His<strong>to</strong>ry shows that it is <strong>on</strong>ly owing <strong>to</strong> unfavourable objectivecauses that the imperialists dare not risk starting a waragainst the socialist countries, or are forced <strong>to</strong> agree <strong>to</strong> anarmistice and <strong>to</strong> accept some sort <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.His<strong>to</strong>ry also shows that there have always been sharp andcomplex struggles between the imperialist and socialist countries,which have sometimes culminated in direct militaryc<strong>on</strong>flicts or wars. When hot wars are not in progress, the279
imperialists wage cold wars, which they have been ceaselesslywaging ever since the end <strong>of</strong> World War II. In fact, the imperialistand the socialist countries have been in a state <strong>of</strong>cold-war coexistence. At the same time as they actively expandtheir armaments and prepare for war, the imperialistcountries use every means <strong>to</strong> oppose the socialist countriespolitically, ec<strong>on</strong>omically and ideologically, and even make militaryprovocati<strong>on</strong>s and war threats against them. The imperialists’cold war against the socialist countries and the latter’sresistance <strong>to</strong> it are manifestati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alclass struggle.The imperialists push <strong>on</strong> with their plans <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> andwar not <strong>on</strong>ly against the socialist countries but throughoutthe world. They try <strong>to</strong> suppress the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movements<strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s.In these circumstances, the socialist countries, <strong>to</strong>gether withthe people <strong>of</strong> all other countries, must resolutely combat theimperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war and wage a tit-fortatstruggle against imperialism. This class struggle inevitablygoes <strong>on</strong>, now in an acute and now in a relaxed form.But Khrushchev is impervious <strong>to</strong> these inexorable facts. Heproclaims far and wide that imperialism has already admittedthe necessity <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence, and he regards the antiimperialiststruggles <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries and <strong>of</strong> the people<strong>of</strong> the world as incompatible with the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.In Khrushchov’s opini<strong>on</strong>, a socialist country has <strong>to</strong> make<strong>on</strong>e c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong> after another and keep <strong>on</strong> yielding <strong>to</strong> the imperialistsand the bourgeois reacti<strong>on</strong>aries even when theysubject it <strong>to</strong> military threats and armed attack or make humiliatingdemands which violate its sovereignty and dignity.By this logic, Khrushchov describes his incessant retreats,his bartering away <strong>of</strong> principles and docile acceptance <strong>of</strong> theU.S. imperialists’ humiliating demands during the Caribbeancrisis as “a vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence”.280
By the same logic, Khrushchov describes China’s adherence<strong>to</strong> correct principles <strong>on</strong> the Sino-Indian boundary questi<strong>on</strong>and her counter-attack against the military <strong>on</strong>slaught <strong>of</strong> theIndian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries, an act <strong>of</strong> self-defence by China when thesituati<strong>on</strong> became in<strong>to</strong>lerable, as “a violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence”.At times, Khrushchov also talks about struggle betweenthe two different social systems. But how does he see thisstruggle?He has said, “The inevitable struggle between the twosystems must be made <strong>to</strong> take the form exclusively <strong>of</strong> astruggle <strong>of</strong> ideas. . . .” 1Here the political struggle has disappeared!He has also said:The Leninist principle <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence <strong>of</strong> stateswith differing socio-ec<strong>on</strong>omic and political systems doesnot mean just an absence <strong>of</strong> war, a temporary state <strong>of</strong> unstableceasefire. It presupposes the maintenance betweenthese states <strong>of</strong> friendly ec<strong>on</strong>omic and political relati<strong>on</strong>s, itenvisages the establishment and development <strong>of</strong> variousforms <strong>of</strong> peaceful internati<strong>on</strong>al co-operati<strong>on</strong>. 2Here, struggle has disappeared al<strong>to</strong>gether!Like a c<strong>on</strong>jurer, Khrushchov plays <strong>on</strong>e trick after another,first reducing major issues <strong>to</strong> minor <strong>on</strong>es, and then minor issues<strong>to</strong> naught. He denies the basic antag<strong>on</strong>ism between thesocialist and capitalist systems, he denies the fundamentalc<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the socialist and the imperialist camps,and he denies the existence <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al class struggle. Andso he transforms peaceful coexistence between the two systemsand the two camps in<strong>to</strong> “all-round co-operati<strong>on</strong>”.1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong>the USSR, January 1960.2N. S. Khrushchov, “Answers <strong>to</strong> the Questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Austrian Pr<strong>of</strong>essorHans Thirring”, Pravda, January 3, 1962.281
The sec<strong>on</strong>d questi<strong>on</strong> is: Can peaceful coexistence be madethe general line <strong>of</strong> foreign policy for socialist countries?We hold that the general line <strong>of</strong> foreign policy for socialistcountries must embody the fundamental principle <strong>of</strong> theirforeign policy and comprise the fundamental c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> thispolicy.What is this fundamental principle? It is proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.Lenin said, “The foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is alliancewith the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> the advanced countries and withall the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s against all and any imperialists.” 1This principle <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism advanced byLenin should be the guide for the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> socialistcountries.Since the formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp, every socialistcountry has had <strong>to</strong> deal with three kinds <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s in itsforeign policy, namely, its relati<strong>on</strong>s with other socialist countries,with countries having different social systems, and withthe oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s.In our view, the following should therefore be the c<strong>on</strong>tent<strong>of</strong> the general line <strong>of</strong> foreign policy for socialist countries:<strong>to</strong> develop relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> friendship, mutual assistance and cooperati<strong>on</strong>am<strong>on</strong>g the countries <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp in accordancewith the principle <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism; <strong>to</strong>strive for peaceful coexistence <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the Five Principleswith countries having different social systems and opposethe imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war; and <strong>to</strong>support and assist the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> all the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s. These three aspects are interrelatedand not a single <strong>on</strong>e can be omitted.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have <strong>on</strong>e-sidedly reduced thegeneral line <strong>of</strong> the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries <strong>to</strong>1V. I. Lenin, “The Foreign Policy <strong>of</strong> the Russian Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”,Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol.XXV, p. 87.282
peaceful coexistence. We would like <strong>to</strong> ask: How should asocialist country handle its relati<strong>on</strong>s with other socialist countries?Should it merely maintain relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistencewith them?Of course, socialist countries, <strong>to</strong>o, must abide by the FivePrinciples in their mutual relati<strong>on</strong>s. It is absolutely impermissiblefor any <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> them <strong>to</strong> undermine the terri<strong>to</strong>rial integrity<strong>of</strong> another fraternal country, <strong>to</strong> impair its independenceand sovereignty, interfere in its internal affairs, carry <strong>on</strong>subversive activities inside it, or violate the principle <strong>of</strong> equalityand mutual benefit in its relati<strong>on</strong>s with another fraternalcountry. But merely <strong>to</strong> carry out these principles is far fromenough. The 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> states:These are vital principles. However, they do not exhaustthe essence <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s between them. Fraternal mutualaid is part and parcel <strong>of</strong> these relati<strong>on</strong>s. This aid is a strikingexpressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialist internati<strong>on</strong>alism.In making peaceful coexistence the general line <strong>of</strong> foreignpolicy, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have in fact liquidated theproletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alist relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> mutual assistance andco-operati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g socialist countries and put the fraternalsocialist countries <strong>on</strong> a par with the capitalist countries. Thisamounts <strong>to</strong> liquidating the socialist camp.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have <strong>on</strong>e-sidedly reduced the generalline <strong>of</strong> the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries <strong>to</strong>peaceful coexistence. We would like <strong>to</strong> ask: How should asocialist country handle its relati<strong>on</strong>s with the oppressed peoplesand nati<strong>on</strong>s? Should the relati<strong>on</strong>ship between the proletariatin power and its class brothers who have not yet emancipatedthemselves or between it and all oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>sbe <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence al<strong>on</strong>e and not <strong>of</strong> mutual help?After the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, Lenin repeatedly stressed thatthe land <strong>of</strong> socialism, which had established the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship283
<strong>of</strong> the proletariat, was a base for promoting the proletarianworld revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Stalin, <strong>to</strong>o, said:The revoluti<strong>on</strong> which has been vic<strong>to</strong>rious in <strong>on</strong>e countrymust regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as anaid, as a means for hastening the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the proletariatin all countries. 1He added that “it c<strong>on</strong>stitutes . . . a mighty base for its furtherdevelopment [i.e., <strong>of</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>]”. 2In their foreign policy, therefore, socialist countries can inno circumstances c<strong>on</strong>fine themselves <strong>to</strong> handling relati<strong>on</strong>swith countries having different social systems, but must alsocorrectly handle the relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g themselves and theirrelati<strong>on</strong>s with the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s. They mustmake support <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s their internati<strong>on</strong>alist duty and an importantcomp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> their foreign policy.In c<strong>on</strong>trast with Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchov makes peacefulcoexistence the general line <strong>of</strong> foreign policy for socialistcountries and, in so doing, excludes from this policy the proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alist task <strong>of</strong> helping the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles<strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s. So far from beinga “creative development” <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence,this is a betrayal <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism <strong>on</strong> the pretext<strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence.The third questi<strong>on</strong> is: Can the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence<strong>of</strong> the socialist countries be the general line for all CommunistParties and for the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement?Can it be substituted for the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>?We maintain that peaceful coexistence c<strong>on</strong>notes a relati<strong>on</strong>shipbetween countries with different social systems, betweenindependent sovereign states. Only after vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the revoluti<strong>on</strong>is it possible and necessary for the proletariat <strong>to</strong>1J. V. Stalin, “The Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Tactics <strong>of</strong> the RussianCommunists”, Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 415.2Ibid., p. 419.284
pursue the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence. As for oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s, their task is <strong>to</strong> strive for their ownliberati<strong>on</strong> and overthrow the rule <strong>of</strong> imperialism and itslackeys. They should not practise peaceful coexistence withthe imperialists and their lackeys, nor is it possible for them<strong>to</strong> do so.It is therefore wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> apply peaceful coexistence <strong>to</strong> therelati<strong>on</strong>s between oppressed and oppressor classes and betweenoppressed and oppressor nati<strong>on</strong>s, or <strong>to</strong> stretch thesocialist countries’ policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence so as <strong>to</strong>make it the policy <strong>of</strong> the Communist Parties and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople in the capitalist world, or <strong>to</strong> subordinate therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>to</strong> it.We have always held that the correct applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Lenin’spolicy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries helps<strong>to</strong> develop their power, <strong>to</strong> expose the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong>aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war and <strong>to</strong> unite all the anti-imperialist peoplesand countries, and it therefore helps the people’s strugglesagainst imperialism and its lackeys. At the same time, bydirectly hitting and weakening the forces <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>, warand reacti<strong>on</strong>, the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles against imperialismand its lackeys help the cause <strong>of</strong> world peace andhuman progress, and therefore help the socialist countries’struggle for peaceful coexistence with countries havingdifferent social systems. Thus, the correct applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>Lenin’s policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence by the socialist countriesis in harm<strong>on</strong>y with the interests <strong>of</strong> the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles in all countries.However, the socialist countries’ struggle for peaceful coexistencebetween countries with different social systems andthe people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong> in various countries are two <strong>to</strong>tallydifferent things.In its letter <strong>of</strong> June 14 replying <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC states:285
. . . it is <strong>on</strong>e thing <strong>to</strong> practise peaceful coexistence betweencountries with different social systems. It is absolutelyimpermissible and impossible for countries practisingpeaceful coexistence <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>uch even a hair <strong>of</strong> each other’ssocial system. The class struggle, the struggle for nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> and the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism invarious countries are quite another thing. They are all bitter,life-and-death revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles which aim atchanging the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot replacethe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the people. The transiti<strong>on</strong>from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism in any country can <strong>on</strong>lybe brought about through the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> andthe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in that country.In a class society it is completely wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> regard peacefulcoexistence as “the best and the sole acceptable way <strong>to</strong> solvethe vitally important problems c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting society” and as the“basic law <strong>of</strong> life for the whole <strong>of</strong> modern society”. This issocial pacifism which repudiates class struggle. It is an outrageousbetrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.Back in 1946, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung differentiated betweenthe two problems and explicitly stated that compromise betweenthe Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States, Britain andFrance <strong>on</strong> certain issues “does not require the people in thecountries <strong>of</strong> the capitalist world <strong>to</strong> follow suit and make compromisesat home. The people in those countries will c<strong>on</strong>tinue<strong>to</strong> wage different struggles in accordance with their differentc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s.” 1This is a correct <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist policy. Guided by thiscorrect policy <strong>of</strong> Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung’s, the Chinese peoplefirmly and determinedly carried the revoluti<strong>on</strong> through <strong>to</strong> theend and w<strong>on</strong> the great vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> their revoluti<strong>on</strong>.Acting against this <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist policy, the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPSU equate <strong>on</strong>e aspect <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>to</strong> be pursued by1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Some Points in Appraisal <strong>of</strong> the Present Internati<strong>on</strong>alSituati<strong>on</strong>, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV,p. 87.286
the proletariat in power in its state relati<strong>on</strong>s with countrieshaving different social systems with the general line <strong>of</strong> all theCommunist Parties, and they try <strong>to</strong> substitute the former forthe latter, demanding that Communist Parties and revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeoples should all follow what they call the general line<strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence. Not desiring revoluti<strong>on</strong> themselves,they forbid others <strong>to</strong> make it. Not opposing imperialismthemselves, they forbid others <strong>to</strong> oppose it.This the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUand Khrushchov’s recent remarks have strenuously denied. Ithas been asserted that it is “a m<strong>on</strong>strous slander” <strong>to</strong> accuse theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>of</strong> extending peaceful coexistence <strong>to</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween the oppressed and oppressor classes and betweenthe oppressed and oppressor nati<strong>on</strong>s. They have even hypocriticallystated that peaceful coexistence “cannot be extended<strong>to</strong> the class struggle against capital within the capitalist countriesand <strong>to</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movement”.But such prevaricati<strong>on</strong> is futile.We should like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: Since thepolicy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence c<strong>on</strong>stitutes <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e aspect <strong>of</strong>the foreign policy <strong>of</strong> socialist countries, why have you asserteduntil recently that it represents “the strategic line forthe whole period <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism <strong>on</strong>a world scale”? 1 In requiring the Communist Parties <strong>of</strong> allthe capitalist countries and <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> makepeaceful coexistence their general line, are you not aiming atreplacing the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line <strong>of</strong> the Communist Partieswith your policy <strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence” and wilfully applyingthat policy <strong>to</strong> the relati<strong>on</strong>s between oppressed and oppressorclasses and between oppressed and oppressor nati<strong>on</strong>s?We should also like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: Sincethe peoples win vic<strong>to</strong>ry in their revoluti<strong>on</strong>s by relying primarily<strong>on</strong> their own struggles, how can such vic<strong>to</strong>ry be attrib-1“For the Unity and Solidarity <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Communist Movement”,edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article in Pravda, December 6, 1963.287
uted <strong>to</strong> peaceful coexistence or described as its outcome? D<strong>on</strong>ot such allegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> yours mean the subordinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>to</strong> your policy <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence?We should further like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU:Ec<strong>on</strong>omic successes in socialist countries and the vic<strong>to</strong>ries theyscore in ec<strong>on</strong>omic competiti<strong>on</strong> with capitalist countries undoubtedlyplay an exemplary role and are an inspirati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s. But how can it be said that socialismwill triumph <strong>on</strong> a worldwide scale through peacefulcoexistence and peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong> instead <strong>of</strong> through therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the peoples?The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU advertise reliance <strong>on</strong> peaceful coexistenceand peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong> as being enough <strong>to</strong> “delivera crushing blow <strong>to</strong> the entire system <strong>of</strong> capitalist relati<strong>on</strong>ships”and bring about worldwide peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>socialism. This is equivalent <strong>to</strong> saying that the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s have no need <strong>to</strong> wage struggles, makerevoluti<strong>on</strong> and overthrow the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary rule <strong>of</strong> imperialismand col<strong>on</strong>ialism and their lackeys, and that they should justwait quietly — until the producti<strong>on</strong> levels and living standards<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> outstrip those <strong>of</strong> the most developed capitalistcountries, when the oppressed and exploited slavesthroughout the world would be able <strong>to</strong> enter communism <strong>to</strong>getherwith their oppressors and exploiters. Is this not anattempt <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> substitutewhat they call peaceful coexistence for the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles<strong>of</strong> the peoples and <strong>to</strong> liquidate such struggles?An analysis <strong>of</strong> these three questi<strong>on</strong>s makes it clear tha<strong>to</strong>ur difference with the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is a major difference<strong>of</strong> principle. In essence it boils down <strong>to</strong> this. Ourpolicy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence is Leninist and is based <strong>on</strong> theprinciple <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism, it c<strong>on</strong>tributes <strong>to</strong> thecause <strong>of</strong> opposing imperialism and defending world peace andaccords with the interests <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong>the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s the world over; whereas288
the so-called general line <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence pursued bythe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is anti-Leninist, it aband<strong>on</strong>s the principle<strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism, damages the cause <strong>of</strong>opposing imperialism and defending world peace, and runscounter <strong>to</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> theoppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s.THE CPSU LEADERS’ GENERAL LINE OF“PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE” CATERS TOU.S. IMPERIALISMThe general line <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence pursued by theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is firmly rejected by all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-LeninistParties and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people but is warmly praised by theimperialists.The spokesmen <strong>of</strong> Western m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital make no secret<strong>of</strong> their appreciati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this general line <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU. They see in Khrushchov “the West’s best friend inMoscow” 1 and say that “Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchevacts like an American politicians”. 2 They say, “Comrade Khrushchevis c<strong>on</strong>sidered, as far as the free world is c<strong>on</strong>cerned, thebest Prime Minister the Russians have. He genuinely believesin peaceful coexistence.” 3 They declare that “this possibility<strong>of</strong> better Soviet-American relati<strong>on</strong>s has led <strong>to</strong> the feeling inU.S. State Department circles that, within certain limits, theU.S. should facilitate Khrushchev’s task”. 4The imperialists have always been hostile <strong>to</strong> the socialistcountries’ policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence, exclaiming that “the1“How Nice Must We Be <strong>to</strong> Nikita?” in the U.S. magazine Time,March 9, 1962.2W. A. Harriman, Televisi<strong>on</strong> Interview, August 18, 1963.3“Kennedy Helps Khrushchev”, in the British magazine Time andTide, April 18-24, 1963.4Agence France Presse dispatch from Washingt<strong>on</strong>, July 14, 1963, <strong>on</strong>U.S. government <strong>of</strong>ficials’ comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.289
very phrase ‘coexistence’ is both weird and presumptuous”and that “let us relegate <strong>to</strong> the scrap heap the c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> atransi<strong>to</strong>ry and uneasy coexistence”. 1 Why do they now showso much interest in Khrushchov’s general line <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence?Because the imperialists are clear <strong>on</strong> its usefulness<strong>to</strong> them.The U.S. imperialists have invariably adopted the dualtactics <strong>of</strong> war and peace in order <strong>to</strong> attain their strategic objectives<strong>of</strong> liquidating the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, eliminating thesocialist camp and dominating the world. When they find theinternati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong> growing unfavourable <strong>to</strong> them, theyneed <strong>to</strong> resort increasingly <strong>to</strong> peace tricks while c<strong>on</strong>tinuingtheir arms expansi<strong>on</strong> and war preparati<strong>on</strong>s.In 1958 John Foster Dulles proposed that the UnitedStates should dedicate itself <strong>to</strong> “a noble strategy” <strong>of</strong> “peacefultriumph.” 2After assuming <strong>of</strong>fice, Kennedy c<strong>on</strong>tinued and developedDulles’ “strategy <strong>of</strong> peace” and talked a great deal about“peaceful coexistence”. He said, “. . . we need a much betterweap<strong>on</strong> than the H-bomb . . . and that better weap<strong>on</strong> is peacefulco-operati<strong>on</strong>.” 3Does this mean that the U.S. imperialists genuinely acceptpeaceful coexistence, or, in the words <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, admit “the reas<strong>on</strong>ableness and practicability <strong>of</strong> peacefulcoexistence”? Of course not.A little serious study makes it easy <strong>to</strong> see the real meaningand purpose <strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence” as advocated by theU.S. imperialists.What is its real meaning and purpose?1Former U.S. Under-Secretary <strong>of</strong> State Douglas Dill<strong>on</strong>’s address <strong>on</strong>U.S. foreign policy, April 20, 1960.2J. F. Dulles, Speech Before the California State Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce,December 4, 1958.3J. F. Kennedy Speech at the U.N. <strong>General</strong> Assembly, September 20,1963.290
1. In the name <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence, the U.S. imperialiststry <strong>to</strong> tie the hands <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the othersocialist countries and forbid them <strong>to</strong> support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the people in the capitalist world.Dulles said:The Soviet Government could end the “cold war”, so faras it is c<strong>on</strong>cerned, if it would free itself from the guidingdirecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al communism and seek primarily thewelfare <strong>of</strong> the Russian nati<strong>on</strong> and people. Also the “coldwar” would come <strong>to</strong> an end if internati<strong>on</strong>al communismaband<strong>on</strong>ed its global goals. . . . 1Kennedy stated that if U.S.-Soviet relati<strong>on</strong>s were <strong>to</strong> be improved,the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> would have <strong>to</strong> aband<strong>on</strong> the plan <strong>of</strong>“communizing the entire world” and “look <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> its nati<strong>on</strong>alinterest and <strong>to</strong> providing a better life for its people underc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peace”. 2Dean Rusk has put the point even more bluntly. “Therecan be no assured and lasting peace until the communist leadersaband<strong>on</strong> their goal <strong>of</strong> a world revoluti<strong>on</strong>.” He has alsosaid that there are “signs <strong>of</strong> restiveness” am<strong>on</strong>g the Sovietleaders “about the burdens and risks <strong>of</strong> their commitments <strong>to</strong>the world communist movement”. And he has even askedthe Soviet leaders <strong>to</strong> “go <strong>on</strong> from these, by putting aside theillusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a world communist triumph”. 3The meaning <strong>of</strong> these words is <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong>o clear. The U.S.imperialists describe the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles by the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s in the capitalist world for theirown emancipati<strong>on</strong> as being the outcome <strong>of</strong> attempts by thesocialist countries <strong>to</strong> “communize the entire world”. Theysay <strong>to</strong> the Soviet leaders: Do you wish <strong>to</strong> live in peace with1J. F. Dulles, Speech Before the U.S. House <strong>of</strong> Representatives ForeignAffairs Committee, January 28, 1959.2J. F. Kennedy, Interview with A. I. Adzhubei, Edi<strong>to</strong>r-in-Chief <strong>of</strong>Izvestia, November 25, 1961.3Dean Rusk, Address at the Nati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the AmericanLegi<strong>on</strong>, September 10, 1963.291
the United States? Very well! But <strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> that youmust not support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s in the capitalist world and must see <strong>to</strong> itthat they will not rise in revoluti<strong>on</strong>. According <strong>to</strong> the wishfulthinking <strong>of</strong> the U.S. imperialists, this will leave them free<strong>to</strong> stamp out the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movements in the capitalistworld and <strong>to</strong> dominate and enslave its inhabitants, who comprisetwo-thirds <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>.2. In the name <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence, the U.S. imperialiststry <strong>to</strong> push ahead with their policy <strong>of</strong> “peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>”vis-à-vis the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and other socialist countriesand <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism there.Dulles said, “The renunciati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> force . . . implies, not themaintenance <strong>of</strong> the status quo, but peaceful change.” 1 “It isnot sufficient <strong>to</strong> be defensive. Freedom must be a positiveforce that will penetrate.” 2 “We hope <strong>to</strong> encourage an evoluti<strong>on</strong>within the Soviet world.” 3Eisenhower asserted that whatever the United States coulddo by peaceful means would be d<strong>on</strong>e, “in order that thosepeople who are held in b<strong>on</strong>dage by a tyrannical dicta<strong>to</strong>rshipmight finally have the right <strong>to</strong> determine their own fates bytheir own free votes”. 4Kennedy said that the “task is <strong>to</strong> do all in our power <strong>to</strong>see that the changes taking place . . . in the Soviet empire, <strong>on</strong>all c<strong>on</strong>tinents — lead <strong>to</strong> more freedom for more men and <strong>to</strong>world peace”. 5 He declared that he would “pursue a policy <strong>of</strong>patiently encouraging freedom and carefully pressuring1J. F. Dulles, Address <strong>to</strong> the Award Dinner <strong>of</strong> the New York StateBar Associati<strong>on</strong>, January 31, 1959.2J. F. Dulles, Speech Before the California State Chamber <strong>of</strong> Commerce,December 4, 1958.3J. F. Dulles, Testim<strong>on</strong>y Before the U.S. House <strong>of</strong> RepresentativesForeign Affairs Committee, January 28, 1959.4D. D. Eisenhower, Speech at the Polish-American C<strong>on</strong>gress atChicago, September 30, 1960.5J. F. Kennedy, The Strategy <strong>of</strong> Peace, Harper & Brothers, NewYork, 1960, p. 199.292
tyranny” <strong>to</strong>wards the socialist countries in Eastern Europe, soas <strong>to</strong> provide “free choice” for the people <strong>of</strong> those countries. 1The meaning <strong>of</strong> these words, <strong>to</strong>o, is very clear. The U.S.imperialists malign the socialist system as “dicta<strong>to</strong>rial” and“tyrannical” and describe the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism as“free choice”. They say <strong>to</strong> the Soviet leaders: Do you wish<strong>to</strong> live in peace with the United States? Very well! But thisdoes not mean we recognize the status quo in the socialistcountries; <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary, capitalism must be res<strong>to</strong>red there.In other words, the U.S. imperialists will never rec<strong>on</strong>cilethemselves <strong>to</strong> the fact that <strong>on</strong>e-third <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>has taken the socialist road, and they will always attempt <strong>to</strong>destroy all the socialist countries.Briefly, what the U.S. imperialists call peaceful coexistenceamounts <strong>to</strong> this: no people living under imperialist dominati<strong>on</strong>and enslavement may strive for liberati<strong>on</strong>, all who have alreadyemancipated themselves must again come under imperialistdominati<strong>on</strong> and enslavement, and the whole world mustbe incorporated in<strong>to</strong> the American “world community <strong>of</strong> freenati<strong>on</strong>s”.It is easy <strong>to</strong> see why the general line <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence<strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is exactly <strong>to</strong> the taste <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.On the pretext <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU do their best <strong>to</strong> curry favour with U.S. imperialism andc<strong>on</strong>stantly proclaim that the representatives <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism“are c<strong>on</strong>cerned about peace”; this exactly serves its fraudulentpeace policy.On the pretext <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU apply the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence <strong>to</strong> the relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween oppressed and oppressor classes and between oppressedand oppressor nati<strong>on</strong>s, and they oppose revoluti<strong>on</strong> andtry <strong>to</strong> liquidate it; this exactly suits the U.S. imperialists’1J. F. Kennedy, Speech at the Polish-American C<strong>on</strong>gress at Chicago,Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1, 1960.293
equirement that the socialist countries should not supportpeoples revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in the capitalist world.On the pretext <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU try <strong>to</strong> substitute internati<strong>on</strong>al class collaborati<strong>on</strong> forinternati<strong>on</strong>al class struggle and advocate “all-round co-operati<strong>on</strong>”between socialism and imperialism, thus opening thedoor <strong>to</strong> imperialist penetrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries; thisexactly suits the needs <strong>of</strong> the U.S. imperialist policy <strong>of</strong> “peacefulevoluti<strong>on</strong>”.The imperialists have always been our best teachers by negativeexample. Let us here cite extracts from two speechesby Dulles after the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.He stated:. . . I had said . . . that there was evidence within theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces <strong>to</strong>ward greater liberalism. . . .. . . if these forces go <strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> gather momentumwithin the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, then we can think, and reas<strong>on</strong>ablyhope, I said within a decade or perhaps a generati<strong>on</strong>, thatwe would have what is the great goal <strong>of</strong> our policy, that is,a Russia which is governed by people who are resp<strong>on</strong>sive <strong>to</strong>the wishes <strong>of</strong> the Russian people, who had given up theirpreda<strong>to</strong>ry world-wide ambiti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> rule and who c<strong>on</strong>form<strong>to</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> civilized nati<strong>on</strong>s and such principles asare embodied in the Charter <strong>of</strong> the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s. 1He also stated:. . . the l<strong>on</strong>g-range prospect — indeed, I would say thel<strong>on</strong>g-range certainty — is that there will be an evoluti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the present policies <strong>of</strong> the Soviet rulers so that they willbecome more nati<strong>on</strong>alist and less internati<strong>on</strong>alist. 2Apparently, Dulles’ ghost has been haunting the betrayers<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism, and1J. F. Dulles, Press C<strong>on</strong>ference, May 15, 1956.2J. F. Dulles, Press C<strong>on</strong>ference, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 28, 1958.294
they have become so obsessed with the so-called general line<strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence that they do not pause <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sider howwell their acti<strong>on</strong>s accord with the desires <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.SOVIET-U.S. COLLABORATION IS THE HEART ANDSOUL OF THE CPSU LEADERS’ GENERAL LINEOF “PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE”While harping <strong>on</strong> peaceful coexistence in recent years, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have in fact not <strong>on</strong>ly violated the principle<strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism but even failed <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>form <strong>to</strong>the Five Principles <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Coexistence in their attitude<strong>to</strong>wards China and a number <strong>of</strong> other socialist countries. Toput it plainly, their ceaseless advocacy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistenceas the general line <strong>of</strong> their foreign policy amounts <strong>to</strong> a demandthat all the socialist countries and the Communist Partiesmust submit <strong>to</strong> their l<strong>on</strong>g-cherished dream <strong>of</strong> Soviet-U.S.collaborati<strong>on</strong>.The heart and soul <strong>of</strong> the general line <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistencepursued by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is Soviet-U.S. collaborati<strong>on</strong>for the dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the world.Just look at the extraordinary statements they have made:“The two greatest modern powers, the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> andthe United States, have left far behind any other country inthe world.” 1“Each <strong>of</strong> these two powers is leading a large group <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>s— the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> leading the world socialist system and theUnited States the capitalist camp.” 2“We [the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States] are the str<strong>on</strong>gestcountries in the world and if we unite for peace there can1N. N. Yakovlev, “After 30 Years . . .”, a pamphlet written for the30th anniversary <strong>of</strong> Soviet-American diplomatic relati<strong>on</strong>s.2Ibid.295
e no war. Then if any madman wanted war, we would buthave <strong>to</strong> shake our fingers <strong>to</strong> warn him <strong>of</strong>f.” 1“. . . if there is agreement between N. S. Khrushchov, thehead <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Government, and John Kennedy, the President<strong>of</strong> the United States, there will be a soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alproblems <strong>on</strong> which mankind’s destinies depend.” 2We would like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: Since the1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement say clearly thatU.S. imperialism is the sworn enemy <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the worldand the main force making for aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war, how canyou “unite” with the main enemy <strong>of</strong> world peace <strong>to</strong> “safeguardpeace”?We would like <strong>to</strong> ask them: Can it be that more than ahundred countries and over three thousand milli<strong>on</strong> peoplehave no right <strong>to</strong> decide their own destiny? Must they submit<strong>to</strong> the manipulati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the two “giants”, the two “greatestpowers”, the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States? Isn’t thisarrogant n<strong>on</strong>sense <strong>of</strong> yours an expressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinismand power politics pure and simple?We would also like <strong>to</strong> ask them: Do you really imaginethat if <strong>on</strong>ly the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States reachedagreement, if <strong>on</strong>ly the two “great men” reached agreement,the destiny <strong>of</strong> mankind would be decided and all internati<strong>on</strong>alissues settled? You are wr<strong>on</strong>g, hopelessly wr<strong>on</strong>g. <strong>From</strong> timeimmemorial, things have never happened in this way, and theyare much less likely <strong>to</strong> do so in the nineteen sixties. Theworld <strong>to</strong>day is full <strong>of</strong> complex c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s, the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>between the socialist and the imperialist camps, the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalistcountries, the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>sand imperialism, and the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the imperialistcountries and am<strong>on</strong>g the m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalist groups in,1N. S. Khrushchov Interview with the U.S. Corresp<strong>on</strong>dent C. L. Sulzberger,September 5, 1961, Pravda, September 10, 1961.2A. A. Gromyko, Speech at the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong> theUSSR, December 13, 1962.296
the imperialist countries. Would these c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s disappear<strong>on</strong>ce the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States reachedagreement?The <strong>on</strong>ly country the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU look up <strong>to</strong> is theUnited States. In their pursuit <strong>of</strong> Soviet-U.S. collaborati<strong>on</strong>,they do not scruple <strong>to</strong> betray the Soviet people’s true allies,including their class brothers and all the oppressed peoplesand nati<strong>on</strong>s still living under the imperialist-capitalist system.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are trying hard <strong>to</strong> wreck the socialistcamp. They use every kind <strong>of</strong> lie and slander against theChinese Communist Party and exert political and ec<strong>on</strong>omicpressure <strong>on</strong> China. As for socialist Albania, nothing short <strong>of</strong>its destructi<strong>on</strong> would satisfy them. Hand in hand with U.S.imperialism, they brought pressure <strong>to</strong> bear up<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryCuba, making demands <strong>on</strong> it at the expense <strong>of</strong> its sovereigntyand dignity.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are trying hard <strong>to</strong> sabotage therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the peoples against imperialism andits lackeys. They are acting as preachers <strong>of</strong> social reformismand are sapping the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary fighting will <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand its political party in various countries. To cater <strong>to</strong>the needs <strong>of</strong> imperialism, they are undermining the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movement and becoming more and more shamelessapologists <strong>of</strong> U.S. neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism.What do the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU get from U.S. imperialismin return for all their strenuous efforts and for the high pricethey pay in pursuit <strong>of</strong> Soviet-U.S. collaborati<strong>on</strong>?Since 1959, Khrushchov has become obsessed with summitmeetings between the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States. Hehas had many f<strong>on</strong>d dreams and spread many illusi<strong>on</strong>s aboutthem. He has ex<strong>to</strong>lled Eisenhower as “a big man” who “understandsbig politics”. 1 He has enthusiastically praised Kennedyas <strong>on</strong>e who “understands the great resp<strong>on</strong>sibility that1N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Lunche<strong>on</strong> Given in His H<strong>on</strong>our bythe Mayor <strong>of</strong> New York, September 17, 1959.297
lies with the governments <strong>of</strong> two such powerful states”. 1 Theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU made a big fuss about the so-called spirit<strong>of</strong> Camp David and proclaimed the Vienna meeting <strong>to</strong> be “ana event <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ric significance”. The Soviet press claimed that<strong>on</strong>ce the heads <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States satat the same table, his<strong>to</strong>ry would arrive at a “new turningpoint”, and that a handshake between the two “great men”would usher in a “new era” in internati<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>s.But how does U.S. imperialism treat the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU? A little over a m<strong>on</strong>th after the Camp David talks,Eisenhower declared, “I wasn’t aware <strong>of</strong> any spirit <strong>of</strong> CampDavid.” And seven m<strong>on</strong>ths after the talks he sent a U-2 spyplane <strong>to</strong> intrude in<strong>to</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, thus wrecking the fourpowersummit c<strong>on</strong>ference. Not l<strong>on</strong>g after the Vienna meeting,Kennedy put forward the following insolent c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s fortwenty years <strong>of</strong> peace between the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the UnitedStates: no support by the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> for any people’srevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles, and the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism inthe socialist countries <strong>of</strong> Eastern Europe. A year or moreafter the Vienna meeting Kennedy ordered the piratical militaryblockade <strong>of</strong> Cuba and created the Caribbean crisis.Searching high and low am<strong>on</strong>g the quick and the dead, wherecan <strong>on</strong>e find the much vaunted “spirit <strong>of</strong> Camp David”, “turningpoint in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> mankind” and “new era in internati<strong>on</strong>alrelati<strong>on</strong>s”?After the signing <strong>of</strong> the tripartite treaty <strong>on</strong> the partialnuclear test ban, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU gave great publicity<strong>to</strong> the so-called spirit <strong>of</strong> Moscow. They spoke <strong>of</strong> the need<strong>to</strong> “strike while the ir<strong>on</strong> is hot”, asserted that “all the favourablec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s are there” for the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the UnitedStates <strong>to</strong> reach further agreements, and declared that it wasbad <strong>to</strong> take the attitude that “time can wait” or “there is nohurry”. 21N. S. Khrushchov, Radio and Televisi<strong>on</strong> Speech, June 15, 1961.2“Time Cannot Wait”, article by observer in Izvestia, August 21, 1963.298
What is the “spirit <strong>of</strong> Moscow”? Let us look at recentevents.To create more <strong>of</strong> an atmosphere <strong>of</strong> “Soviet-U.S. co-operati<strong>on</strong>”,the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU held a rally in Moscow in celebrati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the thirtieth anniversary <strong>of</strong> the establishment <strong>of</strong>diplomatic relati<strong>on</strong>s between the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the UnitedStates. At the same time, they sent a cultural delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>the United States for celebrati<strong>on</strong>s there. But what came <strong>of</strong>the enthusiasm <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU? The entirestaff <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Embassy in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> refused <strong>to</strong> attendthe Moscow rally, and the U.S. State Department issued aspecial memorandum asking the American public <strong>to</strong> boycottthe Soviet cultural delegati<strong>on</strong>, whom they denounced as “extremelydangerous and suspicious people”.While the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU were advocating “Soviet-U.S. co-operati<strong>on</strong>”, the United States sent the agent Barghoorn<strong>to</strong> carry <strong>on</strong> activities in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. The Soviet Governmentvery properly arrested this agent. But, after Kennedymade the threat that the success <strong>of</strong> the wheat deal betweenthe United States and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> “depends up<strong>on</strong>a reas<strong>on</strong>able atmosphere in both countries”, which he said hadbeen “badly damaged by the Barghoorn arrest”, the SovietGovernment hurriedly released this U.S. agent without anytrial, <strong>on</strong> the grounds <strong>of</strong> “the c<strong>on</strong>cern <strong>of</strong> the U.S. high <strong>of</strong>ficialsover F. C. Barghoorn’s fate”, over the fate <strong>of</strong> an agent whothe investigati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>firmed . . . had been engaged in intelligenceactivities against the U.S.S.R.”.Are all these manifestati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the “spirit <strong>of</strong> Moscow”? Ifso, it is indeed very sad.Moscow! Bright capital <strong>of</strong> the first socialist country andglorious name cherished by so many milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peoplethroughout the world since the Great Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>!Now this name is being used by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong>cover up their foul practice <strong>of</strong> collaborati<strong>on</strong> with the U.S. imperialists.What an unprecedented shame!299
All <strong>to</strong>o <strong>of</strong>ten have the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU said fine thingsabout the U.S. imperialists and begged favours from them;all <strong>to</strong>o <strong>of</strong>ten have they lost their temper with fraternal countriesand Parties and put pressure <strong>on</strong> them; all <strong>to</strong>o many arethe tricks and decepti<strong>on</strong>s they have practised <strong>on</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople in various countries — solely in order <strong>to</strong> begfor “friendship” and “trust” from U.S. imperialism. But“while the drooping flowers pine for love, the heartless brookbabbles <strong>on</strong>”. All that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have receivedfrom the U.S. imperialists is humiliati<strong>on</strong>, again humiliati<strong>on</strong>,always humiliati<strong>on</strong>!A FEW WORDS OF ADVICE TO THE LEADERSOF THE CPSUDuring the bitter days <strong>of</strong> resistance <strong>to</strong> armed imperialistinterventi<strong>on</strong> and amidst the raging fires <strong>of</strong> the Patriotic War,was there ever an occasi<strong>on</strong> when the great Soviet people underthe leadership <strong>of</strong> Lenin and Stalin bowed <strong>to</strong> difficulties? Didthey ever kneel before the enemy? Today, the world situati<strong>on</strong>is most favourable <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> and socialism is str<strong>on</strong>gerthan ever, while imperialism has never been in such difficulties;yet how ignominiously has the first socialist country,the state founded by Lenin, been bullied by U.S. imperialismand how grossly has the socialist camp been disgraced bythe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU! How is it possible for us, for any<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists or revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people, not <strong>to</strong> feel distress?Here we should like <strong>to</strong> <strong>of</strong>fer sincere advice <strong>to</strong> the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU.The United States, the most ferocious imperialist country,has the mad strategic aim <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>quering the world. It isfrantically suppressing the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s and has openly declared its intenti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> bringing Eastern Europe back in<strong>to</strong> the so-called worldcommunity <strong>of</strong> free nati<strong>on</strong>s. How can you imagine that the300
heaviest blows <strong>of</strong> the U.S. imperialists in pursuit <strong>of</strong> theiraggressive plans for c<strong>on</strong>quering the whole world will fall <strong>on</strong>others and not <strong>on</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>?The United States is an imperialist country and the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> a socialist country. How can you expect “all-roundco-operati<strong>on</strong>” between two countries with entirely differentsocial systems?There is mutual decepti<strong>on</strong> and rivalry even between theUnited States and the other imperialist powers, and the UnitedStates will not be satisfied until it has trampled them underfoot.How then can you imagine that the imperialist UnitedStates will live in harm<strong>on</strong>y with the socialist Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>?Leading comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU! Just think the matterover soberly. Can U.S. imperialism be depended up<strong>on</strong> whena s<strong>to</strong>rm breaks in the world? No! The U.S. imperialists areundependable, as are all imperialists and reacti<strong>on</strong>aries. The<strong>on</strong>ly dependable allies <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> are the fraternalcountries <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp, the fraternal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-LeninistParties and all oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s.The laws <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>rical development operate independently<strong>of</strong> any individual’s will. No <strong>on</strong>e can possibly prevent thegrowth <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement<strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s, let al<strong>on</strong>e destroythem. He who betrays the people <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp andthe world and dreams <strong>of</strong> dominating the globe by colludingwith U.S. imperialism is bound <strong>to</strong> end up badly. It is verymistaken and dangerous for the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> doso.It is not yet <strong>to</strong>o late for the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> reinin at the brink. It is high time for them <strong>to</strong> discard theirgeneral line <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence and return <strong>to</strong> Lenin’spolicy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence, <strong>to</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismand proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.
THE LEADERS OF THE CPSUARE THE GREATEST SPLITTERSOF OUR TIMESSeventh Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(February 4, 1964)
NEVER before has the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement been so gravely threatened as it is <strong>to</strong>day whenwe are witnessing a deluge <strong>of</strong> modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ist ideology.Both internati<strong>on</strong>ally and inside individual Parties, fierce strugglesare going <strong>on</strong> between <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.The internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement is c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted with anunprecedentedly serious danger <strong>of</strong> a split.It is the urgent task <strong>of</strong> the Communists, the proletariat andthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> the world <strong>to</strong> defend the unity <strong>of</strong>the socialist camp and <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has made c<strong>on</strong>sistent andunremitting efforts <strong>to</strong> defend and strengthen the unity <strong>of</strong> thesocialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement inaccordance with <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryprinciples <strong>of</strong> the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement.It has been and remains the unswerving positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theChinese Communist Party <strong>to</strong> uphold principle, uphold unity,eliminate differences and strengthen the struggle against ourcomm<strong>on</strong> enemy.Ever since they embarked <strong>on</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have tirelessly pr<strong>of</strong>essed their devoti<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. Oflate, they have been particularly active in crying for “unity”.This calls <strong>to</strong> mind what Engels said ninety years ago. “Onemust not allow <strong>on</strong>eself <strong>to</strong> be misled by the cry for ‘unity.’Those who have this word most <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>on</strong> their lips are the <strong>on</strong>eswho sow the most dissensi<strong>on</strong>. . . .” “. . . the biggest sectariansand the biggest brawlers and rogues at times shout loudestfor unity.” 11“Engels <strong>to</strong> A. Bebel, June 20, 1873”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 345.305
While presenting themselves as champi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> unity, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are trying <strong>to</strong> pin the label <strong>of</strong> splittism <strong>on</strong>the Chinese Communist Party. In its Open Letter the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU says:The Chinese leaders are undermining the unity not <strong>on</strong>ly<strong>of</strong> the socialist camp but <strong>of</strong> the entire world communistmovement, trampling <strong>on</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand grossly violating accepted standards <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween fraternal parties.And the subsequent articles published in the Soviet presshave been c<strong>on</strong>demning the Chinese Communists as “sectarians”and “splitters”.But what are the facts? Who is undermining the unity <strong>of</strong>the socialist camp? Who is undermining the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement? Who is trampling <strong>on</strong> theprinciples <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism? And who is grosslyviolating the accepted standards <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s between fraternalParties? In other words, who are the real, out-and-out splitters?Only when these questi<strong>on</strong>s are properly answered can wefind the way <strong>to</strong> defend and strengthen the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialistcamp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and overcomethe danger <strong>of</strong> a split.A REVIEW OF HISTORYIn order <strong>to</strong> gain a clear understanding <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> splittismin the present internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and<strong>to</strong> struggle against it in the correct way, let us look back <strong>on</strong>the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement overthe past century or so.The struggle between <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and opportunismand between the forces defending unity and those creatingsplits runs through the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> the306
communist movement. This is the case both in individualcountries and <strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al plane. In this prol<strong>on</strong>gedstruggle, <strong>Marx</strong>, Engels and Lenin expounded the true essence<strong>of</strong> proletarian unity <strong>on</strong> a theoretical level and, by their deeds,set brilliant examples in combating opportunism, revisi<strong>on</strong>ismand splittism.In 1847 <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels founded the earliest internati<strong>on</strong>alworking-class organizati<strong>on</strong> — the Communist League. In theCommunist Manifes<strong>to</strong>, which they wrote as the programme<strong>of</strong> the League, <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels advanced the militant call,“Workers <strong>of</strong> All Countries, Unite!” and gave a systematic andpr<strong>of</strong>ound expositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> scientific communism, thus laying theideological basis for the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat.Throughout their lives <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels worked unremittinglyfor this principled unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat.In 1864 they established the First Internati<strong>on</strong>al, the Internati<strong>on</strong>alWorking Men’s Associati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong> unite the workers’movements <strong>of</strong> all countries. Throughout the period <strong>of</strong> theFirst Internati<strong>on</strong>al they waged principled struggles againstthe Bakuninists, Proudh<strong>on</strong>ists, Blanquists, Lassalleans, etc.,the fiercest struggle being that against the Bakuninist splitters.The Bakuninists attacked <strong>Marx</strong>’s theory from the very beginning.They charged <strong>Marx</strong> with wanting <strong>to</strong> make his “particularprogramme and pers<strong>on</strong>al doctrine dominant in theInternati<strong>on</strong>al”. In fact, however, it was they who tried <strong>to</strong> imposethe dogmas <strong>of</strong> their sect <strong>on</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>al and <strong>to</strong> replacethe programme <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>al with Bakunin’sopportunist programme. They resorted <strong>to</strong> <strong>on</strong>e intrigue afteranother, lined up a “majority” by hook or by crook and engagedin sectarian and divisive activities.To defend the genuine unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat,<strong>Marx</strong> and Engels <strong>to</strong>ok an uncompromising and principled standagainst the open challenge <strong>of</strong> the Bakuninist splitters <strong>to</strong> theFirst Internati<strong>on</strong>al. In 1872 the Bakuninists who persistedin their splitting activities were expelled from the Interna-307
ti<strong>on</strong>al at its Hague C<strong>on</strong>gress, in which <strong>Marx</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>ally participated.Engels said that if the <strong>Marx</strong>ists had adopted an unprincipledand c<strong>on</strong>cilia<strong>to</strong>ry attitude <strong>to</strong>wards the divisive activities <strong>of</strong> theBakuninists at the Hague, it would have had grave c<strong>on</strong>sequencesfor the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement. Hestated, “Then the Internati<strong>on</strong>al would indeed have g<strong>on</strong>e <strong>to</strong>pieces — g<strong>on</strong>e <strong>to</strong> pieces through ‘unity’!” 1Led by <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, the First Internati<strong>on</strong>al foughtagainst opportunism and splittism and laid the basis for thesupremacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism in the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-classmovement.With the announcement <strong>of</strong> the end <strong>of</strong> the First-Internati<strong>on</strong>alin 1876 there began the successive establishment <strong>of</strong> masssocialist workers’ parties in many countries. <strong>Marx</strong> and Engelsfollowed the establishment and development <strong>of</strong> these partieswith close attenti<strong>on</strong> in the hope that they would be establishedand developed <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> scientific communism.<strong>Marx</strong> and Engels devoted particular attenti<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>cern<strong>to</strong> the German Social-Democratic Party which then occupiedan important positi<strong>on</strong> in the working-class movement inEurope. On many occasi<strong>on</strong>s, they sharply criticized the GermanParty for its rotten spirit <strong>of</strong> compromise with opportunismin the pursuit <strong>of</strong> “unity”.In 1875 they criticized the German Social-Democratic Partyfor its uni<strong>on</strong> with the Lassalleans at the expense <strong>of</strong> principleand for the resultant Gotha Programme. <strong>Marx</strong> pointed outthat this uni<strong>on</strong> was “bought <strong>to</strong>o dearly” and that the GothaProgramme was “a thoroughly objecti<strong>on</strong>able programme thatdemoralizes the Party”. 2 Engels pointed out that it was a“bending <strong>of</strong> the knee <strong>to</strong> Lassalleanism <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the whole1“Engels <strong>to</strong> A. Bebel, June 20, 1873”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 346.2“<strong>Marx</strong> <strong>to</strong> W. Bracke, May 5, 1875”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, pp. 360, 361.308
German socialist proletariat”, adding, “I am c<strong>on</strong>vinced thata uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> this basis will not last a year.” 1In criticizing the Gotha Programme, <strong>Marx</strong> put forward thewell-known principle that for <strong>Marx</strong>ists “there would be nohaggling about principles”. 2Later <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels again sharply criticized the leaders<strong>of</strong> the German Party for <strong>to</strong>lerating the activities <strong>of</strong> the opportunistsinside the Party. <strong>Marx</strong> said that these opportuniststried “<strong>to</strong> replace its materialistic basis . . . by modern mythologywith its goddesses <strong>of</strong> Justice, Liberty, Equality, andFraternity” 3 and that this was a “vulgarizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Party andtheory”. 4 In their “Circular Letter” <strong>to</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> theGerman Party, <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels wrote:For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggleas the immediate driving power <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry, and in particularthe class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat asthe great lever <strong>of</strong> the modern social revoluti<strong>on</strong>; it is, therefore,impossible for us <strong>to</strong> co-operate with people who wish<strong>to</strong> expunge this class struggle from the movement. 5Founded under Engels’ influence in 1889, the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>alexisted in a period when capitalism was developing“peacefully”. While <strong>Marx</strong>ism became widespread andthe Communist Manifes<strong>to</strong> became the comm<strong>on</strong> programme <strong>of</strong>tens <strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> workers everywhere during this period,the socialist parties in many countries blindly worshipped1“Engels <strong>to</strong> A. Bebel, March 18-28, 1875”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 358.2“<strong>Marx</strong> <strong>to</strong> W. Bracke, May 5, 1875”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 361.3“<strong>Marx</strong> <strong>to</strong> F. A. Sorge, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 19, 1877”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 376.4“<strong>Marx</strong> <strong>to</strong> F. A. Sorge, September 19, 1879”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 396.5“<strong>Marx</strong> and Engels <strong>to</strong> A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke and Others(‘Circular Letter’), September 17-18, 1879”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 395.309
ourgeois legality instead <strong>of</strong> utilizing it and became legalists,thus opening the floodgates for opportunism.Hence, throughout the period <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al,the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement was divided in<strong>to</strong>two main groups, the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>Marx</strong>ists and the pseudo-<strong>Marx</strong>ian opportunists.Engels waged irrec<strong>on</strong>cilable struggles against the opportunists.He refuted with particular sharpness their fallacies <strong>on</strong>the peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in<strong>to</strong> socialism. He said<strong>of</strong> those opportunists who posed as <strong>Marx</strong>ists that <strong>Marx</strong> “wouldrepeat <strong>to</strong> these gentlemen what Heine had said <strong>of</strong> his imita<strong>to</strong>rs:I sowed drag<strong>on</strong>s but I reaped fleas”. 1After the death <strong>of</strong> Engels in 1895, these fleas came out forthe open and systematic revisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism and gradually<strong>to</strong>ok over the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al.As the outstanding revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary in the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking-class movement after Engels, the great Lenin shoulderedthe heavy resp<strong>on</strong>sibility <strong>of</strong> defending <strong>Marx</strong>ism and opposingthe revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al.When the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al howledthat <strong>Marx</strong>ism was “incomplete” and “outmoded”, Leninsolemnly declared, “We take our stand entirely <strong>on</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>isttheoretical positi<strong>on</strong>”, because revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theory “unites allsocialists”. 2Above all, Lenin fought <strong>to</strong> create a <strong>Marx</strong>ist party in Russia.In order <strong>to</strong> build a party <strong>of</strong> the new type, differing fundamentallyfrom the opportunist parties <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al,he waged uncompromising struggles against thevarious anti-<strong>Marx</strong>ist facti<strong>on</strong>s inside the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.1“Engels’ Letter <strong>to</strong> Paul Lafargue, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 27, 1890”, quoted in <strong>Marx</strong>and Engels <strong>on</strong> Literature and Art, Fr. ed., Editi<strong>on</strong> Sociales, Paris, 1954,p. 258.2V. I. Lenin, “Our Programme”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1960, Vol. IV, pp. 210, 211.310
Like other parties <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al the RussianSocial-Democratic Labour Party had a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary as wellas an opportunist group. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin c<strong>on</strong>stitutedthe former and the Mensheviks the latter.The Bolsheviks led by Lenin c<strong>on</strong>ducted prol<strong>on</strong>ged theoreticaland political struggles against the Mensheviks in order<strong>to</strong> safeguard the unity <strong>of</strong> the proletarian party and the purity<strong>of</strong> its ranks, and finally in 1912 expelled the Mensheviks fortheir persistence in opportunism and splitting activities.All the opportunist facti<strong>on</strong>s abused Lenin in the most viciouslanguage. They tried by every means <strong>to</strong> label him a splitter.Lining up with all the anti-Leninist facti<strong>on</strong>s and raising thebanner <strong>of</strong> “n<strong>on</strong>-facti<strong>on</strong>alism”, Trotsky want<strong>on</strong>ly attacked theBolshevik Party and Lenin, whom he called a “usurper” and“splitter”. Lenin replied that Trotsky, who paraded as “n<strong>on</strong>facti<strong>on</strong>al”,was “a representative <strong>of</strong> the ‘worst remnants <strong>of</strong>facti<strong>on</strong>alism’ ” 1 and “the worst splitters”. 2Lenin put it clearly, “Unity is a great thing and a greatslogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ists, not unity between <strong>Marx</strong>ists, and opp<strong>on</strong>ents and dis<strong>to</strong>rters<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism.” 3Lenin’s struggle against the Mensheviks was <strong>of</strong> great internati<strong>on</strong>alsignificance, for Menshevism was a Russian form andvariant <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al andwas supported by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist leaders <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al.While combating the Mensheviks, Lenin also waged a series<strong>of</strong> struggles against the revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al.Before World War I, Lenin criticized the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> theSec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>on</strong> the theoretical and political plane1V. I. Lenin, “Disrupti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Unity Under Cover <strong>of</strong> Outcries for Unity”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 251.2V. I. Lenin, “The Break-up <strong>of</strong> the ‘August’ Bloc”, Collected Works,Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XX, p. 161.3V. I. Lenin, “Unity”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers,Moscow, 1964, Vol. XX, p. 232.311
and fought them face <strong>to</strong> face at the Stuttgart and CopenhagenC<strong>on</strong>gresses.When World War I broke out, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al openly betrayed the proletariat. Serving theimperialists’ interests, they urged the proletarians <strong>of</strong> differentcountries <strong>to</strong> slaughter each other and thus brought about amost serious split in the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat. As RosaLuxemburg said, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists turned the previous proudslogan <strong>of</strong> “Workers <strong>of</strong> All Countries, Unite!” in<strong>to</strong> the command<strong>on</strong> the battlefield, “Workers <strong>of</strong> All Countries, Slay OneAnother!” 1The Social-Democratic Party <strong>of</strong> Germany, <strong>Marx</strong>’s nativeland, was then the most powerful and influential party in theSec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al. It was the first <strong>to</strong> side with the imperialists<strong>of</strong> its own country, and thus became the arch-criminalsplitting the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement.At this critical juncture, Lenin stepped forward <strong>to</strong> fight resolutelyin defence <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat.In his article “The Tasks <strong>of</strong> Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Social-Democracyin the European War” circulated in August 1914, Lenin proclaimedthe collapse <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al and sternlyc<strong>on</strong>demned most <strong>of</strong> its leaders, and in particular those <strong>of</strong> theGerman Social-Democratic Party, for their overt betrayal <strong>of</strong>socialism.In view <strong>of</strong> the fact that the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>alhad turned their secret alliance with the bourgeoisiein<strong>to</strong> an open alliance and that they had made the splitin the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement irrevocable,Lenin stated:It is impossible <strong>to</strong> carry out the tasks <strong>of</strong> Socialism at thepresent time, it is impossible <strong>to</strong> achieve real internati<strong>on</strong>alunity <strong>of</strong> the workers, without a determined rupture with1“Either — Or”, Selected Speeches and Writings <strong>of</strong> Rosa Luxemburg,Ger. ed., Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1951, Vol. II, p. 534.312
opportunism and explaining <strong>to</strong> the masses the inevitability<strong>of</strong> its bankruptcy. 1For this reas<strong>on</strong>, Lenin staunchly supported the <strong>Marx</strong>ists inbreaking with the opportunists in many European countriesand boldly called for the establishment <strong>of</strong> a third Internati<strong>on</strong>al<strong>to</strong> replace the bankrupt Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al so as <strong>to</strong> rebuildthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat.The Third Internati<strong>on</strong>al was founded in March 1919. Itinherited the positive achievements <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>aland discarded its opportunist, social chauvinist, bourgeoisand petty-bourgeois rubbish. Thus it enabled the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arycause <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat <strong>to</strong> grow bothin breadth and depth.Lenin’s theory and practice carried <strong>Marx</strong>ism <strong>to</strong> a new stagein its development — the stage <strong>of</strong> Leninism. On the basis <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariatand the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement was furtherstrengthened and expanded.EXPERIENCE AND LESSONSWhat does the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement dem<strong>on</strong>strate?First, it dem<strong>on</strong>strates that like everything else, the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking-class movement tends <strong>to</strong> divide itself in two.The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisieis inevitably reflected in the communist ranks. It is inevitablethat opportunism <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e kind or another should arise in thecourse <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> the communist movement, tha<strong>to</strong>pportunists should engage in anti-<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist splittingactivities and that <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists should wage strugglesagainst opportunism and splittism. It is precisely through1V. I. Lenin, “The War and Russian Social-Democracy”, SelectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 403.313
this struggle <strong>of</strong> opposites that <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking-class movement have developed. And itis also through this struggle that the internati<strong>on</strong>al workingclassmovement has strengthened and c<strong>on</strong>solidated its unity <strong>on</strong>the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.Engels said:The movement <strong>of</strong> the proletariat necessarily passesthrough different stages <strong>of</strong> development; at every stage part<strong>of</strong> the people get stuck and do not join in the furtheradvance; and this al<strong>on</strong>e explains why it is that actually the“solidarity <strong>of</strong> the proletariat” is everywhere being realizedin different party groupings, which carry <strong>on</strong> life-and-deathfeuds with <strong>on</strong>e another. . . . 1This is exactly what happened. The Communist League,the First Internati<strong>on</strong>al and the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al, all <strong>of</strong>which were originally unified, divided in two in the course<strong>of</strong> their development and became two c<strong>on</strong>flicting parts. Eachtime the internati<strong>on</strong>al struggle against opportunism and splittismcarried the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement forward<strong>to</strong> a new stage and enabled it <strong>to</strong> forge a firmer andbroader unity <strong>on</strong> a new basis. The vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong> and the founding <strong>of</strong> the Third Internati<strong>on</strong>al werethe greatest achievements in the struggle against the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism.Unity, struggle or even splits, and a new unity <strong>on</strong> a newbasis — such is the dialectics <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking-class movement.Sec<strong>on</strong>dly, the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementdem<strong>on</strong>strates that in every period the struggle betweenthe defenders <strong>of</strong> unity and the crea<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> splits is in essence<strong>on</strong>e between <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and opportunism-revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,between the upholders <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism and the trai<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism.1“Engels <strong>to</strong> A. Bebel, June 20, 1873”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 347.314
Both internati<strong>on</strong>ally and in individual countries, genuineproletarian unity is possible <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.Both internati<strong>on</strong>ally and in individual countries, whereveropportunism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism are rampant, a split becomes inevitablein the proletarian ranks. Every split in the communistmovement is invariably caused by the opportunistrevisi<strong>on</strong>is<strong>to</strong>ppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> and betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.What is splittism?It means a split with <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. Any<strong>on</strong>e who opposesand betrays <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and undermines the basis<strong>of</strong> proletarian unity is a splitter.It means a split with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary proletarian party.Any<strong>on</strong>e who persists in a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line and turns a revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryproletarian party in<strong>to</strong> a reformist bourgeois party isa splitter.It means a split with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary proletariat and thebroad masses <strong>of</strong> the working people. Any<strong>on</strong>e who follows aprogramme and line running counter <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary willand fundamental interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the workingpeople is a splitter.Lenin said, “Where the majority <strong>of</strong> the class-c<strong>on</strong>scious workershave rallied around precise and definite decisi<strong>on</strong>s there isunity <strong>of</strong> opini<strong>on</strong> and acti<strong>on</strong>,” 1 while opportunism “is, in fact,schism, in that it most unblushingly thwarts the will <strong>of</strong> themajority <strong>of</strong> the workers.” 2By disrupting proletarian unity, splittism serves the bourgeoisieand meets its needs. It is the c<strong>on</strong>sistent policy <strong>of</strong> thebourgeoisie <strong>to</strong> create splits within the ranks <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Its most sinister method <strong>of</strong> doing so is <strong>to</strong> buy over or cultivateagents within the proletarian ranks. And agents <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisieare exactly what the opportunists and revisi<strong>on</strong>ists are.So far from seeking <strong>to</strong> unite the proletariat in the fight against1V. I. Lenin, “Disrupti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Unity Under Cover <strong>of</strong> Outcries for Unity”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 255.2Ibid., p. 258.315
the bourgeoisie, they want the proletariat <strong>to</strong> co-operate withit. This was what the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al,such as Bernstein and Kautsky, did. At a time when theimperialists were most afraid that the proletariat <strong>of</strong> all countrieswould unite <strong>to</strong> turn the imperialist war in<strong>to</strong> civil wars,they came forward <strong>to</strong> create a split in the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking-class movement and advocate co-operati<strong>on</strong> betweenthe proletariat and the bourgeoisie.The splitters in the communist ranks are those who, <strong>to</strong> meetthe needs <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie, split with <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism,with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary proletarian party and with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryproletariat and the broad masses <strong>of</strong> the labouring people;and they remain splitters even when for a time they arein the majority or hold the leading posts.In the days <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists representedby Bernstein and Kautsky were in the majority,and the <strong>Marx</strong>ists represented by Lenin were in the minority.Yet obviously it was Bernstein, Kautsky and other opportunistswho were the splitters, and not revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries like Lenin.In 1904 the Mensheviks were the splitters although theyheld leading positi<strong>on</strong>s which they had usurped in the centralorgans <strong>of</strong> the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Leninpointed out at the time, “The leading centres (the CentralOrgan, the Central Committee, and the Council) have brokenwith the Party,” 1 and “the centres have put themselves outsidethe Party. There is no middle ground; <strong>on</strong>e is either withthe centres or with the Party.” 2In brief, opportunism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism are the political andideological roots <strong>of</strong> splittism. And splittism is the organizati<strong>on</strong>almanifestati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> opportunism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism. It canalso be said that opportunism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism are splittismas well as sectarianism. The revisi<strong>on</strong>ists are the greatest andvilest splitters and sectarians in the communist movement.1V. I. Lenin, “A Letter <strong>to</strong> the Zurich Group <strong>of</strong> Bolsheviks”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. VIII, p. 63.2Ibid., p. 64.316
Thirdly, the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementdem<strong>on</strong>strates that proletarian unity has been c<strong>on</strong>solidatedand has developed through struggle against opportunism,revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism. The struggle for unity is inseparablyc<strong>on</strong>nected with the struggle for principle.The unity the proletariat requires is class unity, revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryunity, unity against the comm<strong>on</strong> enemy and for the greatgoal <strong>of</strong> communism. The unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariathas its theoretical and political basis in <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.Only when it has theoretical and political unity can the internati<strong>on</strong>alproletariat have organizati<strong>on</strong>al cohesi<strong>on</strong> and unity <strong>of</strong>acti<strong>on</strong>.The genuine revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary unity <strong>of</strong> the proletariat can beattained <strong>on</strong>ly by upholding principle and upholding <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. Unity bought by forsaking principles and by wallowingin the mire with opportunists ceases <strong>to</strong> be proletarianunity; instead, as Lenin said, it “means in practice unity <strong>of</strong>the proletariat with the nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisie and a split in theinternati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat, unity <strong>of</strong> lackeys and a split am<strong>on</strong>gthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ists”. 1He also pointed out that “as the bourgeoisie will not dieuntil it is overthrown”, so the opportunist current bribed andsupported by the bourgeoisie “will not die if it is not ‘killed’,i.e., overthrown, deprived <strong>of</strong> every influence am<strong>on</strong>g the Socialistproletariat”. Hence, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> wage “a mercilessstruggle against the current <strong>of</strong> opportunism”. 2Faced with the challenge <strong>of</strong> the opportunist-revisi<strong>on</strong>istswho are openly splitting the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement,the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists must make no compromise inmatters <strong>of</strong> principle, but must resolutely combat this splittism.This is an invaluable behest <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>, Engels and Lenin, as1V. I. Lenin, “The H<strong>on</strong>est Voice <strong>of</strong> a French Socialist”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. XVIII,p. 329.2Ibid.317
well as the <strong>on</strong>ly correct way <strong>to</strong> safeguard the unity <strong>of</strong> theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.THE GREATEST SPLITTERS OF OUR TIMESThe events <strong>of</strong> recent years show that the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU headed by Khrushchov have become the chief representatives<strong>of</strong> modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism as well as the greatest splittersin the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.Between the 20th and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU developed a rounded system <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.They put forward a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line which c<strong>on</strong>travenesthe proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat,a line which c<strong>on</strong>sists <strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence”, “peacefulcompetiti<strong>on</strong>”, “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”, “a state <strong>of</strong> the wholepeople” and “a party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”. They have tried<strong>to</strong> impose this revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line <strong>on</strong> all fraternal Parties as asubstitute for the comm<strong>on</strong> line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement which was laid down at the meetings <strong>of</strong> fraternalParties in 1957 and 1960. And they have attacked any<strong>on</strong>ewho perseveres in the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line and resists theirrevisi<strong>on</strong>ist line.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have themselves undermined thebasis <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementand created the present grave danger <strong>of</strong> a split by betraying<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism and pushingtheir revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisive line.Far from working <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate and expand the socialistcamp, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have endeavoured <strong>to</strong> splitand disintegrate it. They have thus made a mess <strong>of</strong> the splendidsocialist camp.They have violated the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>gfraternal countries as laid down in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and theStatement, pursued a policy <strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism and318
nati<strong>on</strong>al egoism <strong>to</strong>wards fraternal socialist countries and thusdisrupted the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp.They have arbitrarily infringed the sovereignty <strong>of</strong> fraternalcountries, interfered in their internal affairs, carried <strong>on</strong>subversive activities and striven in every way <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trolfraternal countries.In the name <strong>of</strong> the “internati<strong>on</strong>al divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> labour”, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU oppose the adopti<strong>on</strong> by fraternal countries<strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> building socialism by their own efforts anddeveloping their ec<strong>on</strong>omies <strong>on</strong> an independent basis, and attempt<strong>to</strong> turn them in<strong>to</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic appendages. They have tried<strong>to</strong> force those fraternal countries which are comparativelybackward ec<strong>on</strong>omically <strong>to</strong> aband<strong>on</strong> industrializati<strong>on</strong> and becometheir sources <strong>of</strong> raw materials and markets for surplusproducts.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are quite unscrupulous in theirpursuit <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism. They havec<strong>on</strong>stantly brought political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic and even military pressure<strong>to</strong> bear <strong>on</strong> fraternal countries.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have openly called for theoverthrow <strong>of</strong> the Party and government leaders <strong>of</strong> Albania,brashly severed all ec<strong>on</strong>omic and diplomatic relati<strong>on</strong>s withher and tyrannically deprived her <strong>of</strong> her legitimate rights asa member <strong>of</strong> the Warsaw Treaty Organizati<strong>on</strong> and the Council<strong>of</strong> Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Mutual Assistance.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have violated the Sino-SovietTreaty <strong>of</strong> Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, madea unilateral decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> withdraw 1,390 Soviet experts workingin China, <strong>to</strong> tear up 343 c<strong>on</strong>tracts and supplementary c<strong>on</strong>tracts<strong>on</strong> the employment <strong>of</strong> experts and <strong>to</strong> cancel 257 projects<strong>of</strong> scientific and technical co-operati<strong>on</strong>, and pursued arestrictive and discrimina<strong>to</strong>ry trade policy against China. Theyhave provoked incidents <strong>on</strong> the Sino-Soviet border and carried<strong>on</strong> large-scale subversive activities in Sinkiang. On more than<strong>on</strong>e occasi<strong>on</strong>, Khrushchov went so far as <strong>to</strong> tell leading comrades<strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC that certain anti-319
Party elements in the Chinese Communist Party were his “goodfriends”. He has praised Chinese anti-Party elements for attackingthe Chinese Party’s general line for socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>,the big leap forward and the people’s communes, describingtheir acti<strong>on</strong> as a “manly act”.Such measures which gravely worsen state relati<strong>on</strong>s are rareeven between capitalist countries. But again and again thea leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have adopted shocking and extrememeasures <strong>of</strong> this kind against fraternal socialist countries. Yetthey go <strong>on</strong> grating about being “faithful <strong>to</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism”.We would like <strong>to</strong> ask, is there a shred <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alismin all these deeds <strong>of</strong> yours?The great-power chauvinism and splittism <strong>of</strong> the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU are equally glaring in their c<strong>on</strong>duct vis-a-visfraternal Parties.Since the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU its leaders have tried,<strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, <strong>to</strong> changethe leadership <strong>of</strong> other fraternal Parties <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>form <strong>to</strong> theirwill. Right up <strong>to</strong> the present they have insisted <strong>on</strong> “combatingthe pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult” as a prec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> for the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>unity and as a “principle” which is “obliga<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>on</strong> every CommunistParty”. 1C<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternalParties laid down in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU ignore the independent and equal status<strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties, insist <strong>on</strong> establishing a kind <strong>of</strong> feudalpatriarchal dominati<strong>on</strong> over the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementand turn the relati<strong>on</strong>s between brother Parties in<strong>to</strong> thosebetween a patriarchal father and his s<strong>on</strong>s. Khrushchov hasmore than <strong>on</strong>ce described a fraternal Party as a “silly boy”and called himself its “mother”. 2 With his feudal psychology<strong>of</strong> self-exaltati<strong>on</strong>, he has absolutely no sense <strong>of</strong> shame.1“For the Unity and Solidarity <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>al CommunistMovement”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article in Pravda, December 6, 1963.2See N. S. Khrushchov’s interview with Gardner Cowles, Edi<strong>to</strong>r <strong>of</strong>the U.S. magazine Look, April 20, 1962; report by N. S. Khrushchov <strong>to</strong>the Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Soviet <strong>of</strong> the USSR, December 12, 1962.320
The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have completely ignored the principle<strong>of</strong> achieving unanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>gfraternal Parties and habitually make dicta<strong>to</strong>rial decisi<strong>on</strong>s andorder others about. They have recklessly <strong>to</strong>rn up joint agreementswith fraternal Parties, taken arbitrary decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong>important matters <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern <strong>to</strong> fraternal Parties andforced faits accomplis <strong>on</strong> them.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have violated the principle thatdifferences am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties should be settled throughinter-Party c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>; they first used their own Party C<strong>on</strong>gressand then the C<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> other fraternal Parties asrostrums for large-scale public attacks against those fraternalParties which firmly uphold <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU regard fraternal Parties as pawns<strong>on</strong> their diplomatic chessboard. Khrushchov plays fast andloose, he blows hot and cold, he talks <strong>on</strong>e way <strong>on</strong>e day andanother the next, and yet he insists <strong>on</strong> the fraternal Partiesdancing <strong>to</strong> his every tune without knowing whence or whither.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have stirred up trouble and createdsplits in many Communist Parties by encouraging the followers<strong>of</strong> their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line in these Parties <strong>to</strong> attack theleadership, or usurp leading positi<strong>on</strong>s, persecute <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and even expel them from the Party. It is thisdivisive policy <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU that has given rise<strong>to</strong> organizati<strong>on</strong>al splits in the fraternal Parties <strong>of</strong> many capitalistcountries.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have turned the magazine Problems<strong>of</strong> Peace and Socialism, originally the comm<strong>on</strong> journal <strong>of</strong>fraternal Parties, in<strong>to</strong> an instrument for spreading revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,sectarianism and splittism and for making unscrupulous attacks<strong>on</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist fraternal Parties in violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theagreement reached at the meeting at which the magazine wasfounded.In additi<strong>on</strong>, they are imposing the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line <strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>aldemocratic organizati<strong>on</strong>s, changing the correct line321
pursued by these organizati<strong>on</strong>s and trying <strong>to</strong> create splits inthem.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have completely reversed enemiesand comrades. They have directed the edge <strong>of</strong> struggle, whichshould be against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, against the<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist fraternal Parties and countries.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are bent <strong>on</strong> seeking Soviet-U.S.co-operati<strong>on</strong> for the dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the world, they regard U.S.imperialism, the most ferocious enemy <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> theworld, as their most reliable friend, and they treat the fraternalParties and countries adhering <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism as theirenemy. They collude with U.S. imperialism, the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries<strong>of</strong> various countries, the renegade Ti<strong>to</strong> clique and the Rightwingsocial democrats in a partnership against the socialistfraternal countries, the fraternal Parties, the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistsand the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> all countries.When they snatch at a straw from Eisenhower or Kennedyor others like them, or think that things are going smoothlyfor them, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are beside themselves withjoy, hit out wildly at the fraternal Parties and countries adhering<strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and endeavour <strong>to</strong> sacrifice fraternalParties and countries <strong>on</strong> the altar <strong>of</strong> their political dealingswith U.S. imperialism.When their wr<strong>on</strong>g policies come <strong>to</strong> grief and they findthemselves in difficulties, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU becomeangrier and more red-faced than ever, again hit out wildlyat the fraternal Parties and countries adhering <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and try <strong>to</strong> make others their scapegoats.These facts show that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have takenthe road <strong>of</strong> complete betrayal <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism,in c<strong>on</strong>traventi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people, thesocialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementand those <strong>of</strong> all revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people.These facts clearly dem<strong>on</strong>strate that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUcounterpose their revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, theirgreat-power chauvinism and nati<strong>on</strong>al egoism <strong>to</strong> proletarian322
internati<strong>on</strong>alism and their sectarianism and splittism <strong>to</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alunity <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. Thus, like all the opportunistsand revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the past, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUhave turned in<strong>to</strong> crea<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> splits in many fraternal Parties,the socialist camp and the entire internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUc<strong>on</strong>stitute a greater danger than those <strong>of</strong> any other opportunistsand splitters, whether past or present. As every<strong>on</strong>eknows, this revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is occurring in the CPSU, the Partywhich was created by Lenin and which has enjoyed the highestprestige am<strong>on</strong>g all Communist Parties; it is occurring in thegreat Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, the first socialist country. For many years,<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people the world overhave held the CPSU in high esteem and regarded the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> as the base <strong>of</strong> world revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the model <strong>of</strong> struggle.And the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have taken advantage <strong>of</strong>all this — <strong>of</strong> the prestige <strong>of</strong> the Party created by Lenin and<strong>of</strong> the first socialist country — <strong>to</strong> cover up the essence <strong>of</strong> theirrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism and deceive those who are still unaware<strong>of</strong> the truth. At the same time, these past masters indouble-dealing are shouting “unity, unity”, while actuallyengaged in splitting. To a certain extent, their tricks dotemporarily c<strong>on</strong>fuse people. Traditi<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>fidence in theCPSU and ignorance <strong>of</strong> the facts have prevented quite a fewpeople from recognizing the revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism <strong>of</strong> theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU so<strong>on</strong>er.Because the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU exercise state power in alarge socialist country which exerts world-wide influence, theirrevisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisive line has d<strong>on</strong>e far greater harm <strong>to</strong> theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and the proletarian cause<strong>of</strong> world revoluti<strong>on</strong> than that <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the opportunists andsplitters <strong>of</strong> the past.It can be said that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are the greatest<strong>of</strong> all revisi<strong>on</strong>ists as well as the greatest <strong>of</strong> all sectarians andsplitters known <strong>to</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry.323
It is already clear that the revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism <strong>of</strong> theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have greatly assisted the spread <strong>of</strong> therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist <strong>to</strong>rrent internati<strong>on</strong>ally and rendered enormousservice <strong>to</strong> imperialism and the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUare the product both <strong>of</strong> the lush growth <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois elementsinside the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, and <strong>of</strong> imperialist policy, andparticularly <strong>of</strong> the U.S. imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> nuclear blackmailand “peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>”. In turn, their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisivetheories and policies cater not <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> the widespread capitalistforces at home but also <strong>to</strong> imperialism, and serve <strong>to</strong> paralysethe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary will and <strong>to</strong> obstruct the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle<strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the world.Indeed, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have already w<strong>on</strong> warmpraise and applause from imperialism and its lackeys.The U.S. imperialists praise Khrushchov especially for hissplitting activities in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.They say, “It seems clear that Khrushchev is sufficiently inearnest in his desire for a détente with the West that he iswilling <strong>to</strong> risk a split in the Communist movement <strong>to</strong> achieveit.” 1 “Nikita Khrushchev has destroyed, irrevocably, the unifiedbloc <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s day. That is perhaps Khrushchev’s greatestservice — not <strong>to</strong> Communism, but <strong>to</strong> the Western world.” 2“We ought <strong>to</strong> be grateful for his mishandling <strong>of</strong> his relati<strong>on</strong>shipwith the Chinese. . . . We should be grateful for hisintroducing disarray in<strong>to</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al Communism by a lot<strong>of</strong> quite bumptious and sudden initiatives.” 3They firmly believe that Khrushchov is “the best SovietPrime Minister the West can expect <strong>to</strong> treat with and . . . itmust try for the time being <strong>to</strong> avoid any acti<strong>on</strong> that might1“Openings for Diplomacy: Cracks in the Blocs”, The Nati<strong>on</strong>,February 9, 1963.2“Moscow and Peking: How Wide the Split?”, Newsweek, March26, 1962.3“With Test-Ban Treaty — Has Khrushchev Changed His Ways?”,U.S. News and World Report, September 30, 1963.324
further weaken his positi<strong>on</strong>”. 1 They say, “The Administrati<strong>on</strong>is now c<strong>on</strong>vinced that the U.S. should <strong>of</strong>fer Khrushchevmaximum support in his dispute with Red China.” 2The Trotskyites, who have l<strong>on</strong>g been politically bankrupt,are am<strong>on</strong>g those applauding the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. Theformer actively support the latter <strong>on</strong> such fundamental issuesas the attitude <strong>on</strong>e should take <strong>to</strong>wards Stalin, <strong>to</strong>wardsU.S. imperialism and <strong>to</strong>wards the Yugoslav revisi<strong>on</strong>ists. Theysay, “The situati<strong>on</strong> created by the Twentieth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU and still more by the Twenty-sec<strong>on</strong>d C<strong>on</strong>gress iseminently favourable for the revival <strong>of</strong> our movement in theworkers states themselves.” 3 “We have prepared for this formore than 25 years. Now we must move in, and move energetically.”4 “In relati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the Khrushchev tendency, we willgive a critical support <strong>to</strong> its struggle for destalinisati<strong>on</strong> againstthe more c<strong>on</strong>servative tendencies. . . .” 5Just c<strong>on</strong>sider! All the enemies <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> support theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU with alacrity. The reas<strong>on</strong> is that theyhave found a comm<strong>on</strong> language with the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUin their approach <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and world revoluti<strong>on</strong>,and that the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisive line <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU meets the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary needs <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism.1“Communist Unity Seen in U.S. as Thing <strong>of</strong> the Past”, the L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>Times, January 17, 1962.2“The Periscope”, Newsweek, July 1, 1963.3“The Internati<strong>on</strong>al Situati<strong>on</strong> and Our Tasks”, resoluti<strong>on</strong> adoptedby the Reunificati<strong>on</strong> C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Trotskyites’ so-called Fourth Internati<strong>on</strong>alin June 1963, Fourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al, Eng. ed, No. 17, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber-December 1963, p. 47.4“The New Stage <strong>of</strong> the Russian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Crisis <strong>of</strong> Stalinism,resoluti<strong>on</strong> adopted by a meeting <strong>of</strong> the Nati<strong>on</strong>al Committee <strong>of</strong>the Trotskyite Socialist Workers’ Party <strong>of</strong> the U.S.A., April 13-15, 1956,The 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress (C.P.S.U.) and World Trotskyism, New Park Publicati<strong>on</strong>sLtd., L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>, 1957, p. 36.5“The Repercussi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU”, resoluti<strong>on</strong>adopted by the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Secretariat <strong>of</strong> the Trotskyites’ so-calledFourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>on</strong> December 5, 1961, Fourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al, Eng.ed., No. 14, winter issue, 1961-1962, p. 25.325
As Lenin said, the bourgeoisie understands that “the activepeople in the working class movement who adhere <strong>to</strong> the opportunisttrend are better defenders <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie, thanthe bourgeoisie itself”. 1 The imperialist lords and masters aregleefully letting the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU clear the way for thedestructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletarian cause <strong>of</strong> world revoluti<strong>on</strong>.Having brought <strong>on</strong> the serious danger <strong>of</strong> a split in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUare trying <strong>to</strong> shift the blame, vilifying the Chinese CommunistParty and other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties as guilty <strong>of</strong> “splittism”and “sectarianism” and fabricating a host <strong>of</strong> chargesagainst them.Here we deem it necessary <strong>to</strong> take up some <strong>of</strong> their chiefslanders and <strong>to</strong> refute them <strong>on</strong>e by <strong>on</strong>e.REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OFBEING ANTI-SOVIETThe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU accuse all who resist and criticizetheir revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism <strong>of</strong> being anti-Soviet. This isa terrifying charge. To oppose the first socialist country inthe world and the Party founded by the great Lenin — whatinsolence!But we advise the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU not <strong>to</strong> indulge inhistri<strong>on</strong>ics. The anti-Soviet charge can never apply <strong>to</strong> us.We also advise the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU not <strong>to</strong> become selfin<strong>to</strong>xicated.The anti-Soviet charge can never silence <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists.Together with all other Communists and revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople the world over, we Chinese Communists have alwayscherished sincere respect and love for the great Soviet people,the Soviet state and the Soviet Communist Party. For it was1V. I. Lenin, “The Internati<strong>on</strong>al Situati<strong>on</strong> and the FundamentalTasks <strong>of</strong> the Communist Internati<strong>on</strong>al”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>alPublishers, New York, 1943, Vol. X, p. 196.326
the people <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> who, under the leadership <strong>of</strong>Lenin’s Party, lit the triumphant <strong>to</strong>rch <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>,opened up the new era <strong>of</strong> world proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>and marched in the van al<strong>on</strong>g the road <strong>to</strong> communismin the years that followed. It was the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the Soviet state which, under theleadership <strong>of</strong> Lenin and Stalin, pursued a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistdomestic and foreign policy, scored unprecedented achievementsin socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, made the greatest c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the war against fascism and gave internati<strong>on</strong>alistsupport <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the proletariat andworking people <strong>of</strong> all other countries.Not l<strong>on</strong>g before his death, Stalin said:. . . representatives <strong>of</strong> the fraternal parties, in theiradmirati<strong>on</strong> for the daring and success <strong>of</strong> our Party, c<strong>on</strong>ferredup<strong>on</strong> it the title <strong>of</strong> the “Shock Brigade” <strong>of</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryand labour movement. By this, they were expressingthe hope that the successes <strong>of</strong> the “Shock Brigade” wouldhelp <strong>to</strong> ease the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the peoples languishing underthe yoke <strong>of</strong> capitalism. I think that our Party has justifiedthese hopes. . . . 1He was right in saying that the Soviet Party built by Leninhad justified the hopes <strong>of</strong> all Communists. The Soviet Partywas worthy <strong>of</strong> the admirati<strong>on</strong> and support it w<strong>on</strong> from allthe fraternal Parties, including the Chinese Communist Party.But, beginning with the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU headed by Khrushchov have been launching violentattacks <strong>on</strong> Stalin and taking the road <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism. Is itpossible <strong>to</strong> say that they have justified the hopes <strong>of</strong> all Communists?No, it is not.In its “Proposal C<strong>on</strong>cerning the <strong>General</strong> <strong>Line</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>alCommunist Movement”, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCommunist Party <strong>of</strong> China points out that it is the comm<strong>on</strong>1J. V. Stalin, Speech at the Nineteenth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Party, Eng.ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, p. 9.327
demand <strong>of</strong> the people in the countries <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and<strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and working people that allCommunist Parties in the socialist camp should:(1) adhere <strong>to</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line and pursue correct<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist domestic and foreign policies;(2) c<strong>on</strong>solidate the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and theworker-peasant alliance led by the proletariat and carry thesocialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> forward <strong>to</strong> the end <strong>on</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omic,political and ideological fr<strong>on</strong>ts;(3) promote the initiative and creativeness <strong>of</strong> the broadmasses, carry out socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> in a planned way,develop producti<strong>on</strong>, improve the people’s livelihood andstrengthen nati<strong>on</strong>al defense;(4) strengthen the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp <strong>on</strong> the basis<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and support other socialist countries<strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism;(5) oppose the imperialist policies <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> and war,and defend world peace;(6) oppose the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>arypolicies <strong>of</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries;and ,(7) help the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressedclasses and nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the world.It adds that all Communist Parties in the socialist camp “oweit <strong>to</strong> their own people and <strong>to</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat andworking people <strong>to</strong> fulfil these demands”.But instead, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have aband<strong>on</strong>ed thesedemands, disappointed the hopes <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties andpursued a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisive line. This violates the interestsnot <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and workingpeople but also <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the Soviet state and the Sovietpeople themselves.It is n<strong>on</strong>e other than the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU headed byKhrushchov who are anti-Soviet.328
The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have completely negated Stalinand painted the first dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and socialistsystem as dark and dreadful. What is this if not anti-Soviet?The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have proclaimed the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, altered the proletariancharacter <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and opened the floodgates for capitalistforces in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. What is this if not anti-Soviet?The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU seek U.S.-Soviet co-operati<strong>on</strong> andtirelessly fawn up<strong>on</strong> U.S. imperialism, and have thus disgracedhe great Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. What is this if not anti-Soviet?The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU pursue the policy <strong>of</strong> great-powerchauvinism and treat fraternal socialist countries as dependencies,and have thus damaged the prestige <strong>of</strong> the Sovietstate. What is this if not anti-Soviet?The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU obstruct and oppose the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> other peoples and act as apologists for imperialismand neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism, and have thus tarnished theglorious internati<strong>on</strong>alist traditi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s Party. What ishis if not anti-Soviet?In short, the acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU havebrought deep shame up<strong>on</strong> the great Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the CPSUand seriously damaged the fundamental interests <strong>of</strong> the Sovietpeople. They are anti-Soviet acti<strong>on</strong>s through and through.Naturally, in these circumstances, the Chinese CommunistParty and other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties and <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistsare bound <strong>to</strong> subject the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisive line <strong>of</strong> theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> serious criticism for the purpose <strong>of</strong>defending the purity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the unity <strong>of</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and upholding theprinciple <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism. We oppose <strong>on</strong>ly therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisive errors <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. Andwe do so for the sake <strong>of</strong> defending the CPSU founded by Leninand safeguarding the fundamental interests <strong>of</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>, the first socialist country, and <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people.How can this be described as anti-Soviet?329
Whether <strong>on</strong>e defends or opposes the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> depends<strong>on</strong> whether or not <strong>on</strong>e truly defends the line <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the principle <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand whether or not <strong>on</strong>e truly defends the fundamental interests<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Party, the Soviet state and the Sovietpeople. To subject the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> serious criticismfor their revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism is <strong>to</strong> defend the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>. On the other hand, <strong>to</strong> pursue a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisiveline, as the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are doing, is actually <strong>to</strong> opposethe Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>; and <strong>to</strong> copy this wr<strong>on</strong>g line or submit <strong>to</strong>it is not genuinely <strong>to</strong> defend the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> but <strong>to</strong> help theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU damage the fundamental interests <strong>of</strong> theSoviet people.Here we may recall Lenin’s attitude <strong>to</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> theGerman Social-Democratic Party in the early years <strong>of</strong> the 20thcentury. The German Social-Democratic Party was then thebiggest and most influential party in the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al.But as so<strong>on</strong> as Lenin discovered opportunism am<strong>on</strong>g its leaders,he made it clear <strong>to</strong> the Russian Social-Democrats that theyshould not take “the least creditable features <strong>of</strong> German Social-Democracy as a model worthy <strong>of</strong> imitati<strong>on</strong>”. 1 He further stated:We must criticise the mistakes <strong>of</strong> the German leadersfearlessly and openly if we wish <strong>to</strong> be true <strong>to</strong> the spirit <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong> and help the Russian socialists <strong>to</strong> be equal <strong>to</strong> thepresent-day tasks <strong>of</strong> the workers’ movement. 2In the spirit <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s behest, we would advise the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU: If you do not correct your revisi<strong>on</strong>ist errors,we will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> criticize you “fearlessly and openly” inthe interests <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the Soviet state and the Soviet1V. I. Lenin, “The Internati<strong>on</strong>al Socialist C<strong>on</strong>gress in Stuttgart”Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943,Vol. IV, p. 315.2V. I. Lenin, “Preface <strong>to</strong> the Pamphlet by Voinov (A. V. Lunacharsky)<strong>on</strong> the Attitude <strong>of</strong> the Party Towards the Trade Uni<strong>on</strong>s”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. XIII, p. 165.330
people, and in the interests <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement and for the sake <strong>of</strong> theirunity.REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OFSEIZING THE LEADERSHIPThe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU ascribe our criticisms and our oppositi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisive line <strong>to</strong> a desire <strong>to</strong>“seize the leadership”.First, we would like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: You saywe want <strong>to</strong> seize the leadership. <strong>From</strong> whom? Who now holdsthe leadership? In the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, isthere such a thing as a leadership which lords it over allfraternal Parties? And is this leadership in your hands?Apparently, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU c<strong>on</strong>sider themselvesthe natural leaders who can lord it over all fraternal Parties.According <strong>to</strong> their logic, their programme, resoluti<strong>on</strong>s andstatements are all infallible laws. Every remark and everyword <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s are imperial edicts, however wr<strong>on</strong>g orabsurd they may be. All fraternal Parties must submissivelyhear and obey and are absolutely forbidden <strong>to</strong> criticize or opposethem. This is outright tyranny. It is the ideology <strong>of</strong>feudal au<strong>to</strong>crats, pure and simple.However, we must tell the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU that theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement is not some feudal clique.Whether large or small, whether new or old, and whether in orout <strong>of</strong> power, all fraternal Parties are independent and equal.No meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties and no agreement unanimouslyadopted by them has ever stipulated that there are superiorand subordinate Parties, <strong>on</strong>e Party which leads and otherParties which are led, a Party which is a father and Partieswhich are s<strong>on</strong>s, or that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are the supremerulers over other fraternal Parties.The his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymovement shows that, owing <strong>to</strong> the uneven development <strong>of</strong>331
evoluti<strong>on</strong>, at a particular his<strong>to</strong>rical stage the proletariat andits party in <strong>on</strong>e country or another marched in the van <strong>of</strong> themovement.<strong>Marx</strong> anal Engels pointed out that the trade uni<strong>on</strong> movementin Britain and the political struggle <strong>of</strong> the French workingclass were successively in the van <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletarianmovement. After the defeat <strong>of</strong> the Paris Commune,Engels said that “the German workers have for the momentbeen placed in the vanguard <strong>of</strong> the proletarian struggle”. Hewent <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> say:How l<strong>on</strong>g events will allow them <strong>to</strong> occupy this post <strong>of</strong>h<strong>on</strong>our cannot be fore<strong>to</strong>ld. . . . the main point, however,is <strong>to</strong> safeguard the true internati<strong>on</strong>al spirit, which allowsno patriotic chauvinism <strong>to</strong> arise, and which joyfully welcomeseach new advance <strong>of</strong> the proletarian movement, nomatter from which nati<strong>on</strong> it comes. 1At the beginning <strong>of</strong> the 20th century, the Russian workingclass, standing at the forefr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletarianmovement, w<strong>on</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> for thefirst time in his<strong>to</strong>ry.Lenin said in 1919:Hegem<strong>on</strong>y in the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary proletarian Internati<strong>on</strong>alhas passed for the time being — but not for l<strong>on</strong>g, it goeswithout saying — <strong>to</strong> the Russians, just as at various periods<strong>of</strong> the nineteenth century it was in the hands <strong>of</strong> the English,then <strong>of</strong> the French, then <strong>of</strong> the Germans. 2The “vanguard” referred <strong>to</strong> by Engels, or the “hegem<strong>on</strong>y”referred <strong>to</strong> by Lenin, in no way means that any Party whichis in the van <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movement canorder other fraternal Parties about, or that other Parties must1Frederick Engels, “Prefa<strong>to</strong>ry Note <strong>to</strong> The Peasant War in Germany”,Selected Works <strong>of</strong> Karl <strong>Marx</strong> and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 591.2V. I. Lenin, “The Third Internati<strong>on</strong>al and Its Place in His<strong>to</strong>ry”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 203.332
obey it. When the Social-Democratic Party <strong>of</strong> Germany wasin the forefr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> the movement, Engels said that “it has noright <strong>to</strong> speak in the name <strong>of</strong> the European proletariat andespecially no right <strong>to</strong> say something false”. 1 When the RussianBolshevik Party was in the van, Lenin said, “. . . while foreseeingevery stage <strong>of</strong> development in other countries, we mustdecree nothing from Moscow.” 2Even the vanguard positi<strong>on</strong> referred <strong>to</strong> by Engels and Lenindoes not remain unchanged for a l<strong>on</strong>g time but shifts according<strong>to</strong> changing c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s. This shift is decided not by thesubjective wishes <strong>of</strong> any individual or Party, but by the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sshaped by his<strong>to</strong>ry. If c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s change, other Partiesmay come <strong>to</strong> the van <strong>of</strong> the movement. When a Party whichformerly held the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> vanguard takes the path <strong>of</strong>revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, it is bound <strong>to</strong> forfeit this positi<strong>on</strong> despite thefact that it has been the largest Party and has exerted thegreatest influence. The German Social-Democratic Party wasa case in point.At <strong>on</strong>e period in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, the Communist Internati<strong>on</strong>al gave centralizedleadership <strong>to</strong> the Communist Parties <strong>of</strong> the world. It playeda great his<strong>to</strong>ric role in promoting the establishment andgrowth <strong>of</strong> Communist Parties in many countries. But whenthe Communist Parties matured and the situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement grew more complicated,centralized leadership <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the Communist Internati<strong>on</strong>alceased <strong>to</strong> be either feasible or necessary. In 1943 thePresidium <strong>of</strong> the Executive Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Internati<strong>on</strong>alstated in a resoluti<strong>on</strong> proposing <strong>to</strong> dissolve theComintern:1“Engels <strong>to</strong> A. Bebel, March 18-28, 1875”, Selected Corresp<strong>on</strong>dence<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 354.2V. I. Lenin, “Report <strong>on</strong> the Party Program, Delivered at the EighthC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, SelectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 159.333
. . . <strong>to</strong> the extent that the internal as well as the internati<strong>on</strong>alsituati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> individual countries became morecomplicated, the soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the problems <strong>of</strong> the labourmovement <strong>of</strong> each country through the medium <strong>of</strong> someinternati<strong>on</strong>al centre would meet with insuperable obstacles.Events have shown that this resoluti<strong>on</strong> corresp<strong>on</strong>ded <strong>to</strong>reality and was correct.In the present internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, thequesti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> who has the right <strong>to</strong> lead whom simply does notarise. Fraternal Parties should be independent and completelyequal, and at the same time they should be united.On questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern they should reach unanimity<strong>of</strong> views through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>, and they should c<strong>on</strong>cert theiracti<strong>on</strong>s in the struggle for the comm<strong>on</strong> goal. These principlesguiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties are clearly stipulatedin the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957 and the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960.It is a flagrant violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> these principles, as laid down inthe Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement, for the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sider themselves the leaders <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement and <strong>to</strong> treat all fraternal Parties as theirsubordinates.Because <strong>of</strong> their different his<strong>to</strong>rical backgrounds, thefraternal Parties naturally find themselves in different situati<strong>on</strong>s.Those Parties which have w<strong>on</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry in their revoluti<strong>on</strong>sdiffer from those which have not yet d<strong>on</strong>e so, and thosewhich w<strong>on</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry earlier differ from those which did solater. But these differences <strong>on</strong>ly mean that the vic<strong>to</strong>riousParties, and in particular the Parties which w<strong>on</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ryearlier, have <strong>to</strong> bear a greater internati<strong>on</strong>alist resp<strong>on</strong>sibilityin supporting other fraternal Parties, and they have absolutelyno right <strong>to</strong> dominate other fraternal Parties.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> was built byLenin and Stalin. It was the first Party <strong>to</strong> win the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong>the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, realize the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand engage in socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>. It was <strong>on</strong>ly334
logical that the CPSU should carry forward the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arytraditi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Lenin and Stalin, shoulder greater resp<strong>on</strong>sibilityin supporting other fraternal Parties and countries and standin the van <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.Taking these his<strong>to</strong>rical circumstances in<strong>to</strong> account, theChinese Communist Party expressed the sincere hope thatthe Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> would shoulderthis glorious his<strong>to</strong>ric missi<strong>on</strong>. At the 1957 Moscow Meeting<strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties, our delegati<strong>on</strong> emphasized that thesocialist camp should have the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> at its head. Thereas<strong>on</strong> was that, although they had committed some mistakes,“the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU did finally accept the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong>which was unanimously adopted by the fraternalParties. Our proposal that the socialist camp should havethe Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> at its head was written in<strong>to</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong>.We hold that the existence <strong>of</strong> the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> head does notc<strong>on</strong>tradict the principle <strong>of</strong> equality am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties.It does not mean that the CPSU has any right <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol otherParties; what it means is that the CPSU carries greater resp<strong>on</strong>sibilityand duties <strong>on</strong> its shoulders.However, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have not been satisfiedwith this positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> “head”. Khrushchov complained <strong>of</strong> it<strong>on</strong> many occasi<strong>on</strong>s. He said, “What does ‘at the head’ giveus materially? It gives us neither milk nor butter, neitherpota<strong>to</strong>es nor vegetables nor flats. Perhaps it gives us somethingmorally? Nothing at all!” 1 Later he said, “What is theuse <strong>of</strong> ‘at the head’ for us? To hell with it!” 2The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU say they have no desire for thepositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> “head”, but in practice they demand the privilege<strong>of</strong> lording it over all fraternal Parties. They do not requirethemselves <strong>to</strong> stand in the van <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al commu-1N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Banquet Given in H<strong>on</strong>our <strong>of</strong> theDelegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Fraternal Parties <strong>of</strong> the Socialist Countries, February4, 1960.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Delegates <strong>of</strong> TwelveFraternal Parties in Bucharest, June 24, 1960.335
nist movement in pursuing the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line and fulfillingtheir proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alist duty, but they dorequire all fraternal Parties <strong>to</strong> obey their bat<strong>on</strong> and followthem al<strong>on</strong>g the path <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism.By embarking <strong>on</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism, theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU au<strong>to</strong>matically forfeited the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>“head” in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. If theword “head” is now <strong>to</strong> be applied <strong>to</strong> them, it can <strong>on</strong>ly meanthat they are at the head <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists and splitters.The questi<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting all Communists and the entireinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement <strong>to</strong>day is not who is theleader over whom, but whether <strong>on</strong>e should uphold <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism or submit <strong>to</strong> therevisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. Inspreading the slander that we want <strong>to</strong> seize the leadership,the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are in fact insisting that all fraternalParties, including our own, must bow <strong>to</strong> their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist anddivisive leadership.REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF FRUSTRATINGTHE WILL OF THE MAJORITY AND VIOLATINGINTERNATIONAL DISCIPLINEIn their attacks <strong>on</strong> the Chinese Communist Party since 1960,the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have most frequently resorted <strong>to</strong> thecharge that we “frustrate the will <strong>of</strong> the majority” and“violate internati<strong>on</strong>al discipline”. Let us review our debatewith them <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong>.At the Bucharest meeting in June 1960 the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU made a surprise assault <strong>on</strong> the Chinese CommunistParty by distributing their Letter <strong>of</strong> Informati<strong>on</strong> attackingit and tried <strong>to</strong> coerce it in<strong>to</strong> submissi<strong>on</strong> by lining up a majority.Their attempt did not succeed. But after the meetingthey advanced the argument that the minority must submit<strong>to</strong> the majority in relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties, and de-336
manded that the CPC should respect the “views and willunanimously expressed” at the Bucharest meeting <strong>on</strong> the pretextthat the delegates <strong>of</strong> scores <strong>of</strong> Parties had opposed theviews <strong>of</strong> the CPC.This err<strong>on</strong>eous argument was refuted by the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPC in its Letter <strong>of</strong> Reply, dated September 10,1960, <strong>to</strong> the Letter <strong>of</strong> Informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU. It pointed out:. . . where the fundamental principles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism are c<strong>on</strong>cerned, the problem <strong>of</strong> exactly who isright and who is wr<strong>on</strong>g cannot in every case be judged bywho has the majority. After all, truth is truth. Error cannotbe turned in<strong>to</strong> truth because <strong>of</strong> a temporary majority,nor will truth be turned in<strong>to</strong> error because <strong>of</strong> a temporaryminority.Yet in its letter <strong>of</strong> November 5, 1960, the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU repeated the fallacy about the minority’ssubmitting <strong>to</strong> the majority in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. Quoting a passage from Lenin’s article “TheDuma ‘Seven’ ”, it accused the CPC, saying that “he who doesnot wish <strong>to</strong> respect the opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> the fraternalParties is in essence coming out against the unity andsolidarity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement”.At the Moscow Meeting <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties in 1960,the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC <strong>on</strong>ce more refuted this fallacy <strong>of</strong>the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. It declared that it is <strong>to</strong>tally wr<strong>on</strong>g<strong>to</strong> apply the principle <strong>of</strong> the minority’s submitting <strong>to</strong> themajority <strong>to</strong> the relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties in actualpresent-day c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in which centralized leadership suchas that <strong>of</strong> the Comintern neither exists nor is desirable. Withina Party the principle that the minority should submit <strong>to</strong> themajority and the lower Party organizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the higher <strong>on</strong>eshould be observed. But it cannot be applied <strong>to</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>sam<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties. In their mutual relati<strong>on</strong>s, eachfraternal Party maintains its independence and at the same337
time unites with all the others. Here, the relati<strong>on</strong>ship inwhich the minority should submit <strong>to</strong> the majority does notexist, and still less so the relati<strong>on</strong>ship in which a lower Partyorganizati<strong>on</strong> should submit <strong>to</strong> a higher <strong>on</strong>e. The <strong>on</strong>ly way<strong>to</strong> deal with problems <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cern <strong>to</strong> fraternal Partiesis <strong>to</strong> hold discussi<strong>on</strong>s and reach unanimous agreement in accordancewith the principle <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>.The delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC pointed out that by advancingthe principle that the minority should submit <strong>to</strong> the majorityin its letter, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU had obviouslyrepudiated the principle <strong>of</strong> reaching unanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>.Our delegati<strong>on</strong> asked:On what supra-Party c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> does the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU base itself in advancing such an organizati<strong>on</strong>alprinciple? When and where did the Communistand Workers’ Parties <strong>of</strong> all countries ever adopt such asupra-Party c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>?The delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC then proceeded <strong>to</strong> expose theruse <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU in deliberatelyomitting the word “Russian” from its citati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a passagedealing with the situati<strong>on</strong> within the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party from Lenin’s article “The Duma‘Seven’”, in order <strong>to</strong> extend the principle <strong>of</strong> the minority’ssubmitting <strong>to</strong> the majority, which is valid within a Party, <strong>to</strong>the relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties.The delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC further stated:. . . even within a Party, where the principle <strong>of</strong> theminority’s submitting <strong>to</strong> the majority must be observedorganizati<strong>on</strong>ally, it cannot be said that <strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>ideological understanding truth can always be <strong>to</strong>ld fromerror <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> which is the majority and which theminority opini<strong>on</strong>. It was in this very article, “The Duma‘Seven’”, that Lenin severely denounced the despicableacti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the seven liquidati<strong>on</strong>ists in the Party fracti<strong>on</strong> in338
the Duma who <strong>to</strong>ok advantage <strong>of</strong> a majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e <strong>to</strong> suppressthe <strong>Marx</strong>ists who were in the minority. Leninpointed out that although the seven liquidati<strong>on</strong>ists c<strong>on</strong>stitutedthe majority, they could not possibly represent theunited will, united resoluti<strong>on</strong>s, united tactics <strong>of</strong> the majority<strong>of</strong> the advanced and c<strong>on</strong>scious Russian workers whowere organized in a <strong>Marx</strong>ist way, and that therefore allshouts about unity were sheer hypocrisy. “The seven n<strong>on</strong>-Party men want <strong>to</strong> swallow the six <strong>Marx</strong>ists; and theydemand that this should be called ‘unity’.” 1 He c<strong>on</strong>tinuedthat it was precisely these six <strong>Marx</strong>ists in the Party fracti<strong>on</strong>in the Duma who were acting in accordance with thewill <strong>of</strong> the majority <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, and that unity couldbe preserved <strong>on</strong>ly if those seven delegates “aband<strong>on</strong> theirsteam-roller tactics”. 2The delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC c<strong>on</strong>tinued that Lenin’s wordsshow:. . . that even within a Party group the majority is notalways correct, that <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary sometimes the majorityhave <strong>to</strong> “renounce the policy <strong>of</strong> suppressi<strong>on</strong>” if unity is<strong>to</strong> be preserved, and this is particularly the case whererelati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties are c<strong>on</strong>cerned. Thecomrades <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU rashlyquoted a passage from Lenin without having fully graspedits meaning. Moreover, they purposely deleted an importantword. Even so, they failed in their aim!We have quoted at length from a speech <strong>of</strong> the delegati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the CPC at the 1960 Moscow Meeting in order <strong>to</strong> show thatthe absurd charge <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU that we“frustrate the will <strong>of</strong> the majority” was completely refuted by1V. I. Lenin, “The Duma ‘Seven’”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1963, Vol. XIX, p. 450.2V. I. Lenin, “Material <strong>on</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>flict Within the Social-DemocraticDuma Group”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol.XIX, p. 470.339
us some time ago. It is precisely because the Chinese CommunistParty and other fraternal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Partiespersistently opposed this fallacy that the principle <strong>of</strong> achievingunanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g the fraternalParties was written in<strong>to</strong> the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960.Yet even now the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU keep <strong>on</strong> clamouringthat “the minority should submit <strong>to</strong> the majority”. This can<strong>on</strong>ly mean that they wish <strong>to</strong> deny the independent and equalstatus <strong>of</strong> all fraternal Parties and <strong>to</strong> abolish the principle <strong>of</strong>achieving unanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>. They are trying<strong>to</strong> force some fraternal Parties <strong>to</strong> submit <strong>to</strong> their will <strong>on</strong> thepretext <strong>of</strong> a “majority”, and <strong>to</strong> use the sham prep<strong>on</strong>derancethus obtained <strong>to</strong> attack fraternal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties.Their very acti<strong>on</strong>s are sectarian and divisive and violate theDeclarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement.Today, if <strong>on</strong>e speaks <strong>of</strong> an internati<strong>on</strong>al discipline binding<strong>on</strong> all Communist Parties, it can <strong>on</strong>ly mean observance <strong>of</strong> theprinciples guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties as laiddown in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement. We have citeda great many facts <strong>to</strong> prove that these principles have beenviolated by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU themselves.If the CPSU leaders insist <strong>on</strong> marking <strong>of</strong>f the “majority”from the “minority”, then we would like <strong>to</strong> tell them quitefrankly that we do not recognize their majority. The majorityyou bank <strong>on</strong> is a false <strong>on</strong>e. The genuine majority is not<strong>on</strong> your side. Is it true that the members <strong>of</strong> fraternal Partieswhich uphold <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism are a minority in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement? You and your followers arepr<strong>of</strong>oundly alienated from the masses, so how can the greatmass <strong>of</strong> Party members and people who disapprove <strong>of</strong> yourwr<strong>on</strong>g line be counted as part <strong>of</strong> your majority?The fundamental questi<strong>on</strong> is: Who stands with the broadmasses <strong>of</strong> the people? Who represents their basic interests?And who reflects their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary will?In 1916 Lenin said <strong>of</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong> in the German Social-Democratic Party:340
Liebknecht and Rühle are <strong>on</strong>ly two against 108. But thesetwo represent milli<strong>on</strong>s, the exploited mass, the overwhelmingmajority <strong>of</strong> the populati<strong>on</strong>, the future <strong>of</strong> mankind, therevoluti<strong>on</strong> that is mounting and maturing with every passingday. The 108, <strong>on</strong> the other hand, represent <strong>on</strong>ly the servilespirit <strong>of</strong> a handful <strong>of</strong> bourgeois flunkies within the proletariat.1Today, more than 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>desire revoluti<strong>on</strong>, including those who are not yet but willeventually become politically c<strong>on</strong>scious. The real majorityare the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties and <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists who represent the fundamental interests <strong>of</strong> the people,and not the handful <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ists who have betrayedthese interests.REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF SUPPORTINGTHE ANTI-PARTY GROUPS OFFRATERNAL PARTIESIn its Open Letter, the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU makes theslanderous charge that “the CPC leadership organizes andsupports various anti-party breakaway groups, which opposethe Communist parties <strong>of</strong> the United States, Brazil, Italy,Belgium, Australia and India”.What are the facts?The fact is, the splits that have occurred in certain CommunistParties in recent years have largely been due <strong>to</strong> theforcible applicati<strong>on</strong> by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>of</strong> their revisi<strong>on</strong>istand divisive line.The leaders <strong>of</strong> certain Communist Parties have led the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymovement <strong>of</strong> their own countries astray andbrought serious losses <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause either1V. I. Lenin, “An Open Letter <strong>to</strong> Boris Souvarine”, Collected Works,Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXIII, p. 199.341
ecause they accepted the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line imposed <strong>on</strong> themby the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU or because their own revisi<strong>on</strong>istline was encouraged by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. By followingthe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and banging the drum for themin the struggle between the two lines in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, they adversely affect the unity <strong>of</strong> themovement. Inevitably this arouses widespread dissatisfacti<strong>on</strong>inside their own Parties and resistance and oppositi<strong>on</strong> fromthe <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists in them.Aping the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, their followers practise adivisive policy inside their own Parties. Violating the principle<strong>of</strong> democratic centralism, they forbid normal inner-Party discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> differences c<strong>on</strong>cerning the Party line and<strong>of</strong> major problems c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. Moreover, they illegitimately ostracize, attackand even expel Communists who adhere <strong>to</strong> principle. As aresult the struggle between the two lines within the Partiesinevitably takes <strong>on</strong> a particularly acute form.In essence, the struggle within these Communist Partiesturns <strong>on</strong> whether <strong>to</strong> follow the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line or therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist line, and whether <strong>to</strong> make the Communist Partya genuine vanguard <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and a genuine revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryproletarian party or <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>vert it in<strong>to</strong> a servant <strong>of</strong> thebourgeoisie and a variant <strong>of</strong> the Social-Democratic Party.In the Open Letter, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU present adis<strong>to</strong>rted picture <strong>of</strong> the struggles within the CommunistParties <strong>of</strong> the United States <strong>of</strong> America, Brazil, Italy, Belgium,Australia and India. They vilify in the most maliciouslanguage those <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists who have been attackedand ostracized by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist groups in their own Parties.Is it possible for the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ceal or alterthe truth about the struggles within these Communist Partiesby calling white black and black white? No. They certainlycannot!Take for example the inner-Party struggle in the BelgianCommunist Party.342
Differences have existed inside the Belgian CommunistParty for a l<strong>on</strong>g time. The struggle within the Party has becomeincreasingly acute as the original leading group has sunkdeeper and deeper in<strong>to</strong> the quagmire <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and aband<strong>on</strong>ed<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.During the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary rebelli<strong>on</strong> in Hungary, therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist group in the Belgian Communist Party went so far as<strong>to</strong> issue a statement c<strong>on</strong>demning the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> for helpingthe Hungarian working people <strong>to</strong> put down the rebelli<strong>on</strong>.This revisi<strong>on</strong>ist group opposed the C<strong>on</strong>golese people’s armedresistance <strong>to</strong> the bloody repressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Belgian col<strong>on</strong>ialistsand supported the U.S. imperialists’ utilizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the UnitedNati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> interfere in and suppress the movement for nati<strong>on</strong>alindependence in the C<strong>on</strong>go. It shamelessly prided itself<strong>on</strong> being the first <strong>to</strong> appeal <strong>to</strong> the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s, “desiringthe rapid and integral applicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the U.N. decisi<strong>on</strong>s”. 1It praised the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme, sayingthat it “c<strong>on</strong>tains ideas which enrich <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism”. 2It denigrated the 1960 Statement, saying that its c<strong>on</strong>tentswere all mixed up and that “in every twenty lines there isa phrase c<strong>on</strong>tradicting the general line <strong>of</strong> the Statement”. 3During the great strike <strong>of</strong> the Belgian workers <strong>to</strong>wards theend <strong>of</strong> 1960 and at the beginning <strong>of</strong> 1961, this revisi<strong>on</strong>istgroup undermined the workers’ will <strong>to</strong> fight by denouncingtheir resistance <strong>to</strong> suppressi<strong>on</strong> by the police and gendarmesas “rash and irresp<strong>on</strong>sible acti<strong>on</strong>s”. 41Ernest Burnelle, Interview with a Corresp<strong>on</strong>dent <strong>of</strong> l’Humanite <strong>on</strong>the C<strong>on</strong>golese Questi<strong>on</strong>, Le Drapeau Rouge (organ <strong>of</strong> the Belgian CommunistParty), July 26, 1960.2“The Belgian Communist Party and the C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the League<strong>of</strong> Communists <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia”, Le Drapeau Rouge, April 22, 1958.3Jean Blume, Speech at the Federal C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> Brussels, <strong>on</strong> December3, 1961, cited by Jacques Grippa in “For the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Unity<strong>of</strong> the Party and for the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Unity <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>alCommunist Movement”, Le Drapeau Rouge, February 22, 1962.4Jean Blume, “For a Complete and Quick Vic<strong>to</strong>ry: Two CommunistProposals”, Le Drapeau Rouge, December 29, 1960.343
In the face <strong>of</strong> these betrayals <strong>of</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong> the Belgianworking class and the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat, it is <strong>on</strong>lynatural that Belgian <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists headed by ComradeJacques Grippa earnestly struggled against this revisi<strong>on</strong>istgroup. They have exposed and repudiated the errors <strong>of</strong> therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist group inside the Party and have firmly resistedand opposed its revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line.Thus it is clear that the struggle inside the Belgian CommunistParty is a struggle between the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist andthe revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line.How has the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist group in the Belgian CommunistParty handled this inner-Party struggle? They have pursueda sectarian and divisive policy and used illegitimate means <strong>to</strong>attack and ostracize those Communists who have perseveredin a principled <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist stand. At the 14th C<strong>on</strong>gress<strong>of</strong> the Belgian Communist Party they refused <strong>to</strong> allow JacquesGrippa and other comrades <strong>to</strong> speak and, disregarding thewidespread oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the membership, illegitimately declaredthem expelled from the Party.It is in these circumstances that Belgian <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistsheaded by Comrade Jacques Grippa, upholding the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryline, have firmly combated the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and divisiveline pursued by the original leading group and fought <strong>to</strong> rebuildthe Belgian Communist Party. Are not their acti<strong>on</strong>sabsolutely correct and above reproach?In openly supporting the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist group in the BelgianParty and encouraging it <strong>to</strong> attack and ostracize Belgian<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have simply exposedthemselves as crea<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> splits in fraternal Parties.As for the Indian Communist Party, its situati<strong>on</strong> is evengraver.On the basis <strong>of</strong> a wealth <strong>of</strong> facts, we pointed out in“A Mirror for Revisi<strong>on</strong>ists”, published by the edi<strong>to</strong>rial department<strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao <strong>on</strong> March 9, 1963, that therenegade clique headed by Dange had betrayed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism, betrayed the rev-344
oluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the Indian proletariat and people andembarked <strong>on</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al chauvinism and class capitulati<strong>on</strong>ism.This clique has usurped the leadership <strong>of</strong> theIndian Communist Party and, c<strong>on</strong>forming <strong>to</strong> the will <strong>of</strong> theIndian capitalists and landlords, has been transformingthe Party in<strong>to</strong> a lackey <strong>of</strong> the Nehru government which representstheir interests.What has happened <strong>to</strong> the Indian Communist Party sincethen?Now everybody can see that the Dange clique is stilltravelling <strong>on</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> betrayal. It is still advocating classcollaborati<strong>on</strong> and the realizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialism in India throughthe Nehru government. It actively supported the Nehrugovernment’s huge budget providing for arms expansi<strong>on</strong> andwar preparati<strong>on</strong>, and its measures for fleecing the people. InAugust 1963 it sabotaged the great strike <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e milli<strong>on</strong> peoplein Bombay against the Nehru government’s ruthless taxati<strong>on</strong>policy. It tried <strong>to</strong> obstruct the holding <strong>of</strong> a mass rally inCalcutta demanding the release <strong>of</strong> the impris<strong>on</strong>ed Communists,in which 100,000 people participated. It is c<strong>on</strong>tinuing itsfrenzied anti-Chinese activities and supporting the Nehrugovernment’s expansi<strong>on</strong>ist policy. It is following the Nehrugovernment’s policy <strong>of</strong> hiring itself out <strong>to</strong> U.S. imperialism.As their renegade features are revealed, Dange and companymeet increasing oppositi<strong>on</strong> and resistance from the broadrank and file <strong>of</strong> the Indian Communist Party. More and moreIndian Communists have come <strong>to</strong> see clearly that Dange andcompany are the bane <strong>of</strong> the Indian Communist Party andthe Indian nati<strong>on</strong>. They are now struggling <strong>to</strong> rehabilitatethe Party’s glorious and militant revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary traditi<strong>on</strong>.They are the genuine representatives and the hope <strong>of</strong> the Indianproletariat and the Indian people.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU clamour about the Chinese CommunistParty’s support <strong>of</strong> “defec<strong>to</strong>rs” and “renegades”, butis they themselves who support such out-and-out defec<strong>to</strong>rsand renegades as Dance and company.345
The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU denounce Communists in manycountries who dare <strong>to</strong> combat revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism as“defec<strong>to</strong>rs”, “renegades” and “anti-party elements”. Butwhat have these Communists d<strong>on</strong>e? Nothing except <strong>to</strong> adhere<strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and insist <strong>on</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary party anda revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line. Do the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU really thinkthat their abuse can cow these <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, make themaband<strong>on</strong> their struggle for the correct and against the wr<strong>on</strong>gline, and prevent them from carrying it through <strong>to</strong> the end?This wishful thinking can never be transformed in<strong>to</strong> reality.Everywhere and at all times, true revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries, trueproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary fighters, true <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists(militant materialists), are dauntless people; they are notafraid <strong>of</strong> the abuse <strong>of</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and revisi<strong>on</strong>ists. Forthey know it is not such seemingly formidable giants as thereacti<strong>on</strong>aries and revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, but “nobodies” like themselveswho represent the future. All great men were <strong>on</strong>ce nobodies.Provided that they possess the truth and enjoy the support <strong>of</strong>the masses, those who are seemingly insignificant at first aresure <strong>to</strong> be vic<strong>to</strong>rious in the end. This was true <strong>of</strong> Lenin and<strong>of</strong> the Third Internati<strong>on</strong>al. On the other hand, the celebritiesand the big battali<strong>on</strong>s inevitably dwindle, decline and putrefywhen they lose possessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the truth and therefore lose thesupport <strong>of</strong> the masses. This was the case with Bernstein,Kautsky and the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al. Everything tends <strong>to</strong>change in<strong>to</strong> its opposite in particular c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s.Communists are makers <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>. If they refuse <strong>to</strong>make revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, they cease <strong>to</strong> be <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists andbecome revisi<strong>on</strong>ists and such-like. As <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, Communistsby their very nature should adhere <strong>to</strong> their revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystand and oppose revisi<strong>on</strong>ism. Similarly, a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Party should as a matter <strong>of</strong> course give firm support<strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries and <strong>to</strong> Communists who oppose revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.The Chinese Communist Party has never c<strong>on</strong>cealed itspositi<strong>on</strong>. We support all revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary comrades who adhere346
<strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. In the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement,we have c<strong>on</strong>tacts with revisi<strong>on</strong>ists; why then can wenot have c<strong>on</strong>tacts with <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists? The leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU describe our support for <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists in othercountries as a divisive act. In our opini<strong>on</strong>, it is simply a proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alist obligati<strong>on</strong> which it is our duty <strong>to</strong>discharge.Fearing no difficulty or tyranny, upholding truth and daring<strong>to</strong> struggle, <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists in all countries have dem<strong>on</strong>stratedthe great revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary spirit <strong>of</strong> communist fighters.Am<strong>on</strong>g such heroic fighters are the Belgian Communists representedby Jacques Grippa and other comrades, the BrazilianCommunists represented by Joâo Amaz<strong>on</strong>as, MauricioGrabois and other comrades, the Australian Communists representedby E. F. Hill and other comrades, the Ceyl<strong>on</strong>eseCommunists represented by Premalal Kumarasiri, NagalingamSanmugathasan and other comrades, and the many <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists both inside and outside the Indian, Italian, French,U.S. and other Communist Parties. They have made importantc<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong> world proletarian cause byupholding the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theory <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, byworking persistently <strong>to</strong> build revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary vanguard parties<strong>of</strong> the proletariat armed with <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist principles,and by persevering in the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line that c<strong>on</strong>formswith the fundamental interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and otherworking people <strong>of</strong> their own countries. They deserve the respect,sympathy and support <strong>of</strong> all people fighting for thevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> communism throughout the world.In short, whatever the country or place, where <strong>on</strong>e findsoppressi<strong>on</strong>, there <strong>on</strong>e finds resistance; where <strong>on</strong>e finds revisi<strong>on</strong>ists,there <strong>on</strong>e finds <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists fighting them, andwhere <strong>on</strong>e finds expulsi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists from theParty and other divisive measures, there outstanding <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and str<strong>on</strong>g revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary parties inevitably emerge.Changes c<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> the expectati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the modern revisi<strong>on</strong>-347
ists are taking place. The revisi<strong>on</strong>ists are producing their ownopposites and will eventually be buried by them. This is aninexorable law.THE PRESENT PUBLIC DEBATEIn the last analysis, the present great debate in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement centres <strong>on</strong> whether <strong>to</strong> adhere<strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism or <strong>to</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, whether <strong>to</strong> adhere <strong>to</strong>proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism or <strong>to</strong> great-power chauvinism andwhether <strong>to</strong> desire unity or a split. This dispute over fundamentalprinciples began l<strong>on</strong>g ago, following the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress<strong>of</strong> the CPSU. It went <strong>on</strong> in private talks betweenfraternal Parties for a c<strong>on</strong>siderable time until it came in<strong>to</strong>the open a little more than two years ago.As everybody knows, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU first provokedand insisted <strong>on</strong> the open polemics in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement.At their 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress in Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1961, they made publicattacks <strong>on</strong> the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labour. In his address atthat C<strong>on</strong>gress, Comrade Chou En-lai, the head <strong>of</strong> the ChineseCommunist Party delegati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong>ok excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> this acti<strong>on</strong> bythe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, pointing out that it could not be regardedas representing a serious <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist attitude.What was the answer <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Party leaders? They declaredthat they were “absolutely correct” 1 and were taking“the <strong>on</strong>ly correct and genuinely <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>principle” 2 in starting the open polemics.Then, in January 1962, the Viet Nam Workers’ Party suggestedthat “mutual attacks <strong>on</strong> the radio and in the press1N. S. Khrushchov, C<strong>on</strong>cluding Speech at the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 27, 1961, Documents <strong>of</strong> the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 334.2“The Banner <strong>of</strong> Our Epoch”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article in Pravda,February 21, 1962.348
should be s<strong>to</strong>pped by the Parties”. This suggesti<strong>on</strong> was supportedby the Chinese Communist Party, the Albanian Party<strong>of</strong> Labour and other fraternal Parties. But in effect theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU refused <strong>to</strong> make a definite commitment<strong>to</strong> halt public polemics. Far from s<strong>to</strong>pping their open attacks<strong>on</strong> the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labour, they proceeded <strong>to</strong> engineeropen attacks <strong>on</strong> the Chinese Communist Party <strong>to</strong>o at the successiveC<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> five fraternal Parties in Europe in late1962 and early 1963, and so launched another round <strong>of</strong> openpolemics <strong>on</strong> an even wider scale. This gave us no choice but<strong>to</strong> make public replies <strong>to</strong> the attackers.Although we had not yet answered all the attacks byfraternal Parties, in its reply <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCPSU in March 1963 the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> our Partystated that in order <strong>to</strong> create a favourable atmosphere for thescheduled talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties wewould temporarily suspend public replies in the press fromMarch 9, without prejudice <strong>to</strong> our rights. But <strong>on</strong> the eve <strong>of</strong>the talks the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong>ok the further step <strong>of</strong>openly attacking the Chinese Communist Party by name intheir Party statements and resoluti<strong>on</strong>s.On July 14, in the midst <strong>of</strong> the talks between the Chineseand Soviet Party delegati<strong>on</strong>s in Moscow, the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU published its Open Letter <strong>to</strong> Party organizati<strong>on</strong>sand all Communists in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, in which itdis<strong>to</strong>rted the facts, c<strong>on</strong>fused right and wr<strong>on</strong>g, and blatantlyand demagogically attacked and abused the Chinese CommunistParty and Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung. Thus, the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong>ok yet a further step and provoked openpolemics <strong>on</strong> a still larger scale.<strong>From</strong> July 15, 1963 <strong>on</strong>ward, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUslandered and attacked China as their Enemy No. 1, using allthe media at their disposal, such as government statements,speeches by leaders, meetings and articles, and setting inmoti<strong>on</strong> all their propaganda machinery, from the central andlocal press <strong>to</strong> the radio and televisi<strong>on</strong> stati<strong>on</strong>s. Between July349
15 and Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 31, their twenty-six central newspapers andjournals al<strong>on</strong>e published 1,119 articles by edi<strong>to</strong>rial boards,edi<strong>to</strong>rials, commentaries, signed articles, readers’ letters andcar<strong>to</strong><strong>on</strong>s, in which the Chinese Communist Party and itsleaders, <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, Liu Shao-chi, Chou En-lai and othercomrades, were assailed by name. Incomplete figures based<strong>on</strong> the study <strong>of</strong> the 15 organs <strong>of</strong> the Uni<strong>on</strong> Republics showedthat at least 728 similar anti-Chinese articles and items appearedin the Soviet local press in the same period.We have published the most important anti-Chinese materialincluding the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the CPSU, which we printed in full twice and broadcast <strong>to</strong>the whole world in more than a dozen foreign languages inorder <strong>to</strong> acquaint those interested in this open debate withthe views <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. We have not printedevery <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the Soviet articles attacking China simply becausethey are so numerous and in most cases repeat eachother, and because our press has limited space. Our publishinghouses have collected all these articles and will print themin book form.The Soviet side has already put out nearly two thousandanti-Chinese articles and other items. In accordance withthe principle <strong>of</strong> equality am<strong>on</strong>g all fraternal Parties, the Chineseside has the right <strong>to</strong> publish a commensurate number <strong>of</strong>replies.As the Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU<strong>to</strong>uches up<strong>on</strong> many questi<strong>on</strong>s involving a series <strong>of</strong> fundamentaltheoretical issues in <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism as well asmany major events <strong>of</strong> the past seven or eight years in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments<strong>of</strong> our Renmin Ribao and H<strong>on</strong>gqi, after careful study, startedthe series <strong>of</strong> comments that began <strong>on</strong> September 6, 1963. Up<strong>to</strong> now, we have published <strong>on</strong>ly seven comments <strong>on</strong> this OpenLetter, including the present <strong>on</strong>e.We have not yet c<strong>on</strong>cluded our comments. As for the vastnumber <strong>of</strong> anti-Chinese articles published by the central or350
local press <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, we have not even begun <strong>to</strong>reply <strong>to</strong> them.In his answers <strong>to</strong> newspapermen <strong>on</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 25, 1963,Khrushchov called for a cessati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the public debate. Subsequently,however, the Soviet press c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> publisharticles attacking China.Recently, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU again proposed a halt <strong>to</strong>the public debate which they said had “d<strong>on</strong>e enormous harm<strong>to</strong> the communist movement”. Yet in the past they said thatpublic polemics were “in the interests <strong>of</strong> the whole worldcommunist movement” 1 and “the <strong>on</strong>ly correct and genuinely<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> principle”. 2 We would like <strong>to</strong>ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: What sort <strong>of</strong> games are youplaying, saying <strong>on</strong>e thing at <strong>on</strong>e time and another thing atanother?We would also like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: Is itin accord with the principle <strong>of</strong> equality am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Partiesfor you <strong>to</strong> ask us <strong>to</strong> be silent after publishing less thanten articles in reply <strong>to</strong> your two thousand articles and otheritems attacking China, and when we have not yet even completedour reply <strong>to</strong> your Open Letter? Is it in accord with theprinciples <strong>of</strong> democratic discussi<strong>on</strong> for you <strong>to</strong> become impatientand in<strong>to</strong>lerant and <strong>to</strong> refuse <strong>to</strong> listen when we have said<strong>on</strong>ly a little while you have talked so much and for so l<strong>on</strong>g?Again, we would like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: Wasit not an outright threat and intimidati<strong>on</strong> when you brazenlydeclared in the Soviet Government statement <strong>of</strong> September21, 1963 that if the Chinese c<strong>on</strong>tinued the polemics, “theymust clearly realize that the most resolute rebuff from theCPSU and the Soviet people awaits them <strong>on</strong> this road”? Doyou really believe that other people are bound docilely <strong>to</strong> obeyyour orders and tremble at your roar? To be frank, ever since1“Toward New Vic<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>of</strong> Communism”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article inKommunist, No. 16, 1961.2“The Banner <strong>of</strong> Our Epoch”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article in Pravda,February 21, 1962.351
September 21 we have been eagerly waiting <strong>to</strong> see what “themost resolute rebuff” would be.Comrades and friends! You are mistaken, completelymistaken.Now that the public debate is <strong>on</strong>, it must proceed according<strong>to</strong> rule. If you think you have said enough, you should allowthe other side ample chance <strong>to</strong> reply. If you think you stillhave a lot <strong>to</strong> say, please say it all. But when you do so, letthe other side have his full say as well. In a word, thereshould be equal rights. Have not you, <strong>to</strong>o, said that fraternalParties are equal? Why then do you insist that you maystart public polemics whenever you want <strong>to</strong> attack fraternalParties and at the same time deprive the Parties so attacked<strong>of</strong> their right <strong>to</strong> make public replies whenever you choose <strong>to</strong>s<strong>to</strong>p the polemics?The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU unscrupulously provoked, extendedand insisted <strong>on</strong> the open polemics, but now they havebegun <strong>to</strong> clamour for their cessati<strong>on</strong>. What is behind all this?Apparently, things have not developed according <strong>to</strong> the expectati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the launchers <strong>of</strong> these polemics. The publicdebate, which the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU at first thought wouldbe <strong>to</strong> their advantage, is developing in a way c<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> theirwishes. Truth is not <strong>on</strong> the side <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU,and therefore in their attacks <strong>on</strong> others they can <strong>on</strong>ly depend<strong>on</strong> lies, slanders, dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the facts and c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> rightand wr<strong>on</strong>g. When argument develops and it becomes necessary<strong>to</strong> produce facts and reas<strong>on</strong> things out, they find theground slipping from under their feet and take fright.Lenin <strong>on</strong>ce said that for revisi<strong>on</strong>ists “there is nothingmore disagreeable, undesirable, unacceptable than the elucidati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the prevailing theoretical, programmatic, tacticaland organizati<strong>on</strong>al differences”. 11V. I. Lenin, “Once More About the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Socialist Bureauand the Liquida<strong>to</strong>rs”, Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1948,Vol. XX, p. 37.352
This is precisely the situati<strong>on</strong> in which the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU now find themselves.The stand <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Communist Party <strong>on</strong> public polemicsis known <strong>to</strong> all. <strong>From</strong> the very beginning, we haveheld that differences am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties should be resolvedthrough private c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>s. The public polemicswere neither provoked nor desired by us.However, since the public debate is already <strong>on</strong> and sincethe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have said that <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct it is <strong>to</strong> “actin Lenin’s manner”, 1 it must be c<strong>on</strong>ducted <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong>democratic discussi<strong>on</strong> by adducing facts and by reas<strong>on</strong>ing untileverything is thrashed out.More important still, since the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU haveopenly betrayed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand <strong>to</strong>rn up the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement,they cannot expect us <strong>to</strong> refrain from defending <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryprinciples <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement. Since thedebate c<strong>on</strong>cerns major issues <strong>of</strong> principle in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, they must be thoroughly thrashed out.This, <strong>to</strong>o, represents a serious <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist attitude.The essence <strong>of</strong> the matter is that the existing differences inthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement are between <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and between proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand great-power chauvinism. These major differences<strong>of</strong> principle cannot be solved in a fundamental wayby a cessati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the public debate. On the c<strong>on</strong>trary, <strong>on</strong>lythrough public debate, setting forth the facts and reas<strong>on</strong>ingthings out will it be possible <strong>to</strong> clarify matters, distinguishright from wr<strong>on</strong>g and safeguard and strengthen the unity <strong>of</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismand proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism is a science, and science fears no debate.Anything which fears debate is no science. The present great1“The His<strong>to</strong>ric C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Leninist Party”, Pravda edi<strong>to</strong>rial,November 4, 1961.353
debate in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement is impellingCommunists, revoluti<strong>on</strong>ists and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people in allcountries <strong>to</strong> use their brains and p<strong>on</strong>der over problems c<strong>on</strong>cerningthe revoluti<strong>on</strong> in their own countries and the worldrevoluti<strong>on</strong> in accordance with the fundamental theories <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. Through this great debate, people willbe able <strong>to</strong> distinguish between right and wr<strong>on</strong>g and betweenreal and sham <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. Through this great debate,all the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary forces in the world will be mobilized,and all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists will be tempered ideologically andpolitically and will be able <strong>to</strong> integrate <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismwith c<strong>on</strong>crete practice in their own countries in a more matureway. Thus, <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism will undoubtedly befurther enriched, developed and raised <strong>to</strong> new heights.THE WAY TO DEFEND AND STRENGTHEN UNITYThe revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and great-power chauvinism <strong>of</strong> the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU are an unprecedented menace <strong>to</strong> the unity<strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.By taking a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist and great-power chauvinistpositi<strong>on</strong>, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are standing for a split.So l<strong>on</strong>g as they maintain such a positi<strong>on</strong>, they are in factworking for sham unity and a real split no matter how volublythey may talk <strong>of</strong> “unity” and abuse others as “splitters” and“sectarians” .The Chinese Communist Party, other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Partiesand all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists persevere in <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismand proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism. This positi<strong>on</strong> is the <strong>on</strong>lycorrect <strong>on</strong>e for defending and strengthening the genuine unity<strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism c<strong>on</strong>stitutethe basis <strong>of</strong> that unity. Only <strong>on</strong> this basis can theunity <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties and countries be built. Such unity354
will be out <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> if <strong>on</strong>e departs from this basis. T<strong>of</strong>ight for <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismis <strong>to</strong> work for the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.Persevering in principle and upholding unity areinextricably bound <strong>to</strong>gether.If the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU genuinely want unity and arenot just pretending, they should loyally abide by the fundamentaltheories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and by the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist teachings c<strong>on</strong>cerning classes and class struggle, thestate and revoluti<strong>on</strong>, and especially proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> andthe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. It is absolutely impermissiblefor them <strong>to</strong> substitute class collaborati<strong>on</strong> or classcapitulati<strong>on</strong> for class struggle, and social reformism or socialpacifism for proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, or abolish the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat no matter under what pretext.If the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU genuinely want unity and arenot just pretending, they should strictly abide by the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryprinciples <strong>of</strong> the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement.It is absolutely impermissible for them <strong>to</strong> substitutetheir own Party programme for the comm<strong>on</strong> programmewhich was unanimously agreed up<strong>on</strong> by the fraternal Parties.If the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU genuinely want unity and arenot just pretending, they should draw a sharp line <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong>between enemies and comrades and should unite withall socialist countries, all fraternal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties,the proletariat <strong>of</strong> the whole world, all oppressed people andnati<strong>on</strong>s and all peace-loving countries and people in order <strong>to</strong>oppose U.S. imperialism, the arch-enemy <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong>the world, and its lackeys. It is absolutely impermissible forthem <strong>to</strong> treat enemies as friends and friends as enemies, and<strong>to</strong> ally themselves with the U.S. imperialists, the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries<strong>of</strong> various countries and the renegade Ti<strong>to</strong> clique againstfraternal countries and Parties and all revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people,in the vain pursuit <strong>of</strong> world dominati<strong>on</strong> through U.S.-Sovietcollaborati<strong>on</strong>.355
If the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU genuinely want unity and arenot just pretending, they should be faithful <strong>to</strong> proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alism and strictly abide by the principles guidingrelati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal countries and Parties, as laid downin the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement. It is absolutely impermissiblefor them <strong>to</strong> replace these principles with policies<strong>of</strong> great-power chauvinism and nati<strong>on</strong>al egoism. In otherwords, they should:Observe the principle <strong>of</strong> solidarity and never line up anumber <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties <strong>to</strong> attack other fraternal Partiesand engage in sectarian and divisive activities;Adhere <strong>to</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong> mutual support and mutualassistance and never try <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol others in the name <strong>of</strong>assistance or, <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> the “internati<strong>on</strong>al divisi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> labour”, impair the sovereignty and interests <strong>of</strong> fraternalcountries and oppose their building socialism through selfreliance;Observe the principle <strong>of</strong> independence and equality andnever place themselves above other fraternal Parties orimpose their own Party’s programme, line and resoluti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>on</strong> others; never interfere in the internal affairs <strong>of</strong> fraternalParties and carry out subversive activities under the pretext<strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”; and never treatfraternal Parties as their property and fraternal countriesas their dependencies;Follow the principle <strong>of</strong> reaching unanimity through c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong>and never force through their own Party’s wr<strong>on</strong>gline in the name <strong>of</strong> the so-called majority or use the C<strong>on</strong>gresses<strong>of</strong> their own Party or <strong>of</strong> other Parties and suchforms as resoluti<strong>on</strong>s, statements and leaders’ speeches forpublic and explicit attacks <strong>on</strong> other fraternal Parties, andcertainly never extend ideological differences <strong>to</strong> state relati<strong>on</strong>s.In short, if the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU genuinely desire theunity <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist356
movement, they must make a clean break with their line <strong>of</strong>revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, great-power chauvinism and splittism. The unity<strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementcan be safeguarded and strengthened <strong>on</strong>ly by remainingloyal <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand by opposing modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and modern dogmatism,great-power chauvinism and other forms <strong>of</strong> bourgeoisnati<strong>on</strong>alism, and sectarianism and splittism, and by doing s<strong>on</strong>ot merely in words but in deeds. This is the sole way <strong>to</strong>defend and strengthen unity.Taken as a whole, the present world situati<strong>on</strong> is mostfavourable. The internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement hasalready gained brilliant vic<strong>to</strong>ries, bringing about a fundamentalchange in the internati<strong>on</strong>al balance <strong>of</strong> class forces. Atpresent the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement is being assailedby an adverse current <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and splittism;this phenomen<strong>on</strong> is not inc<strong>on</strong>sistent with the law <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ricaldevelopment. Even though it creates temporary difficultiesfor the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and some fraternalParties, it is a good thing that the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists have revealedtheir true features and that a struggle between <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism has ensued.Without any doubt, <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong>dem<strong>on</strong>strate its youthful vitality and will sweep the wholeworld; the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement will growstr<strong>on</strong>ger and more united <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism;and the cause <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and the worldpeople’s revoluti<strong>on</strong> will win still more brilliant vic<strong>to</strong>ries.Modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism will undoubtedly go bankrupt.We would like <strong>to</strong> advise the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> thinkmatters over calmly: what will your clinging <strong>to</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ismand splittism lead <strong>to</strong>? Once again, we would like <strong>to</strong> make asincere appeal <strong>to</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: We hope youwill be able <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarianinternati<strong>on</strong>alism, <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> the 1957Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the 1960 Statement and <strong>to</strong> the principles357
guiding relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and countries aslaid down in these documents, so that the differences will beeliminated and the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementand the socialist camp and unity between China andthe Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> will be strengthened <strong>on</strong> these principledbases.Despite our serious differences with the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, we have full c<strong>on</strong>fidence in the vast membership <strong>of</strong>the CPSU and in the Soviet people, who grew up under theguidance <strong>of</strong> Lenin and Stalin. As always, the Communistsand the people <strong>of</strong> China will unswervingly safeguard the unitybetween China and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, and c<strong>on</strong>solidate and developthe deep-rooted friendship between our two peoples.Communists <strong>of</strong> the world, unite <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism!
THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONANDKHRUSHCHOV'S REVISIONISMEighth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(March 31, 1964)
HE present article will discuss the familiar questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>T “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”. It has become familiar and haseverybody’s attenti<strong>on</strong> because Khrushchov raisedit at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and rounded it in<strong>to</strong> acomplete system in the form <strong>of</strong> a programme at the 22ndC<strong>on</strong>gress, where he pitted his revisi<strong>on</strong>ist views against the<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist views. The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>of</strong> July 14, 1963 <strong>on</strong>ce again struckup this old tune.In the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementthe betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism and <strong>of</strong> the proletariat by the revisi<strong>on</strong>istshas always manifested itself most sharply in theiroppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat and in their advocacy <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism. This is likewise the case withKhrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism. On this questi<strong>on</strong>, Khrushchov isa disciple <strong>of</strong> Browder and Ti<strong>to</strong> as well as <strong>of</strong> Bernstein andKautsky.Since the days <strong>of</strong> World War II, we have witnessed theemergence <strong>of</strong> Browderite revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, Ti<strong>to</strong>ite revisi<strong>on</strong>ism andthe theory <strong>of</strong> structural reform. These varieties <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ismare local phenomena in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. But Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, which has emergedand gained ascendancy in the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, c<strong>on</strong>stitutesa major questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> overall significance for the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement with a vital bearing <strong>on</strong> thesuccess or failure <strong>of</strong> the entire revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> theinternati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat.For this reas<strong>on</strong>, in the present article we are replying <strong>to</strong>the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists in more explicit terms than before.361
A DISCIPLE OF BERNSTEIN AND KAUTSKYBeginning with the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, Khrushchovput forward the road <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”, i.e., “transiti<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> socialism by the parliamentary road”, 1 which is diametricallyopposed <strong>to</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>.Let us examine the “parliamentary road” peddled byKhrushchov and his like.Khrushchov holds that the proletariat can win a stablemajority in parliament under the bourgeois dicta<strong>to</strong>rship andunder bourgeois elec<strong>to</strong>ral laws. He says that in the capitalistcountries “the working class, by rallying around itself the<strong>to</strong>iling peasantry, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces, andresolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are incapable<strong>of</strong> giving up the policy <strong>of</strong> compromise with the capitalistsand landlords, is in a positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> defeat the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary forcesopposed <strong>to</strong> the popular interest, <strong>to</strong> capture a stable majorityin parliament”. 2Khrushchov maintains that if the proletariat can win amajority in parliament, this in itself will amount <strong>to</strong> theseizure <strong>of</strong> state power and the smashing <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisstate machinery. He says that for the working class “<strong>to</strong> wina majority in parliament and transform it in<strong>to</strong> an organ <strong>of</strong>the people’s power, given a powerful revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movementin the country, means smashing the military-bureaucraticmachine <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie and setting up a new, proletarianpeople’s state in parliamentary form”. 3Khrushchov holds that if the proletariat can win a stablemajority in parliament, this in itself will enable it <strong>to</strong> realize1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the 20th Party C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU,February 1956.2Ibid.3N. S. Khrushchov, “For New Vic<strong>to</strong>ries for the World CommunistMovement” (a speech delivered at a meeting <strong>of</strong> the Party organisati<strong>on</strong>sin the Higher Party School, the Academy <strong>of</strong> Social Sciences and theInstitute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, <strong>on</strong>January 6, 1961), World <strong>Marx</strong>ist Review, No. 1, 1961, p. 22.362
the socialist transformati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> society. He says that thewinning <strong>of</strong> a stable parliamentary majority “could create forthe working class <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> capitalist and formercol<strong>on</strong>ial countries the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s needed <strong>to</strong> secure fundamentalsocial changes”. 1 Also,. . . the present situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>fers the working class in anumber <strong>of</strong> capitalist countries a real opportunity <strong>to</strong> unitethe overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> the people under its leadershipand <strong>to</strong> secure the transfer <strong>of</strong> the basic means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>in<strong>to</strong> the hands <strong>of</strong> the people. 2The Programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU maintains that “the workingclass <strong>of</strong> many countries can, even before capitalism is overthrown,compel the bourgeoisie <strong>to</strong> carry out measures thattranscend ordinary reforms”. 3 The Programme even statesthat under the bourgeois dicta<strong>to</strong>rship it is possible for a situati<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> emerge in certain countries, in which “it will be preferablefor the bourgeoisie . . . <strong>to</strong> agree <strong>to</strong> the basic means<strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> being purchased from it”. 4The stuff Khrushchov is <strong>to</strong>uting is nothing original butis simply a reproducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al, a revival <strong>of</strong> Bernsteinism and Kautskyism.The main distinguishing marks <strong>of</strong> Bernstein’s betrayal <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism were his advocacy <strong>of</strong> the legal parliamentary roadand his oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> violent revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the smashing <strong>of</strong> theold state machinery and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Bernstein held that capitalism could “grow in<strong>to</strong> socialism”peacefully. He said that the political system <strong>of</strong> modernbourgeois society “should not be destroyed but should <strong>on</strong>ly1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU,February 1956.2Ibid.3“Programme <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>”, Documents<strong>of</strong> 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1961,p. 482.4Ibid., p. 486.363
e further developed”, 1 and that “we are now bringing aboutby voting, dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong>s and similar means <strong>of</strong> pressure reformswhich would have required bloody revoluti<strong>on</strong> a hundredyears ago”. 2He held that the legal parliamentary road was the <strong>on</strong>lyway <strong>to</strong> bring about socialism. He said that if the workingclass has “universal and equal suffrage, the social principlewhich is the basic c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> for emancipati<strong>on</strong> is attained”. 3He asserted that “the day will come when it [the workingclass] will have become numerically so str<strong>on</strong>g and will be soimportant for the whole <strong>of</strong> society that so <strong>to</strong> speak the palace<strong>of</strong> the rulers will no l<strong>on</strong>ger be able <strong>to</strong> withstand its pressureand will collapse semi-sp<strong>on</strong>taneously”. 4Lenin said:The Bernsteinians accepted and accept <strong>Marx</strong>ism minusits directly revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary aspect. They do not regard theparliamentary struggle as <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the weap<strong>on</strong>s particularlysuitable for definite his<strong>to</strong>rical periods, but as the main andalmost the sole form <strong>of</strong> struggle making “force”, “seizure”,“dicta<strong>to</strong>rship”, unnecessary. 5Herr Kautsky was a fitting successor <strong>to</strong> Bernstein. LikeBernstein, he actively publicized the parliamentary road andopposed violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.He said that under the bourgeois democratic systemthere is “no more room for armed struggle for the settlement<strong>of</strong> class c<strong>on</strong>flicts” 6 and that “it would be ridiculous . . . <strong>to</strong>1Eduard Bernstein, The Prerequisites for Socialism and the Tasks<strong>of</strong> the Social-Democratic Party, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1923, p. 11.2Ibid., p. 197.3Eduard Bernstein, What Is Socialism? Ger. ed., Berlin, 1922, p. 28.4Eduard Bernstein, The Political Mass Strike and the Political Situati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Social-Democratic Party in Germany, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1905,p. 37.5V. I. Lenin, “The Vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Cadets and the Tasks <strong>of</strong> the Workers’Party”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. X,p. 249.6Karl Kautsky, The Materialist Interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> His<strong>to</strong>ry, Ger. ed.,Berlin, 1927, pp. 431-32.364
preach a violent political overthrow”. 1 He attacked Lenin andthe Bolshevik Party by comparing them <strong>to</strong> “an impatientmidwife who uses violence <strong>to</strong> make a pregnant woman givebirth in the fifth m<strong>on</strong>th instead <strong>of</strong> the ninth”. 2Kautsky was hopelessly afflicted with parliamentary cretinism.He made the well-known statement:The aim <strong>of</strong> our political struggle remains, as hither<strong>to</strong>, thec<strong>on</strong>quest <strong>of</strong> state power by winning a majority in parliamentand by c<strong>on</strong>verting parliament in<strong>to</strong> the master <strong>of</strong> thegovernment. 3He also said:The parliamentary republic — with a m<strong>on</strong>archy at the<strong>to</strong>p <strong>on</strong> the English model, or without — is <strong>to</strong> my mind thebase out <strong>of</strong> which proletarian dicta<strong>to</strong>rship and socialistsociety grow. This republic is the “state <strong>of</strong> the future”<strong>to</strong>ward which we must strived. 4Lenin severely criticized these absurd statements <strong>of</strong>Kautsky’s.In denouncing Kautsky, Lenin declared:Only scoundrels or simplet<strong>on</strong>s can think that the proletariatmust win the majority in electi<strong>on</strong>s carried outunder the yoke <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie, under the yoke <strong>of</strong> wageslavery,and that it should win power afterwards. This isthe height <strong>of</strong> folly or hypocrisy; it is substituting voting,under the old system and with the old power, for classstruggle and revoluti<strong>on</strong>. 51Karl Kautsky, Social Democracy Versus Communism, Eng. ed.,Rand School Press, New York, 1946, p. 117.2Karl Kautsky, The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and Its Programme, Ger.ed., Berlin, 1922, p. 90.3Karl Kautsky, “New Tactics”, Die Neue Zeit, No. 46, 1912.4Karl Kautsky, Letter <strong>to</strong> Franz Mehring, July 15, 1893.5V. I. Lenin, “Greetings <strong>to</strong> the Italian, French and German Communists”,Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 40.365
Lenin made the pointed comment that Kautsky’s parliamentaryroad “is nothing but the purest and the most vulgaropportunism: repudiating revoluti<strong>on</strong> in deeds, while acceptingit in word”. 1 He said:By so “interpreting” the c<strong>on</strong>cept “revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat” as <strong>to</strong> expunge the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryviolence <strong>of</strong> the oppressed class against its oppressors,Kautsky beat the world record in the liberal dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>. 2Here, we have quoted Khrushchov as well as Bernstein andKautsky and Lenin’s criticism <strong>of</strong> these two worthies at somelength in order <strong>to</strong> show that Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism ismodern Bernsteinism and Kautskyism, pure and simple. Aswith Bernstein and Kautsky, Khrushchov’s betrayal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ismis most sharply manifested in his oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryviolence, in what he does “<strong>to</strong> expunge revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryviolence”. In this respect, Kautsky and Bernstein have nowclearly lost their title <strong>to</strong> Khrushchov who has set a new worldrecord. Khrushchov, the worthy disciple <strong>of</strong> Bernstein andKautsky, has excelled his masters.VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL LAWOF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONThe entire his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the working-class movement tells usthat the acknowledgement or n<strong>on</strong>-acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> violentrevoluti<strong>on</strong> as a universal law <strong>of</strong> proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong> thenecessity <strong>of</strong> smashing the old state machine, and <strong>of</strong> the necessity<strong>of</strong> replacing the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie by the1V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 323.2V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the RenegadeKautsky”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II,Part 2, pp. 47-48.366
dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat has always been the watershedbetween <strong>Marx</strong>ism and all brands <strong>of</strong> opportunism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,between proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries and all renegadesfrom the proletariat.According <strong>to</strong> the basic teachings <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, thekey questi<strong>on</strong> in every revoluti<strong>on</strong> is that <strong>of</strong> state power. Andthe key questi<strong>on</strong> in the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> is that <strong>of</strong> theseizure <strong>of</strong> state power and the smashing <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois statemachine by violence, the establishment <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat and the replacement <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois state bythe proletarian state.<strong>Marx</strong>ism has always proclaimed the inevitability <strong>of</strong> violentrevoluti<strong>on</strong>. It points out that violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> is the midwife<strong>to</strong> socialist society, the <strong>on</strong>ly road <strong>to</strong> the replacement <strong>of</strong>the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie by the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat, and a universal law <strong>of</strong> proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>.<strong>Marx</strong>ism teaches us that the state itself is a form <strong>of</strong>violence. The main comp<strong>on</strong>ents <strong>of</strong> the state machine are thearmy and the police. His<strong>to</strong>ry shows that all ruling classesdepend up<strong>on</strong> violence <strong>to</strong> maintain their rule.The proletariat would, <strong>of</strong> course, prefer <strong>to</strong> gain power bypeaceful means. But abundant his<strong>to</strong>rical evidence indicatesthat the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary classes never give up power voluntarilyand that they are always the first <strong>to</strong> use violence <strong>to</strong> repressthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary mass movement and <strong>to</strong> provoke civil war,thus placing armed struggle <strong>on</strong> the agenda.Lenin has spoken <strong>of</strong> “civil war, without which not a singlegreat revoluti<strong>on</strong> in his<strong>to</strong>ry has yet been able <strong>to</strong> get al<strong>on</strong>g, andwithout which not a single serious <strong>Marx</strong>ist has c<strong>on</strong>ceived <strong>of</strong>the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism”. 1The great revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in his<strong>to</strong>ry referred <strong>to</strong> by Lenin includethe bourgeois revoluti<strong>on</strong>. The bourgeois revoluti<strong>on</strong> is<strong>on</strong>e in which <strong>on</strong>e exploiting class overthrows another, andyet it cannot be made without a civil war. Still more is this1V. I. Lenin, “Prophetic Words”, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow,1950, Vol. XXVII, p. 457.367
the case with the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, which is a revoluti<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> abolish all exploiting classes and systems.Regarding the fact that violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> is a universallaw <strong>of</strong> proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, Lenin repeatedly pointed outthat “between capitalism and socialism there lies a l<strong>on</strong>g period<strong>of</strong> ‘birth pains’ — that violence is always the midwife <strong>of</strong> theold society”, 1 that the bourgeois state “cannot be supersededby the proletarian state (the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat)through the process <strong>of</strong> ‘withering away,’ but, as a generalrule, <strong>on</strong>ly through a violent revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, 2 and that “the necessity<strong>of</strong> systematically imbuing the masses with this and preciselythis view <strong>of</strong> violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> lies at the root <strong>of</strong> allthe teachings <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels”. 3Stalin, <strong>to</strong>o, said that a violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletariat,the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, is “an inevitable and indispensablec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> for the advance <strong>to</strong>wards socialism” inall countries ruled by capital. 4Can a radical transformati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois order beachieved without violent revoluti<strong>on</strong>, without the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat? Stalin answered:Obviously not. To think that such a revoluti<strong>on</strong> can becarried out peacefully, within the framework <strong>of</strong> bourgeoisdemocracy, which is adapted <strong>to</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie,means that <strong>on</strong>e has either g<strong>on</strong>e out <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s mind and lostnormal human understanding, or has grossly and openlyrepudiated the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>. 51V. I. Lenin, “Those Who Are Terrified by the Collapse <strong>of</strong> the Oldand Those Who Fight for the New”, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow,1949, Vol. XXVI, p. 362.2V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 219.3Ibid., p. 220.4J. V. Stalin, “Reply <strong>to</strong> the Discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the Report <strong>on</strong> ‘The Social-Democratic Deviati<strong>on</strong> in Our Party’”, Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,1954, Vol. VIII, p. 323.5J. V. Stalin, “C<strong>on</strong>cerning Questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Leninism”, Works, Eng. ed,FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. VIII, p. 25.368
Basing himself <strong>on</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory <strong>of</strong> violentrevoluti<strong>on</strong> and the new experience <strong>of</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>and the people’s democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong> led by the proletariat,Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung advanced the celebrateddictum that “political power grows out <strong>of</strong> the barrel <strong>of</strong> a gun”.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said:. . . revoluti<strong>on</strong>s and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary wars are inevitable inclass society and that without them, it is impossible <strong>to</strong>accomplish any leap in social development and <strong>to</strong> overthrowthe reacti<strong>on</strong>ary ruling classes and therefore impossiblefor the people <strong>to</strong> win political power. 1He stated:The seizure <strong>of</strong> power by armed force, the settlement <strong>of</strong>the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form<strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>. This <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist principle <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>holds good universally, for China and for all othercountries. 2He stated further:Experience in the class struggle in the era <strong>of</strong> imperialismteaches us that it is <strong>on</strong>ly by the power <strong>of</strong> the gun that theworking class and the labouring masses can defeat thearmed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this sense we may saythat <strong>on</strong>ly with guns can the whole world be transformed. 3To sum up, violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> is a universal law <strong>of</strong> proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong>. This is a fundamental tenet <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. It is <strong>on</strong> this most important questi<strong>on</strong> that Khruhchov betrays <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “On C<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP,Peking, 1964, Vol. I, p. 344.2<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “ Problems <strong>of</strong> War and Strategy”, Selected MilitaryWritings, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p. 267.3Ibid., p. 273.369
OUR STRUGGLE AGAINST KHRUSHCHOV’SREVISIONISMWhen Khrushchov first put forward the “parliamentaryroad” at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the Chinese CommunistParty c<strong>on</strong>sidered it a gross error, a violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thefundamental theories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and absolutelyunacceptable.As Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism was still in its incipient stageand the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU had not as yet provoked openpolemics, we refrained for a time from publicly exposing orcriticizing Khrushchov’s error <strong>of</strong> the “parliamentary road”.But, as against his err<strong>on</strong>eous propositi<strong>on</strong>, we stated the<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist view in a positive form in our documentsand articles. At the same time we waged the appropriate andnecessary struggle against it at inter-Party talks and meetingsam<strong>on</strong>g the fraternal Parties.Summing up the experience <strong>of</strong> the Chinese revoluti<strong>on</strong>, weclearly stated in the political report <strong>of</strong> our Central Committee<strong>to</strong> the Eighth Nati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> our Party in September1956:While our Party was working for peaceful change, it didnot allow itself <strong>to</strong> be put <strong>of</strong>f its guard or <strong>to</strong> give up thepeoples arms. . . .Unlike the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries, the people are not warlike. . . .But when the people were compelled <strong>to</strong> take up arms, theywere completely justified in doing so. To have opposedthe people’s taking up arms and <strong>to</strong> have asked them <strong>to</strong>submit <strong>to</strong> the attacking enemy would have been <strong>to</strong> followan opportunist line. Here, the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> following a revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryline or an opportunist line became the majorissue <strong>of</strong> whether our 600 milli<strong>on</strong> people should or shouldnot capture political power when c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s were ripe.Our Party followed the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line and <strong>to</strong>day wehave the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China.370
On this questi<strong>on</strong>, the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist view <strong>of</strong> the EighthNati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPC is opposed <strong>to</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>istview <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.In December 1956 we explained the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong> in a positive way in the article “More <strong>on</strong> theHis<strong>to</strong>rical Experience <strong>of</strong> the Dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the Proletariat”,thus in fact criticizing the so-called parliamentary road whichKhrushchov set against the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>.In many private talks with the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, theleading comrades <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPC madeserious criticisms <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s err<strong>on</strong>eous views. Wehoped in all sincerity that he would correct his mistakes.At the time <strong>of</strong> the Meeting <strong>of</strong> Representatives <strong>of</strong> the Communistand Workers’ Parties in 1957, the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theCPC engaged in a sharp debate with the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theCPSU <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong>socialism.In the first draft for the Declarati<strong>on</strong> which it proposedduring the preparati<strong>on</strong>s for the Moscow meeting, the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU referred <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> the possibility <strong>of</strong>peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> and said nothing about the possibility <strong>of</strong>n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>; it referred <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> the parliamentaryroad and said nothing about other means <strong>of</strong> struggle, and atthe same time pinned hopes for the winning <strong>of</strong> state powerthrough the parliamentary road <strong>on</strong> “the c<strong>on</strong>certed acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>Communists and socialists”. Naturally the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPC could not agree <strong>to</strong> these wr<strong>on</strong>g views, which departfrom <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, being written in<strong>to</strong> the programmaticdocument <strong>of</strong> all the Communist and Workers’ Parties.After the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC made its criticisms, theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU produced a sec<strong>on</strong>d draft forthe Declarati<strong>on</strong>. Although phrases about the possibility <strong>of</strong>n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> were added, the formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thequesti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> in this draft still reflected therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist views put forward by Khrushchov at the 20thC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.371
The delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC expressed its disagreement withthese err<strong>on</strong>eous views in clear terms. On November 10, 1957it systematically explained its own views <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism <strong>to</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, <strong>to</strong> which it also presented a writtenoutline.The main points made in our written outline are summarizedbelow.It is advantageous from the point <strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong> tactics <strong>to</strong> refer <strong>to</strong>the desire for peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>, but it would beinappropriate <strong>to</strong> over-emphasize the possibility <strong>of</strong> peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>. It is necessary <strong>to</strong> be prepared at all times <strong>to</strong>repulse counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary attacks and, at the criticaljuncture <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong> when the working class is seizingstate power, <strong>to</strong> overthrow the bourgeoisie by armed force ifit uses armed force <strong>to</strong> suppress the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>(generally speaking, it is inevitable that the bourgeoisiewill do so).The parliamentary form <strong>of</strong> struggle must be fullyutilized, but its role is limited. What is most important is<strong>to</strong> proceed with the hard work <strong>of</strong> accumulating revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystrength; peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> should not be interpretedin such a way as solely <strong>to</strong> mean transiti<strong>on</strong> througha parliamentary majority. The main questi<strong>on</strong> is that <strong>of</strong> thestate machinery, namely, the smashing <strong>of</strong> the old statemachinery (chiefly the armed forces) and the establishment<strong>of</strong> the new state machinery (chiefly the armed forces).The social democratic parties are not parties <strong>of</strong> socialism;with the excepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> certain Left wings, they are a variant<strong>of</strong> bourgeois political parties. On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>, our positi<strong>on</strong> is fundamentally different from that<strong>of</strong> the social democratic parties. This distincti<strong>on</strong> must notbe obscured.These views <strong>of</strong> ours are in full accord with <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.372
The comrades <strong>of</strong> the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU were unable <strong>to</strong> argue against them, but theyrepeatedly asked us <strong>to</strong> make allowances for their internalneeds, expressing the hope that the formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong>in the draft Declarati<strong>on</strong> might show some c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>with its formulati<strong>on</strong> by the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.We had refuted the wr<strong>on</strong>g views <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> theCPSU and put forward a written outline <strong>of</strong> our own views.For this reas<strong>on</strong> and for the sake <strong>of</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong> struggleagainst the enemy, the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC decided <strong>to</strong> meetthe repeated wishes <strong>of</strong> the comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and agreed<strong>to</strong> take the draft <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>on</strong>this questi<strong>on</strong> as the basis, while suggesting amendments in<strong>on</strong>ly a few places.We hoped that through this debate the comrades <strong>of</strong> theCPSU would awaken <strong>to</strong> their errors and correct them. Butc<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> our hopes, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU did not do so.At the meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties in 1960, the delegati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the CPC again engaged in repeated sharp debates with thedelegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> fromcapitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism, and thoroughly exposed and criticizedKhrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ist views. During the meeting, theChinese and the Soviet sides each adhered <strong>to</strong> its own positi<strong>on</strong>,and no agreement could be reached. In view <strong>of</strong> the generalwish <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties that a comm<strong>on</strong> document should behammered out at the meeting, the delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPCfinally made a c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong> again and agreed<strong>to</strong> the verbatim transcripti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the relevant passages in the1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> in<strong>to</strong> the 1960 Statement, again out <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>for the needs <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU. At thesame time, during this meeting we distributed the Outline <strong>of</strong>Views <strong>on</strong> the Questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Transiti<strong>on</strong> put forward bythe Chinese Communist Party <strong>on</strong> November 10, 1957, andmade it clear that we were giving c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the leadership<strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>on</strong> this issue for the last time, and wouldnot do so again.373
If comrades now make the criticism that we were wr<strong>on</strong>gin giving this c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, weare quite ready <strong>to</strong> accept this criticism.As the formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement was based <strong>on</strong> the drafts<strong>of</strong> the CPSU and in some places retained the formulati<strong>on</strong> byits 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, there are serious weaknesses and errors inthe overall presentati<strong>on</strong>, even though a certain amount <strong>of</strong>patching up was d<strong>on</strong>e. While indicating that the rulingclasses never relinquish power voluntarily, the formulati<strong>on</strong>in the two documents also asserts that state power can bew<strong>on</strong> in a number <strong>of</strong> capitalist countries without civil war;while stating that extra-parliamentary mass struggle shouldbe waged <strong>to</strong> smash the resistance <strong>of</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary forces,it also asserts that a stable majority can be secured in parliamentand that parliament can thus be transformed in<strong>to</strong> aninstrument serving the working people; and while referring<strong>to</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>, it fails <strong>to</strong> stress violent revoluti<strong>on</strong>as a universal law. The leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hastaken advantage <strong>of</strong> these weaknesses and errors in the Declarati<strong>on</strong>and the Statement and used them as an excuse forpeddling Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.It must be solemnly declared that the Chinese CommunistParty has all al<strong>on</strong>g maintained its differing views <strong>on</strong> theformulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism<strong>to</strong> socialism in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957 and the Statement <strong>of</strong>1960. We have never c<strong>on</strong>cealed our views. We hold that inthe interest <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alproletariat and in order <strong>to</strong> prevent the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists frommisusing these programmatic documents <strong>of</strong> the fraternalParties, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> amend the formulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong>in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and the Statement through joint c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Communist and Workers’ Parties so as <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>form<strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary principles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.In order <strong>to</strong> help readers acquaint themselves with the fullviews <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Communist Party <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong>, we374
are re-publishing the complete text <strong>of</strong> the Outline <strong>of</strong> Views<strong>on</strong> the Questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Peaceful Transiti<strong>on</strong> put forward by thedelegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC <strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU<strong>on</strong> November 10, 1957, as an appendix <strong>to</strong> this article. 1In the last eight years the struggle <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-LeninistParties and <strong>of</strong> the world’s <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists against Khrushchov’srevisi<strong>on</strong>ism has made great progress. More and morepeople have come <strong>to</strong> recognize the true features <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’srevisi<strong>on</strong>ism. Nevertheless, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSUare still resorting <strong>to</strong> subterfuge and quibbles, and trying inevery possible way <strong>to</strong> peddle their n<strong>on</strong>sense.Therefore, it is still necessary for us <strong>to</strong> refute the fallacy<strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”.SOPHISTRY CANNOT ALTER HISTORYThe leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU openly dis<strong>to</strong>rt the works <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>and Lenin and dis<strong>to</strong>rt his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>to</strong>o <strong>to</strong> cover up their betrayal<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and justify their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line.They argue: Did not <strong>Marx</strong> “admit such a possibility [peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>] for England and America”? 2 In fact, thisargument is taken from the renegade Kautsky who used theself-same method <strong>to</strong> dis<strong>to</strong>rt <strong>Marx</strong>’s views and oppose theproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.It is true that in the 1870’s <strong>Marx</strong> said that in countries likethe United States and Britain “the workers can reach theirgoal by peaceful means”. But at the same time he stressedthat this possibility was an excepti<strong>on</strong>. He said that “evenif this be so, we must also recognize that in the majority <strong>of</strong>1See Appendix I <strong>to</strong> “The Origin and Development <strong>of</strong> the DifferencesBetween the Leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and Ourselves”, pp. 105-08<strong>of</strong> this book.2O. V. Kuusinen and others, Foundati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, Russ.ed., Moscow, 1959, p. 526.375
countries <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>tinent force must serve as the lever <strong>of</strong>our revoluti<strong>on</strong>”. 1 What is more, he pointed out:The English bourgeoisie has always shown its readiness<strong>to</strong> accept the decisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the majority, so l<strong>on</strong>g as it has them<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>of</strong> the suffrage. But believe me, at the momentwhen it finds itself in the minority <strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s which itc<strong>on</strong>siders vitally important, we will have a new slaveholders’war here. 2Lenin said in his criticism <strong>of</strong> the renegade Kautsky:The argument that <strong>Marx</strong> in the ‘seventies granted thepossibility <strong>of</strong> a peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism in Englandand America is the argument <strong>of</strong> a sophist, or, <strong>to</strong> put itbluntly, <strong>of</strong> a swindler who juggles with quotati<strong>on</strong>s andreferences. First, <strong>Marx</strong> regarded this possibility as anexcepti<strong>on</strong> even then. Sec<strong>on</strong>dly, in those days m<strong>on</strong>opolycapitalism, i.e., imperialism, did not yet exist. Thirdly, inEngland and America there was no military then — asthere is now — serving as the chief apparatus <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisstate machine. 3Lenin said that, by virtue <strong>of</strong> its fundamental ec<strong>on</strong>omictraits, imperialism is distinguished “by a minimum attachmentfor peace and freedom, and by a maximum and universaldevelopment <strong>of</strong> militarism”. “To ‘fail <strong>to</strong> notice’ this” in thediscussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful or violent change is“<strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>op <strong>to</strong> the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a comm<strong>on</strong> or garden varietylackey <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie.” 41Karl <strong>Marx</strong>, “On the Hague C<strong>on</strong>gress, Speech at a Mass Meeting inAmsterdam”, Collected Works <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Russ. ed., Moscow,1961, Vol. XVIII, p. 154.2“Record <strong>of</strong> a Talk Between K. <strong>Marx</strong> and the Corresp<strong>on</strong>dent <strong>of</strong>The World “, Collected Works <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, Russ. ed., Moscow,1961, Vol. XVII, p. 637.3V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the RenegadeKautsky”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, NewYork, 1945, Vol. XXIII, pp. 233-34.4Ibid., p. 357.376
Today, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have struck up Kautsky’sold tune. What is this if not s<strong>to</strong>oping <strong>to</strong> the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> acomm<strong>on</strong> or garden lackey <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie?Again, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU argue: Did not Lenin“admit in principle the possibility <strong>of</strong> a peaceful revoluti<strong>on</strong>”? 1This is even worse sophistry.For a time after the February Revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1917 Leninenvisaged a situati<strong>on</strong> in which “in Russia, by way <strong>of</strong> an excepti<strong>on</strong>,this revoluti<strong>on</strong> can be a peaceful revoluti<strong>on</strong>”. 2He called this “an excepti<strong>on</strong>” because <strong>of</strong> the special circumstancesthen obtaining: “The essence <strong>of</strong> the matter wasthat the arms were in the hands <strong>of</strong> the people, and that nocoerci<strong>on</strong> from without was exercised in regard <strong>to</strong> the people.” 3In July 1917 the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary bourgeois governmentsuppressed the masses by force <strong>of</strong> arms, drenching thestreets <strong>of</strong> Petrograd with the blood <strong>of</strong> workers and soldiers.After this incident Lenin declared that “all hopes for a peacefuldevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Russian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> have definitelyvanished”. 4 In Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1917 Lenin and the Bolshevik Partyresolutely led the workers and soldiers in an armed uprisingand seized state power. Lenin pointed out in January 1918that “the class struggle. . . has turned in<strong>to</strong> a civil war”. 5 TheSoviet state had <strong>to</strong> wage another three and half years<strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary war and <strong>to</strong> make heavy sacrifices before itsmashed both the domestic counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary rebelli<strong>on</strong>1A. Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, “Lenin’s Theory <strong>of</strong> Socialist Revoluti<strong>on</strong>and the Present Day”, Kommunist, Moscow, No. 13, 1960.2V. I. Lenin, “Speech <strong>on</strong> Attitude Towards the Provisi<strong>on</strong>al Government”,delivered at the First All-Russian C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> Soviets <strong>of</strong> Workers’and Soldiers’ Deputies, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 80.3V. I. Lenin, “On Slogans”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 88.4V. I. Lenin, “The Political Situati<strong>on</strong>”, Collected Works, Eng. ed.,Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1932, Vol. XXI, Book 1, p. 37.5V. I. Lenin, “People from the Next World”, Collected Works, Russ.ed., Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXVI, p. 393.377
and the foreign armed interventi<strong>on</strong>. Only then was thevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidated. In 1919 Lenin saidthat “revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary violence gained brilliant successes in theOc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”. 1Now the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU have the impudence <strong>to</strong> saythat the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> was “the most bloodless <strong>of</strong> allrevoluti<strong>on</strong>s” 2 and was “accomplished almost peacefully”. 3Their asserti<strong>on</strong>s are <strong>to</strong>tally c<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rical facts.How can they face the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary martyrs who shed theirblood and sacrificed their lives <strong>to</strong> create the world’s firstsocialist state?When we point out that world his<strong>to</strong>ry has thus far producedno precedent for peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism<strong>to</strong> socialism, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU quibble, saying that“practical experience exists <strong>of</strong> the achievement <strong>of</strong> the socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong> in peaceful form”. And shutting their eyes<strong>to</strong> all the facts, they state, “In Hungary in 1919, the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat was established by peaceful means.” 4Is this true? No, it is not. Let us see what Bela Kun, theleader <strong>of</strong> the Hungarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, had <strong>to</strong> say.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Hungary was founded in November1918. The new-born Party immediately plunged in<strong>to</strong>revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle and proclaimed as the slogans <strong>of</strong> socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>: “Disarm the bourgeoisie, arm the proletariat,establish Soviet power.” 5 The Hungarian CommunistParty worked actively in all fields for an armed uprising. It1V. I. Lenin, “The Successes and Difficulties <strong>of</strong> Soviet Power”, CollectedWorks, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXIX, p. 41.2F. K<strong>on</strong>stantinov, “Lenin and Our Own Times”, Kommunist, Moscow,No. 5, 1960.3A. I. Mikoyan, Speech at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress, The 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1956,Vol. I, p. 313.4“<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism — the Basis <strong>of</strong> Unity <strong>of</strong> the Communist Movement”,edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 15, 1963.5Bela Kun, Less<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> in Hungary, Russ.ed., Moscow, 1960, p. 46.378
armed the workers, strove <strong>to</strong> win over the government troopsand organize the demobilized soldiers, staged armed dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong>s,led the workers in expelling their bosses and occupyingthe fac<strong>to</strong>ries, led the agricultural workers in seizinglarge estates, disarmed the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary army <strong>of</strong>ficers, troopsand police, combined strikes with armed uprisings, and s<strong>of</strong>orth.In fact, the Hungarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> abounded in armed struggle<strong>of</strong> various forms and <strong>on</strong> various scales. Bela Kun wrote:<strong>From</strong> the day <strong>of</strong> the founding <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party<strong>to</strong> the taking <strong>of</strong> power, armed clashes with the organs<strong>of</strong> bourgeois power occurred with increasing frequency.Starting with December 12, 1918 when the armed Budapestgarris<strong>on</strong> came out in<strong>to</strong> the streets in a dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong>against the War Minister <strong>of</strong> the Provisi<strong>on</strong>al Government,. . . there was probably not a single day <strong>on</strong> which the pressfailed <strong>to</strong> report sanguinary clashes between the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryworkers and soldiers and armed units <strong>of</strong> the governmentforces, and in particular <strong>of</strong> the police. The Communistsorganized numerous uprisings not <strong>on</strong>ly in Budapestbut in the provinces as well. 1The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are telling a glaring lie when theysay that the Hungarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> was an example <strong>of</strong> peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>.It is alleged in the Soviet press that the Hungarian bourgeoisgovernment “voluntarily resigned”, 2 and this is probablythe <strong>on</strong>ly ground the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU base themselves <strong>on</strong>.But what were the facts?Karolyi, the head <strong>of</strong> the Hungarian bourgeois governmentat the time, was quite explicit <strong>on</strong> this point. He declared:I signed a proclamati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>cerning my own resignati<strong>on</strong>and the transfer <strong>of</strong> power <strong>to</strong> the proletariat, which in reality1Ibid., p. 57.2“How the World Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Process Is Developing”, SovietskayaRossia, August 1, 1963.379
had already taken over and proclaimed power earlier . . .I did not hand over power <strong>to</strong> the proletariat, as it hadalready w<strong>on</strong> it earlier, thanks <strong>to</strong> its planned creati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> aSocialist army.For this reas<strong>on</strong>, Bela Kun pointed out that <strong>to</strong> say thebourgeoisie voluntarily handed political power over <strong>to</strong> theproletariat was a deceptive “legend”. 1The Hungarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1919 was defeated. Inexamining the chief less<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> its defeat, Lenin said that <strong>on</strong>efatal error committed by the young Hungarian CommunistParty was that it was not firm enough in exercising dicta<strong>to</strong>rshipover the enemy but wavered at the critical moment.Moreover, the Hungarian Party failed <strong>to</strong> take correct measures<strong>to</strong> meet the peasants’ demand for the soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the landproblem and therefore divorced itself from the peasantry.Another important reas<strong>on</strong> for the defeat <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong> wasthe amalgamati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party and the opportunistSocial Democratic Party.It is a sheer dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry when the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU allege that the Hungarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1918-19 isa model <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”.Furthermore, they allege that the working class <strong>of</strong> Czechoslovakiaw<strong>on</strong> “power by the peaceful road”. 2 This is anotherabsurd dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry.The people’s democratic power in Czechoslovakia was establishedin the course <strong>of</strong> the anti-fascist war; it was not takenfrom the bourgeoisie “peacefully”. During World War II,the Communist Party led the people in guerrilla warfare andarmed uprisings against the fascists, it destroyed the Germanfascist troops and their servile regime in Czechoslovakia withthe assistance <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Army and established a nati<strong>on</strong>alfr<strong>on</strong>t coaliti<strong>on</strong> government. This government was in essence1Bela Kun, op. cit., p. 49.2L. I. Brezhnev, Speech at the 12th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> Czechoslovakia, Pravda, December 4, 1962.380
a people’s democratic dicta<strong>to</strong>rship under the leadership <strong>of</strong> theproletariat, i.e., a form <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.In February 1948 the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries inside Czechoslovakia,backed by U.S. imperialism, plotted a counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>arycoup d’état <strong>to</strong> overthrow the people’s government by an armedrebelli<strong>on</strong>. But the government led by the Communist Partyimmediately deployed its armed forces and organized armedmass dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong>s, thus shattering the bourgeois plot fora counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary come-back. These facts clearlytestify that the February event was not a “peaceful” seizure<strong>of</strong> political power by the working class from the bourgeoisiebut a suppressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary bourgeois coupd’état by the working class through its own state apparatus,and mainly through its own armed forces.In summarizing the February event Gottwald said:Even before the February event we said: <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the basicchanges compared with what existed before the war isprecisely that the state apparatus already serves new classesand not the previous ruling classes. The February eventshowed that the state apparatus, in this sense, played anoutstanding role. . . . 1How can the above instances be regarded as precedents forpeaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>?Lenin said:Kautsky had <strong>to</strong> resort <strong>to</strong> all these subterfuges, sophistriesand fraudulent falsificati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong>ly in order <strong>to</strong> dissociatehimself from violent revoluti<strong>on</strong>, and <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ceal his renunciati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> it, his deserti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the liberal labour policy, i.e.,<strong>to</strong> the bourgeoisie.And he added, “That is where the trouble lies.” 21Klement Gottwald, Speech at the Plenary Sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Czechoslovakia, November 17,1948.2V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Renegade Kautsky”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 44.381
Why has Khrushchov so shamelessly dis<strong>to</strong>rted the works<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin, fabricated his<strong>to</strong>ry and resorted <strong>to</strong> subterfuges?Again, that is where the trouble lies.LIES CANNOT COVER UP REALITYThe principal argument used by the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU<strong>to</strong> justify their anti-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”is that his<strong>to</strong>rical c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s have changed.With regard <strong>to</strong> the appraisal <strong>of</strong> the changes in his<strong>to</strong>ricalc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s since World War II and the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> bedrawn from them, <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists hold entirely differentviews from those <strong>of</strong> Khrushchev.<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists hold that his<strong>to</strong>rical c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s havechanged fundamentally since the War. The change is mainlya manifested in the great increase in the forces <strong>of</strong> proletariansocialism and the great weakening <strong>of</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> imperialism.Since the War, the mighty socialist camp and a wholeseries <strong>of</strong> new and independent nati<strong>on</strong>alist states have emerged,and there have occurred a c<strong>on</strong>tinuous successi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> armedrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles, a new upsurge in the mass movementsin capitalist countries and the great expansi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theranks <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. Theinternati<strong>on</strong>al proletarian socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movementand the nati<strong>on</strong>al democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement in Asia,Africa and Latin America have become the two major his<strong>to</strong>ricaltrends <strong>of</strong> our time.In the early post-war period, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung repeatedlypointed out that the world balance <strong>of</strong> forces wasfavourable <strong>to</strong> us and not <strong>to</strong> the enemy, and that this newsituati<strong>on</strong> “has opened up still wider possibilities for theemancipati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the working class and the oppressed peoples382
<strong>of</strong> the world and has opened up still more realistic paths<strong>to</strong>wards it”. 1He also indicated,Make trouble, fail, make trouble again, fail again . . .till their doom; that is the logic <strong>of</strong> the imperialists and allreacti<strong>on</strong>aries the world over in dealing with the people’scause, and they will never go against this logic. This is a<strong>Marx</strong>ist law. When we say “imperialism is ferocious”,we mean that its nature will never change, that the imperialistswill never lay down their butcher knives, thatthey will never become Buddhas, till their doom. 2<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists base themselves <strong>on</strong> the fact that thechanges in post-war c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s have become increasinglyfavourable for revoluti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>on</strong> the law that imperialismand reacti<strong>on</strong> will never change their nature. Therefore theydraw the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> that revoluti<strong>on</strong> must be promoted, andthey hold that full use must be made <strong>of</strong> this very favourablesituati<strong>on</strong> and that in the light <strong>of</strong> the specific c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s indifferent countries the development <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strugglesmust be actively promoted and preparati<strong>on</strong>s must be made<strong>to</strong> seize vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the revoluti<strong>on</strong>.On the other hand, using the pretext <strong>of</strong> these very changesin post-war c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, Khrushchov draws the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> thatrevoluti<strong>on</strong> must be opposed and repudiated, and he holds thatas a result <strong>of</strong> the changes in the world balance <strong>of</strong> forces imperialismand reacti<strong>on</strong> have changed their nature, the law <strong>of</strong>class struggle has changed, and the comm<strong>on</strong> road <strong>of</strong> theOc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory <strong>of</strong> proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong> have become outmoded.1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Forces <strong>of</strong> the World Unite, FightAgainst Imperialist Aggressi<strong>on</strong>!”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking,1961, Vol. IV, p. 284.2<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, “Cast Away Illusi<strong>on</strong>s, Prepare for Struggle”, SelectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 428.383
Khrushchov and his like are spreading an Arabian Nightstale. They maintain:Now favourable internati<strong>on</strong>al and internal c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s aretaking shape for the working class <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> capitalistcountries <strong>to</strong> accomplish the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> inpeaceful form. 1They say:In the period between the first and sec<strong>on</strong>d world wars,the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary bourgeoisie in many European countries,incessantly developing and perfecting its police-bureaucraticmachine, savagely repressed the mass movements <strong>of</strong> theworking people and left no possibility for the achievement<strong>of</strong> the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> by the peaceful road.But according <strong>to</strong> them the situati<strong>on</strong> has now changed. 2They say that “basic shifts in favour <strong>of</strong> socialism in therelati<strong>on</strong>ship <strong>of</strong> forces in the internati<strong>on</strong>al arena” now createthe possibility <strong>of</strong> “paralyzing the interventi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alreacti<strong>on</strong> in the affairs <strong>of</strong> countries carrying out revoluti<strong>on</strong>”,3 and that “this lessens the possibilities for theunleashing <strong>of</strong> civil war by the bourgeoisie”. 4But the lies <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov and his like cannot cover uprealities.Two outstanding facts since World War II are that theimperialists and the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries are everywhere reinforcingtheir apparatus <strong>of</strong> violence for cruelly suppressing the massesand that imperialism headed by the United States isc<strong>on</strong>ducting counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary armed interventi<strong>on</strong> in allparts <strong>of</strong> the world.1A. Butenko, “War and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Kommunist, Moscow, No. 4,1961.2O. V. Kuusinen and others, Foundati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, Russ.ed., Moscow, 1959, p. 528.3A. Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, “Lenin’s Theory <strong>of</strong> Socialist Revoluti<strong>on</strong>and the Present Day”, Kommunist, Moscow, No. 13, 1960.4A. Butenko, op. cit.384
Today the United States <strong>of</strong> America has become moremilitarized than ever and has increased its troops <strong>to</strong> over2,700,000 men, or eleven times the 1934 <strong>to</strong>tal and nine timesthe 1939 <strong>to</strong>tal. It has so many police and secret service organizati<strong>on</strong>sthat even some <strong>of</strong> the big U.S. capitalists havehad <strong>to</strong> admit that it <strong>to</strong>ps the world in this respect, havingfar surpassed Hitlerite Germany.Britain’s standing army increased from over 250,000 menin 1934 <strong>to</strong> over 420,000 in 1963, and its police force from67,000 in 1934 <strong>to</strong> 87,000 in 1963.France’s standing army increased from 650,000 in 1934 <strong>to</strong>over 740,000 in 1963, and its police and security forces from80,000 in 1934 <strong>to</strong> 120,000 in 1963.Other imperialist countries and even the ordinary run <strong>of</strong>capitalist countries are no excepti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> this large-scalestrengthening <strong>of</strong> the armed forces and police.Khrushchov is zealously using the slogan <strong>of</strong> general andcomplete disarmament <strong>to</strong> immobilize the people. He has beenchanting it for many years now. But in actual fact thereis not even a shadow <strong>of</strong> general and complete disarmament.Everywhere in the imperialist camp headed by the UnitedStates <strong>on</strong>e finds a general and complete arms drive and anexpansi<strong>on</strong> and strengthening <strong>of</strong> the apparatus <strong>of</strong> violent suppressi<strong>on</strong>.Why are the bourgeoisie so frenziedly reinforcing theirarmed forces and police in peace time? Can it be that theirpurpose is not <strong>to</strong> suppress the mass movements <strong>of</strong> the workingpeople but rather <strong>to</strong> guarantee that the latter can win statepower by peaceful means? Haven’t the ruling bourgeoisiecommitted enough atrocities in the nineteen years since theWar in employing soldiers and policemen <strong>to</strong> suppress strikingworkers and people struggling for their democratic rights?In the past nineteen years, U.S. imperialism has organizedmilitary blocs and c<strong>on</strong>cluded military treaties with more thanforty countries. It has set up over 2,200 military bases andinstallati<strong>on</strong>s in all parts <strong>of</strong> the capitalist world. Its armed385
forces stati<strong>on</strong>ed abroad exceed 1,000,000. Its “Strike Command”directs a mobile land and air force, ready at all times<strong>to</strong> be sent anywhere <strong>to</strong> suppress the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>.In the past nineteen years, the U.S. and other imperialistshave not <strong>on</strong>ly given every support <strong>to</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong>various countries and helped them <strong>to</strong> suppress the peoples’revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movements; they have also directly plannedand executed numerous counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary armed aggressi<strong>on</strong>sand interventi<strong>on</strong>s, i.e., they have exported counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>.U.S. imperialism, for instance, helped ChiangKai-shek fight the civil war in China, sent its own troops <strong>to</strong>Greece and commanded the attack <strong>on</strong> the Greek people’sliberated areas, unleashed the war <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> in Korea,landed troops in Leban<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> threaten the revoluti<strong>on</strong> in Iraq,aided and abetted the Laotian reacti<strong>on</strong>aries in extending civilwar, organized and directed a so-called United Nati<strong>on</strong>s force<strong>to</strong> suppress the nati<strong>on</strong>al independence movement in the C<strong>on</strong>go,and c<strong>on</strong>ducted counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary invasi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Cuba. Itis still fighting <strong>to</strong> suppress the liberati<strong>on</strong> struggle <strong>of</strong> thepeople <strong>of</strong> southern Viet Nam. Recently it has used armedforce <strong>to</strong> suppress the just struggle <strong>of</strong> the Panamanian peoplein defence <strong>of</strong> their sovereignty and participated in the armedinterventi<strong>on</strong> in Cyprus.Not <strong>on</strong>ly does U.S. imperialism take determined acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>suppress and intervene in all people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>s and nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> movements, but it also tries <strong>to</strong> get rid <strong>of</strong> bourgeoisregimes which show some nati<strong>on</strong>alist colourati<strong>on</strong>. Duringthese nineteen years, the U.S. Government has engineerednumerous counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary military coups d’état in anumber <strong>of</strong> countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Ithas even used violence <strong>to</strong> remove puppets <strong>of</strong> its own fostering,such as Ngo Dinh Diem, <strong>on</strong>ce they have ceased <strong>to</strong> suit its purposes— “kill the d<strong>on</strong>key as so<strong>on</strong> as you take it from the millst<strong>on</strong>e”,as the saying goes.Facts have dem<strong>on</strong>strated that nowadays in order <strong>to</strong> makerevoluti<strong>on</strong>s and achieve liberati<strong>on</strong> all oppressed peoples and386
nati<strong>on</strong>s not <strong>on</strong>ly have <strong>to</strong> cope with violent suppressi<strong>on</strong> by thedomestic reacti<strong>on</strong>ary ruling classes, but must prepare themselvesfully against armed interventi<strong>on</strong> by imperialism, andespecially U.S. imperialism. Without such preparati<strong>on</strong> andwithout steadfastly rebuffing counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary violenceby revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary violence whenever necessary, revoluti<strong>on</strong>, letal<strong>on</strong>e vic<strong>to</strong>ry, is out <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong>.Without strengthening their armed forces, without preparing<strong>to</strong> meet imperialist armed aggressi<strong>on</strong> and interventi<strong>on</strong> andwithout adhering <strong>to</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> waging struggles against imperialism,countries which have w<strong>on</strong> independence will not beable <strong>to</strong> safeguard their nati<strong>on</strong>al independence and still less <strong>to</strong>ensure the advance <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause.We would like <strong>to</strong> ask the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU: Since youtalk so glibly about the new features <strong>of</strong> the post-war situati<strong>on</strong>,why have you chosen <strong>to</strong> omit the most important and c<strong>on</strong>spicuous<strong>on</strong>e, namely, that the U.S. and other imperialists aresuppressing revoluti<strong>on</strong> everywhere? You never weary <strong>of</strong>talking about peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>! but why have you never hada single word <strong>to</strong> say about how <strong>to</strong> deal with the bloated apparatus<strong>of</strong> forcible suppressi<strong>on</strong> built up by the imperialistsand reacti<strong>on</strong>aries? You brazenly cover up the bloody realities<strong>of</strong> the cruel suppressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> andpopular revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movements by imperialism and reacti<strong>on</strong>and spread the illusi<strong>on</strong> that the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s and peoplescan achieve vic<strong>to</strong>ry by peaceful means. Isn’t it obvious thatyou are trying <strong>to</strong> lull the vigilance <strong>of</strong> the people, pacify theangry masses with empty promises about the bright futureand oppose their revoluti<strong>on</strong>, thus in fact acting as accomplices<strong>of</strong> imperialism and the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries?On this questi<strong>on</strong>, it is useful <strong>to</strong> let John Foster Dulles, thelate U.S. Secretary <strong>of</strong> State, be our “teacher by negativeexample”.Dulles said in a speech <strong>on</strong> June 21, 1956 that all socialistcountries had hither<strong>to</strong> been established “through the use <strong>of</strong>violence”. He then said that “the Soviet rulers now say that387
they will renounce the use <strong>of</strong> violence” and that “we welcomeand shall encourage these developments”. 1As a faithful champi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the capitalist system, Dulles was<strong>of</strong> course perfectly aware <strong>of</strong> the essential role <strong>of</strong> force in classstruggle. While welcoming Khrushchov’s renunciati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>violent revoluti<strong>on</strong>, he laid great stress <strong>on</strong> the bourgeoisie’sneed <strong>to</strong> strengthen its counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary violence in ordera <strong>to</strong> maintain its rule. He said in another speech that “<strong>of</strong> all thetasks <strong>of</strong> government the most basic is <strong>to</strong> protect its citizens[read “reacti<strong>on</strong>ary ruling classes”] against violence. . . . Soin every civilized community the members c<strong>on</strong>tribute <strong>to</strong>wardthe maintenance <strong>of</strong> a police force as an arm <strong>of</strong> law and order”. 2Here Dulles was telling the truth. The political foundati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the rule <strong>of</strong> imperialism and all reacti<strong>on</strong> is nothing otherthan — “a police force”. So l<strong>on</strong>g as this foundati<strong>on</strong> is unimpaired,nothing else is <strong>of</strong> any importance and their rule willnot be shaken. The more the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU cover upthe fact that the bourgeoisie relies <strong>on</strong> violence for its rule andspread the fairy tale <strong>of</strong> peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>, which was so welcome<strong>to</strong> Dulles, the more they reveal their true colours ascr<strong>on</strong>ies <strong>of</strong> the imperialists in opposing revoluti<strong>on</strong>.REFUTATION OF THE “PARLIAMENTARY ROAD”The idea <strong>of</strong> the “parliamentary road” which was publicizedby the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al was thoroughlyrefuted by Lenin and discredited l<strong>on</strong>g ago. But in Khrushchov’seyes, the parliamentary road seems suddenly <strong>to</strong> haveacquired validity after World War II.Is this true? Of course not.1J. F. Dulles, Address at the 41st Annual C<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> KiwanisInternati<strong>on</strong>al, June 21, 1956.2J. F. Dulles, Speech at the Annual Lunche<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the AssociatedPress <strong>on</strong> April 22, 1957, New York Times, April 23, 1957.388
Events since World War II have dem<strong>on</strong>strated yet again thatthe chief comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois state machine is armedforce and not parliament. Parliament is <strong>on</strong>ly an ornamentand a screen for bourgeois rule. To adopt or discard the parliamentarysystem, <strong>to</strong> grant parliament greater or less power,<strong>to</strong> adopt <strong>on</strong>e kind <strong>of</strong> elec<strong>to</strong>ral law or another — the choicebetween these alternatives is always dictated by the needs andinterests <strong>of</strong> bourgeois rule. So l<strong>on</strong>g as the bourgeoisie c<strong>on</strong>trolsthe military-bureaucratic apparatus, either the acquisiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>a “stable majority in parliament” by the proletariat throughelecti<strong>on</strong>s is impossible, or this “stable majority” is undependable.To realize socialism through the “parliamentary road”is utterly impossible and is mere deceptive talk.About half the Communist Parties in the capitalist countriesare still illegal. Since these Parties have no legal status, thewinning <strong>of</strong> a parliamentary majority is, <strong>of</strong> course, out <strong>of</strong> thequesti<strong>on</strong>.For example, the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Spain lives underWhite terror and has no opportunity <strong>to</strong> run in electi<strong>on</strong>s. It ispathetic and tragic that Spanish Communist leaders like Ibarrurishould follow Khrushchov in advocating “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”in Spain.With all the unfair restricti<strong>on</strong>s imposed by bourgeois elec<strong>to</strong>rallaws in those capitalist countries where CommunistParties are legal and can take part in electi<strong>on</strong>s, it is very difficultfor them <strong>to</strong> win a majority <strong>of</strong> the votes under bourgeoisrule. And even if they get a majority <strong>of</strong> the votes, the bourgeoisiecan prevent them from obtaining a majority <strong>of</strong> the seatsin parliament by revising the elec<strong>to</strong>ral laws or by other means.For example, since World War II, the French m<strong>on</strong>opolycapitalists have twice revised the elec<strong>to</strong>ral law, in each casebringing about a sharp fall in the parliamentary seats held bythe Communist Party <strong>of</strong> France. In the parliamentary electi<strong>on</strong>in 1946, the CPF gained 182 seats. But in the electi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1951,the revisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the elec<strong>to</strong>ral law by the m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalistsresulted in a sharp reducti<strong>on</strong> in the number <strong>of</strong> CPF seats <strong>to</strong>389
103, that is, there was a loss <strong>of</strong> 79 seats. In the 1956 electi<strong>on</strong>,the CPF gained 150 seats. But before the parliamentaryelecti<strong>on</strong> in 1958, the m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalists again revised theelec<strong>to</strong>ral law with the result that the number <strong>of</strong> seats held bythe CPF fell very drastically <strong>to</strong> 10, that is, it lost 140 seats.Even if in certain circumstances a Communist Party shouldwin a majority <strong>of</strong> the seats in parliament or participate in thegovernment as a result <strong>of</strong> an elec<strong>to</strong>ral vic<strong>to</strong>ry, it would notchange the bourgeois nature <strong>of</strong> parliament or government,still less would it mean the smashing <strong>of</strong> the old and the establishment<strong>of</strong> a new state machine. It is absolutely impossible<strong>to</strong> bring about a fundamental social change by relying <strong>on</strong>bourgeois parliaments or governments. With the state machineunder its c<strong>on</strong>trol the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary bourgeoisie can nullifyelecti<strong>on</strong>s, dissolve parliament, expel Communists from thegovernment, outlaw the Communist Party and resort <strong>to</strong> bruteforce <strong>to</strong> suppress the masses and the progressive forces.For instance, in 1946 the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Chile supportedthe bourgeois Radical Party in winning an elec<strong>to</strong>ralvic<strong>to</strong>ry, and a coaliti<strong>on</strong> government was formed with the participati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Communists. At the time, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theChilean Communist Party went so far as <strong>to</strong> describe thisbourgeois-c<strong>on</strong>trolled government as a “people’s democraticgovernment”. But in less than a year the bourgeoisie compelledthem <strong>to</strong> quit the government, carried out mass arrests<strong>of</strong> Communists and in 1948 outlawed the Communist Party.When a workers’ party degenerates and becomes a hireling<strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie, the latter may permit it <strong>to</strong> have a majorityin parliament and <strong>to</strong> form a government. This is the casewith the bourgeois social democratic parties in certain countries.But this sort <strong>of</strong> thing <strong>on</strong>ly serves <strong>to</strong> safeguard and c<strong>on</strong>solidatethe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie; it does not, andcannot, in the least alter the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletariat as anoppressed and exploited class. Such facts <strong>on</strong>ly add testim<strong>on</strong>y<strong>to</strong> the bankruptcy <strong>of</strong> the parliamentary road.390
Events since World War II have also shown that if Communistleaders believe in the parliamentary road and fall victim<strong>to</strong> the incurable disease <strong>of</strong> “parliamentary cretinism”, they willnot <strong>on</strong>ly get nowhere but will inevitably sink in<strong>to</strong> the quagmire<strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and ruin the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> theproletariat.There has always been a fundamental difference between<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand and opportunists andrevisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>on</strong> the other <strong>on</strong> the proper attitude <strong>to</strong> adopt <strong>to</strong>wardsbourgeois parliaments.<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists have always held that under certain c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sthe proletarian party should take part in parliamentarystruggle and utilize the platform <strong>of</strong> parliament for exposingthe reacti<strong>on</strong>ary nature <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie, educating the massesand helping <strong>to</strong> accumulate revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strength. It iswr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> refuse <strong>to</strong> utilize this legal form <strong>of</strong> struggle whennecessary. But the proletarian party must never substituteparliamentary struggle for proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> or entertainthe illusi<strong>on</strong> that the transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism can be achievedthrough the parliamentary road. It must at all times c<strong>on</strong>centrate<strong>on</strong> mass struggles.Lenin said:The party <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary proletariat must take partin bourgeois parliamentarism in order <strong>to</strong> enlighten themasses, which can be d<strong>on</strong>e during electi<strong>on</strong>s and in thestruggle between parties in parliament. But <strong>to</strong> limit theclass struggle <strong>to</strong> the parliamentary struggle, or <strong>to</strong> regard thelatter as the highest and decisive form, <strong>to</strong> which all the otherforms <strong>of</strong> struggle are subordinate, means actually deserting<strong>to</strong> the side <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie and going against the proletariat.1He denounced the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>alfor chasing the shadow <strong>of</strong> parliamentarism and for aband<strong>on</strong>ing1V. I. Lenin, The C<strong>on</strong>stituent Assembly Electi<strong>on</strong>s and the Dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the Proletariat, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, p. 36.391
the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary task <strong>of</strong> seizing state power. They c<strong>on</strong>vertedthe proletarian party in<strong>to</strong> an elec<strong>to</strong>ral party, a parliamentaryparty, an appendage <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie and an instrument forpreserving the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie. In advocatingthe parliamentary road, Khrushchov and his followers can<strong>on</strong>ly meet with the same fate as that <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> theSec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al.REFUTATION OF “OPPOSITION TO LEFT OPPORTUNISM”The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUfabricates a tissue <strong>of</strong> lies in its treatment <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>. It asserts that the Chinese CommunistParty favours “advancing the slogan <strong>of</strong> immediate proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong>” even in the absence <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong>,that it stands for aband<strong>on</strong>ing “the struggle for the democraticrights and vital interests <strong>of</strong> the working people in capitalistcountries”, 1 that it makes armed struggle “absolute”, 2 and so<strong>on</strong>. They frequently pin such labels as “Left opportunism”,“Left adventurism” and “Trotskyism” <strong>on</strong> the Chinese CommunistParty.The truth is that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU are making thishullabaloo in order <strong>to</strong> cover up their revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line whichopposes and repudiates revoluti<strong>on</strong>. What they are attackingas “Left opportunism” is in fact nothing but the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line.We have always maintained that a revoluti<strong>on</strong> cannot be madeat will and is impossible unless a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong> objectivelyexists. But the outbreak and the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>depend not <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong>1Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> All Party Organizati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> All Communists <strong>of</strong> theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, July 14, 1963.2“<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism — the Basis <strong>of</strong> Unity <strong>of</strong> the Communist Movement”,edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 15, 1963.392
ut also <strong>on</strong> the preparati<strong>on</strong>s and efforts made by the subjectiverevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary forces.It is “Left” adventurism if the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariatdoes not accurately appraise both the objective c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sand subjective forces making for revoluti<strong>on</strong> and if itrashly launches a revoluti<strong>on</strong> before the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s areripe. But it is Right opportunism, or revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, if the proletarianparty makes no active preparati<strong>on</strong>s for revoluti<strong>on</strong> beforethe c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s are ripe, or dare not lead a revoluti<strong>on</strong> andseize state power when a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong> exists and thec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s are ripe.Until the time arrives for seizing state power, the fundamentaland most important task for the proletarian party is <strong>to</strong>c<strong>on</strong>centrate <strong>on</strong> the painstaking work <strong>of</strong> accumulating revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystrength. The active leadership given in day-<strong>to</strong>-daystruggle must have as its central aim the building up <strong>of</strong>revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strength and the preparati<strong>on</strong>s for seizing vic<strong>to</strong>ryin the revoluti<strong>on</strong> when the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s are ripe. The proletarianparty should use the various forms <strong>of</strong> day-<strong>to</strong>-daystruggle <strong>to</strong> raise the political c<strong>on</strong>sciousness <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand the masses <strong>of</strong> the people, <strong>to</strong> train its own class forces, <strong>to</strong>temper its fighting capacity and <strong>to</strong> prepare for revoluti<strong>on</strong>ideologically, politically, organizati<strong>on</strong>ally and militarily. It is<strong>on</strong>ly in this way that it will not miss the opportunity <strong>of</strong> seizingvic<strong>to</strong>ry when the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for revoluti<strong>on</strong> are ripe. Otherwise,the proletarian party will simply let the opportunity <strong>of</strong>making revoluti<strong>on</strong> slip by even when a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong>objectively exists.While tirelessly stressing that no revoluti<strong>on</strong> should be madein the absence <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong>, the leaders <strong>of</strong> theCPSU avoid the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> how the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariatshould c<strong>on</strong>duct day-<strong>to</strong>day revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle and accumulaterevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strength before there is a revoluti<strong>on</strong>arysituati<strong>on</strong>. In reality, they are renouncing the task <strong>of</strong> buildingup revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strength and preparing for revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> thepretext <strong>of</strong> the absence <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong>.393
Lenin <strong>on</strong>ce gave an excellent descripti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the renegadeKautsky’s attitude <strong>to</strong>wards the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>arysituati<strong>on</strong>. He said <strong>of</strong> Kautsky that if the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary crisishas arrived, “then he <strong>to</strong>o is prepared <strong>to</strong> become a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary!But then, let us observe, every blackguard . . .would proclaim himself a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary!” “If it has not, thenKautsky will turn his back <strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>!” As Lenin pointedout, Kautsky was like a typical philistine, and the differencebetween a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>Marx</strong>ist and a philistine is that the<strong>Marx</strong>ist has the courage “<strong>to</strong> prepare the proletariat and all the<strong>to</strong>iling and exploited masses for it [revoluti<strong>on</strong>]”. 1 People canjudge for themselves whether or not Khrushchov and hisfollowers resemble the Kautsky type <strong>of</strong> philistine denouncedby Lenin.We have always held that the proletarian parties in the capitalistcountries must actively lead the working class and theworking people in struggles <strong>to</strong> oppose m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital,<strong>to</strong> defend democratic rights, <strong>to</strong> improve living c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong>oppose imperialist arms expansi<strong>on</strong> and war preparati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong>defend world peace and <strong>to</strong> give vigorous support <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s.In the capitalist countries which are subject <strong>to</strong> bullying,c<strong>on</strong>trol, interventi<strong>on</strong> and aggressi<strong>on</strong> by U.S. imperialism, theproletarian parties should raise the nati<strong>on</strong>al banner <strong>of</strong> oppositi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> U.S. imperialism and direct the edge <strong>of</strong> the massstruggle mainly against U.S. imperialism as well as againstm<strong>on</strong>opoly capital and other reacti<strong>on</strong>ary forces at home whichare betraying the nati<strong>on</strong>al interests. They should unite allthe forces that can be united and form a united fr<strong>on</strong>t againstU.S. imperialism and its lackeys.In recent years the working class and the working people inmany capitalist countries have been waging broad mass struggleswhich not <strong>on</strong>ly hit m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital and other reacti<strong>on</strong>aryforces at home, but render powerful support <strong>to</strong> the revolu-1V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Renegade Kautsky”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 103.394
ti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the Asian, African and Latin Americanpeoples and <strong>to</strong> the countries <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp. We havealways fully appreciated this c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>.While actively leading immediate struggles, Communistsshould link them with the struggle for l<strong>on</strong>g-range and generalinterests, educate the masses in a proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryspirit, ceaselessly raise their political c<strong>on</strong>sciousness and accumulaterevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary strength in order <strong>to</strong> seize vic<strong>to</strong>ry inrevoluti<strong>on</strong> when the time is opportune. Our view is in fullaccord with <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.In oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the views <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, the leaders<strong>of</strong> the CPSU spread the noti<strong>on</strong> that “in the highly-developedcapitalist countries, democratic and socialist tasks are so closelyintertwined that there, least <strong>of</strong> all, is it possible <strong>to</strong> draw anysort <strong>of</strong> lines <strong>of</strong> demarcati<strong>on</strong>. 1 This is <strong>to</strong> substitute immediatefor l<strong>on</strong>g-range struggles and reformism for proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong>.Lenin said that “no reform can be durable, genuine andserious if it is not supported by the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary methods <strong>of</strong>struggle <strong>of</strong> the masses”. A workers’ party that “does notcombine this struggle for reforms with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymethods <strong>of</strong> the workers’ movement may be transformed in<strong>to</strong>a sect, and may become <strong>to</strong>rn away from the masses, and . . .this is the most serious threat <strong>to</strong> the success <strong>of</strong> genuine revolui<strong>on</strong>ary socialism”. 2He said that “every democratic demand . . . is, for the classc<strong>on</strong>scious workers, subordinated <strong>to</strong> the higher interests <strong>of</strong>socialism”. 3 Further, in The State and Revoluti<strong>on</strong> Leninquoted Engels as follows. The forgetfulness <strong>of</strong> the great mainstandpoint in the momentary interests <strong>of</strong> the day, the strug-1A. Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, “Lenin’s Theory <strong>of</strong> Socialist Revoluti<strong>on</strong>and the Present Day”, Kommunist, Moscow, No. 13, 1960.2V. I. Lenin, “To the Secretary <strong>of</strong> the ‘Socialist PropagandaLeague’ ”, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXI, p. 389.3V. I. Lenin, “A Caricature <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism and ‘Imperialist Ec<strong>on</strong>omism’”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York,1943, Vol. V, p. 392.395
gling and striving for the success <strong>of</strong> the moment withoutc<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> for the later c<strong>on</strong>sequences, the sacrifice <strong>of</strong> thefuture <strong>of</strong> the movement for its present was opportunism, anddangerous opportunism at that.It was precisely <strong>on</strong> this ground that Lenin criticized Kautskyfor “praising reformism and submissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the imperialistbourgeoisie, and blaming and renouncing revoluti<strong>on</strong>”. 1 Hesaid that “the proletariat fights for the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary overthrow<strong>of</strong> the imperialist bourgeoisie”, while Kautsky “fightsfor the reformist ‘improvement’ <strong>of</strong> imperialism, for adaptati<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> it, while submitting <strong>to</strong> it”. 2Lenin’s criticism <strong>of</strong> Kautsky is an apt portrayal <strong>of</strong> thepresent leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.We have always held that in order <strong>to</strong> lead the working classand the masses <strong>of</strong> the people in revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the party <strong>of</strong> theproletariat must master all forms <strong>of</strong> struggle and be able <strong>to</strong>combine different forms, swiftly substituting <strong>on</strong>e form foranother as the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> struggle change. It will be invinciblein all circumstances <strong>on</strong>ly if it masters all forms <strong>of</strong>struggle, such as peaceful and armed, open and secret, legaland illegal, parliamentary and mass struggle, as well as bothdomestic and internati<strong>on</strong>al struggle.The vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Chinese revoluti<strong>on</strong> was precisely theresult <strong>of</strong> the skilful and thorough mastery <strong>of</strong> all forms <strong>of</strong>struggle — in keeping with the specific characteristics <strong>of</strong> theChinese revoluti<strong>on</strong> — by the Communists <strong>of</strong> China who learnedfrom the his<strong>to</strong>rical experience <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al proletarianstruggle. Armed struggle was the chief form in the Chineserevoluti<strong>on</strong>, but the revoluti<strong>on</strong> could not have been vic<strong>to</strong>riouswithout the use <strong>of</strong> other forms <strong>of</strong> struggle.In the course <strong>of</strong> the Chinese revoluti<strong>on</strong> the Chinese CommunistParty fought <strong>on</strong> two fr<strong>on</strong>ts. It fought both the Right,1V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the RenegadeKautsky”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II,Part 2, p. 95.2Ibid.396
deviati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> legalism and the “Left” illegalist deviati<strong>on</strong>, andproperly combined legal with illegal struggle. In the countryas a whole, it correctly combined struggle in the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arybase areas with struggle in the Kuomintang areas, while in theKuomintang areas it correctly combined open and secret work,made full use <strong>of</strong> legal opportunities and kept strictly <strong>to</strong> Partyrules governing secret work. The Chinese revoluti<strong>on</strong> hasbrought forth a complexity and variety <strong>of</strong> forms <strong>of</strong> strugglesuited <strong>to</strong> its own specific c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s.<strong>From</strong> its l<strong>on</strong>g practical experience, the Chinese CommunistParty is fully aware that it is wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> reject legal struggle,<strong>to</strong> restrict the Party’s work within narrow c<strong>on</strong>fines and thereby<strong>to</strong> alienate itself from the masses. But <strong>on</strong>e should never<strong>to</strong>lerate the legalism peddled by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists. The revisi<strong>on</strong>istsreject armed struggle and all other illegal struggle,engage <strong>on</strong>ly in legal struggle and activity and c<strong>on</strong>fine theParty’s activities and mass struggles within the frameworkallowed by the ruling classes. They debase and even discardthe Party’s basic programme, renounce revoluti<strong>on</strong> and adaptthemselves solely <strong>to</strong> reacti<strong>on</strong>ary systems <strong>of</strong> law.As Lenin rightly pointed out in his criticism, revisi<strong>on</strong>istssuch as Kautsky were degraded and dulled by bourgeoislegality. “For a mess <strong>of</strong> pottage given <strong>to</strong> the organizati<strong>on</strong>s thatare recognized by the present police law, the proletarian right<strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> was sold.” 1While the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and their followers talk aboutthe use <strong>of</strong> all forms <strong>of</strong> struggle, in reality they stand forlegalism and discard the objective <strong>of</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> changing forms <strong>of</strong> struggle. This is againsubstituting Kautskyism for Leninism.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>of</strong>ten make use <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s greatwork, “ ‘Left-Wing’ Communism — an Infantile Disorder”, <strong>to</strong>1V. I. Lenin, “The Collapse <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. XVIII,p. 314.397
justify their err<strong>on</strong>eous line and have made it a “basis” for theirattacks <strong>on</strong> the Chinese Communist Party.This is <strong>of</strong> course futile. Like all his other works, this book<strong>of</strong> Lenin’s can <strong>on</strong>ly serve as a weap<strong>on</strong> for <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists inthe fight against various kinds <strong>of</strong> opportunism and can neverserve as an instrument <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ist apologetics.When Lenin criticized the “Left-wing” infantile disorderand asked the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat <strong>to</strong> be skilful in applyingrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary tactics and <strong>to</strong> do better in preparing for revoluti<strong>on</strong>s,he had already broken with the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al and had founded the Third Internati<strong>on</strong>al.Indeed, in “ ‘Left-Wing’ Communism — an Infantile Disorder”,he stated that the main enemy <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-classmovement at the time was Kautsky’s type <strong>of</strong> opportunism.He repeatedly stressed that unless a break was madewith revisi<strong>on</strong>ism there could be no talk <strong>of</strong> how <strong>to</strong> master revoluti<strong>on</strong>arytactics.Those comrades whom Lenin criticized for their “Left-wing”infantile disorder all wanted revoluti<strong>on</strong>, while the latter-dayrevisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov is against it, has therefore <strong>to</strong> be includedin the same category as Kautsky and has no rightwhatsoever <strong>to</strong> speak <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> combating the “Leftwing”infantile disorder.It is most absurd for the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU <strong>to</strong> pin thelabel <strong>of</strong> “Trotskyism” <strong>on</strong> the Chinese Communist Party. Infact, it is Khrushchov himself who has succeeded <strong>to</strong> the mantle<strong>of</strong> Trotskyism and who stands with the Trotskyites <strong>of</strong> <strong>to</strong>day.Trotskyism manifests itself in different ways <strong>on</strong> differentquesti<strong>on</strong>s and <strong>of</strong>ten wears the mask <strong>of</strong> “ultra-Leftism”, but itsessence is oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>, repudiati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>.As far as the fundamental fact <strong>of</strong> their oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> theproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatis c<strong>on</strong>cerned, Trotskyism and the revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al are virtually the same. This is why Stalinrepeatedly said that Trotskyism is a variety <strong>of</strong> Menshevism, is398
Kautskyism and social democracy, and is the advanced detachment<strong>of</strong> the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary bourgeoisie.In its essence, the present-day revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>of</strong> Khrushchovalso opposes and repudiates revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Therefore, the <strong>on</strong>lylogical c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> is that Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is not <strong>on</strong>lycut from the same cloth as Kautskyism, but also c<strong>on</strong>vergeswith Trotskyism <strong>to</strong> oppose revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Khrushchov had betterpin the label <strong>of</strong> Trotskyism <strong>on</strong> himself.TWO DIFFERENT LINES, TWO DIFFERENT RESULTSHis<strong>to</strong>ry is the most telling witness. Rich experience hasbeen gained since World War II both in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement and in the peoples’ revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles.There has been successful as well as unsuccessful experience.Communists and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> all countries need<strong>to</strong> draw the right c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s from this his<strong>to</strong>rical experience.The countries in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin Americawhich have succeeded in making a socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> sincethe War have d<strong>on</strong>e so by following the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line and the road <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Now,in additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the experience <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, thereis the experience <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> China, the socialistcountries in Eastern Europe, Korea, Viet Nam and Cuba. Thevic<strong>to</strong>rious revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in these countries have enriched and developed<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the experience <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong>.<strong>From</strong> China <strong>to</strong> Cuba, all these revoluti<strong>on</strong>s without excepti<strong>on</strong>were w<strong>on</strong> by armed struggle and by fighting against armed imperialistaggressi<strong>on</strong> and interventi<strong>on</strong>.The Chinese people were vic<strong>to</strong>rious in their revoluti<strong>on</strong> afterwaging revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary wars for twenty-two years, includingthe three years <strong>of</strong> the People’s Liberati<strong>on</strong> War, in which theythoroughly defeated the Chiang Kai-shek reacti<strong>on</strong>aries whowere backed up <strong>to</strong> the hilt by U.S. imperialism.399
The Korean people carried <strong>on</strong> fifteen years <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryarmed struggle against Japanese imperialism beginning in the1930’s, built up and expanded their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary armed forces,and finally achieved vic<strong>to</strong>ry with the help <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Army.After the founding <strong>of</strong> the Democratic People’s Republic <strong>of</strong>Korea, it <strong>to</strong>ok another three years <strong>of</strong> war against U.S. imperialistarmed aggressi<strong>on</strong> before the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> their revoluti<strong>on</strong>could be c<strong>on</strong>solidated.The Vietnamese people seized state power by the armeduprising <strong>of</strong> August 1945. Immediately afterwards, they had<strong>to</strong> begin fighting a war <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> lasting eightyears against French imperialism and <strong>to</strong> defeat the U.S. imperialistmilitary interventi<strong>on</strong>, and <strong>on</strong>ly then did they triumphin northern Viet Nam. The people <strong>of</strong> southern Viet Nam arestill waging a heroic struggle against U.S. imperialist armedaggressi<strong>on</strong>.The Cuban people started their armed uprising in 1953, andlater it <strong>to</strong>ok more than two years <strong>of</strong> people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary warbefore they overthrew the rule <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism and itsCuban puppet, Batista. After their vic<strong>to</strong>rious revoluti<strong>on</strong>, theCuban people smashed armed invasi<strong>on</strong>s by U.S. imperialistmercenaries and safeguarded the fruits <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>.The other socialist countries <strong>to</strong>o were all established througharmed struggle.What are the main less<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the successful proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>sin the countries extending from China <strong>to</strong> Cuba afterWorld War II?1. Violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> is a universal law <strong>of</strong> proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>.To realize the transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism, the proletariatmust wage armed struggle, smash the old state machine andestablish the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.2. The peasants are the most dependable allies <strong>of</strong> theproletariat. The proletariat must closely rely <strong>on</strong> the peasants,establish a broad united fr<strong>on</strong>t based <strong>on</strong> the worker-peasantalliance, and insist up<strong>on</strong> proletarian leadership in the revoluti<strong>on</strong>.400
3. U.S. imperialism is the arch enemy <strong>of</strong> people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>in all countries. The proletariat must hold high the nati<strong>on</strong>albanner <strong>of</strong> oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> U.S. imperialism and have thecourage <strong>to</strong> fight with firm resolve against the U.S. imperialistsand their lackeys in its own country.4. The revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s is an indispensableally <strong>of</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>. The workers <strong>of</strong>all countries must unite, and they must unite with all the oppressednati<strong>on</strong>s and all the forces opposed <strong>to</strong> imperialism andits lackeys <strong>to</strong> form a broad internati<strong>on</strong>al united fr<strong>on</strong>t.5. To make a revoluti<strong>on</strong>, it is essential <strong>to</strong> have a revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryparty. The triumph <strong>of</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> andthe triumph <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat are impossiblewithout a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary proletarian party established inaccordance with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theory and style <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, a party which is irrec<strong>on</strong>cilable <strong>to</strong>wards revisi<strong>on</strong>ismand opportunism and which takes a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary attitude<strong>to</strong>wards the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary ruling classes and their state power.To insist <strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary armed struggle is <strong>of</strong> primary importancenot <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> but also <strong>to</strong> thenati<strong>on</strong>al-democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s. Thevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Algerian nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> war has set a goodexample in this respect.The whole his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the proletarian parties since the Warhas shown that those parties which have followed the line <strong>of</strong>revoluti<strong>on</strong>, adopted the correct strategy and tactics and activelyled the masses in revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle are able <strong>to</strong> lead therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause forward step by step <strong>to</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry and growvigorously in strength. C<strong>on</strong>versely, all those parties which haveadopted a n<strong>on</strong>-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary opportunist line and acceptedKhrushchov’s line <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>” are doing seriousdamage <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause and turning themselves in<strong>to</strong>lifeless and reformist parties, or becoming completely degenerateand serving as <strong>to</strong>ols <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.There is no lack <strong>of</strong> such instances.401
The comrades <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Iraq were <strong>on</strong>ce full<strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary ardour. But acceptance <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>istline was forced <strong>on</strong> them by outside pressure, and theylost their vigilance against counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>. In the armedcounter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary coup d’état, leading comrades heroicallysacrificed their lives. thousands <strong>of</strong> Iraqi Communists and revoluti<strong>on</strong>arieswere massacred in cold blood, the powerful IraqiCommunist Party was dispersed, and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause<strong>of</strong> Iraq suffered a grave setback. This is a tragic less<strong>on</strong> in theannals <strong>of</strong> proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, a less<strong>on</strong> written in blood.The leaders <strong>of</strong> the Algerian Communist Party danced <strong>to</strong> thebat<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov and <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the French CommunistParty and completely accepted the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist lineagainst armed struggle. But the Algerian people refused <strong>to</strong>listen <strong>to</strong> this rubbish. They courageously fought for nati<strong>on</strong>alindependence against imperialism, waged a war <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong> for over seven years and finally compelled theFrench Government <strong>to</strong> recognize Algeria’s independence. Butthe Algerian Communist Party, which followed the revisi<strong>on</strong>istline <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, forfeited the c<strong>on</strong>fidence <strong>of</strong>the Algerian people and its positi<strong>on</strong> in Algerian political life.During the Cuban revoluti<strong>on</strong>, some leaders <strong>of</strong> the PopularSocialist Party refused <strong>to</strong> pursue the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line, the correct line <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary armed struggle,but, following Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line, advocated “peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>” and opposed violent revoluti<strong>on</strong>. In thesecircumstances, <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists outside and inside the CubanParty, represented by Comrade Fidel Castro, rightly bypassedthose leaders who opposed violent revoluti<strong>on</strong>, joined hands andmade revoluti<strong>on</strong> with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Cuban people, andfinally w<strong>on</strong> a vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> great his<strong>to</strong>ric significance.Certain leaders <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> France <strong>of</strong> whomThorez is representative have l<strong>on</strong>g been pursuing a revisi<strong>on</strong>istline, have publicized the “parliamentary road” in resp<strong>on</strong>se <strong>to</strong>Khrushchov’s bat<strong>on</strong>, and have actually reduced the CommunistParty <strong>to</strong> the level <strong>of</strong> a social democratic party. They have402
ceased <strong>to</strong> give active support <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary aspirati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the people and rolled up the nati<strong>on</strong>al banner <strong>of</strong> oppositi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> U.S. imperialism. The result <strong>of</strong> their pursuit <strong>of</strong> this revisi<strong>on</strong>istline is that the Communist Party, which <strong>on</strong>ce had greatinfluence am<strong>on</strong>g the people, has become increasingly isolatedfrom the masses and has deteriorated more and more.Certain leaders <strong>of</strong> the Indian Communist Party, typified byDange, have l<strong>on</strong>g pursued a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line, hauled down thebanner <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> and failed <strong>to</strong> lead the masses in nati<strong>on</strong>aland democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles. The Dange clique hasslid farther and farther down the path <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and degeneratedin<strong>to</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al chauvinists, in<strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>ols <strong>of</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>arypolicies <strong>of</strong> India’s big landlords and big bourgeoisie, andin<strong>to</strong> renegades from the proletariat.The record shows that the two fundamentally different lineslead <strong>to</strong> two fundamentally different results. All these less<strong>on</strong>smerit close study.FROM BROWDER AND TITO TO KHRUSHCHOVKhrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism has deep his<strong>to</strong>rical and socialroots and bears the imprint <strong>of</strong> the times. As Lenin said, “opportunismis no accident, no sin, no slip, no betrayal <strong>on</strong> thepart <strong>of</strong> individual pers<strong>on</strong>s, but the social product <strong>of</strong> a wholehis<strong>to</strong>rical epoch”. 1While making great progress since World War II, the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement has produced its antithesiswithin its own ranks — an adverse current <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism whichis opposed <strong>to</strong> socialism, <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>.This adverse current was chiefly represented firstby Browder, later by Ti<strong>to</strong> and now by Khrushchov. Khru-1V. I. Lenin, “The Collapse <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol.XVIII, p. 310.403
shchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is nothing but the c<strong>on</strong>tinuati<strong>on</strong> and development<strong>of</strong> Browderism and Ti<strong>to</strong>ism.Browder began <strong>to</strong> reveal his revisi<strong>on</strong>ism around 1935. Heworshipped bourgeois democracy, aband<strong>on</strong>ed making the necessarycriticisms <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois government and regardedthe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie as a fine thing for Communists,his slogan being “Communism Is Twentieth CenturyAmericanism”. 1With the formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al and domestic antifascistunited fr<strong>on</strong>ts during World War II, he became obsessedwith bourgeois “democracy”, “progress” and “reas<strong>on</strong>”, prostratedhimself before the bourgeoisie and degenerated in<strong>to</strong> anout-and-out capitulati<strong>on</strong>ist.Browder propagated a whole set <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ist views whichembellished the bourgeoisie and opposed and negated revoluti<strong>on</strong>.He declared that the Teheran Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>, the United States and Britain ushered in an epoch <strong>of</strong>“l<strong>on</strong>g-term c<strong>on</strong>fidence and collaborati<strong>on</strong>” between capitalismand socialism and was capable <strong>of</strong> guaranteeing “a stable peacefor generati<strong>on</strong>s”. 2He spread the noti<strong>on</strong> that the internati<strong>on</strong>al agreements <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, the United States and Britain represented“the most vital interests <strong>of</strong> every nati<strong>on</strong> and every people inthe world without excepti<strong>on</strong>” 3 and that the perspective <strong>of</strong> innerchaos “is incompatible with the perspective <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alorder”. Therefore, it was necessary <strong>to</strong> oppose “an explosi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> class c<strong>on</strong>flict” within the country and “<strong>to</strong> minimize, and<strong>to</strong> place definite limits up<strong>on</strong>” internal class struggled. 41Cited in William Foster’s His<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> theUnited States, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1952, p. 337.2Earl Browder, Teheran, Our Path in War and Peace, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>alPublishers, New York, 1944, pp. 23 and 27.3Ibid., p. 31.4Earl Browder, Teheran and America, Eng. ed., Workers LibraryPublishers, New York, 1944, pp. 17 and 28.404
He spread the view that a new war would be “a real catastrophicsmash-up <strong>of</strong> a large part <strong>of</strong> the world” and “maythrow . . . most <strong>of</strong> the world back in<strong>to</strong> barbarism for 50 or 100years”, and that the “emphasis up<strong>on</strong> agreement that transcendsall class divisi<strong>on</strong>s” 1 was necessary in order <strong>to</strong> wipe out the disaster<strong>of</strong> war.He advocated relying “entirely up<strong>on</strong> democratic persuasi<strong>on</strong>and c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>” 2 <strong>to</strong> realize socialism, and declared that afterWorld War II certain countries “have gained the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s inwhich a peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism has become possible”. 3He negated the independent role <strong>of</strong> the proletarian parties,saying that “the practical political aims they [the Communists]hold will for a l<strong>on</strong>g time be in agreement <strong>on</strong> all essential pointswith the aims <strong>of</strong> a much larger body <strong>of</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-Communists”. 4Guided by these ideas, he dissolved the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>the U.S.A.For a time, Browder’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism led the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arycause <strong>of</strong> the American proletariat <strong>to</strong> the brink <strong>of</strong> the precipice,and it c<strong>on</strong>taminated the proletarian parties <strong>of</strong> other countrieswith the pois<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> liquidati<strong>on</strong>ism.Browder’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line was opposed by many AmericanCommunists headed by Comrade William Z. Foster and wasrejected and repudiated by many fraternal Parties. However,the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist trend represented by Browderism was not thoroughlycriticized and liquidated by the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement as a whole. In the new circumstances afterthe War, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist trend developed anew am<strong>on</strong>g the Communistranks in certain countries.1Earl Browder, Communists and Nati<strong>on</strong>al Unity, Eng. ed., WorkersLibrary Publishers, New York, 1944, pp. 9-10.2Earl Browder, The Road <strong>to</strong> Vic<strong>to</strong>ry, Eng. ed., Workers LibraryPublishers, New York, 1941, p. 22.3Earl Browder, World Communism and U.S. Foreign Policy, Eng. ed.,published by the Author, New York City, 1948, p. 19.4Earl Browder, Teheran, Our Path in War and Peace, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>alPublishers, New York, 1944, p. 117.405
In the capitalist countries, the growth <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>isttrend first manifested itself in the fact that the leaders <strong>of</strong>certain Communist Parties aband<strong>on</strong>ed the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line and embraced the line <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>.This line is clearly typified in Togliatti’s theory <strong>of</strong>structural reform, which advocates the proletariat’s attainment<strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the state through the legal channels <strong>of</strong>bourgeois democracy and the socialist transformati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thenati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omy through such nati<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong> and planningas serve m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital. According <strong>to</strong> this line, it is possible<strong>to</strong> establish new socialist relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> andmake the transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism without smashing the bourgeoisstate machine. In practice, this amounts <strong>to</strong> making communismdegenerate in<strong>to</strong> social democracy.In the socialist countries, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist trend first appearedin Yugoslavia. Capitulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> U.S. imperialism is an importantcharacteristic <strong>of</strong> Ti<strong>to</strong>ite revisi<strong>on</strong>ism. The Ti<strong>to</strong> clique havesold themselves body and soul <strong>to</strong> U.S. imperialism; they havenot <strong>on</strong>ly res<strong>to</strong>red capitalism in Yugoslavia, but have become animperialist instrument for undermining the socialist camp andthe internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement and are playing therole <strong>of</strong> a special detachment <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialism for sabotagingworld revoluti<strong>on</strong>.In their efforts <strong>to</strong> serve U.S. imperialism and <strong>to</strong> oppose andabolish proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique have outspokenlyasserted that violent revoluti<strong>on</strong> has become “increasinglysuperfluous as a means <strong>of</strong> resolving social c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s” 1 andthat the “evoluti<strong>on</strong>ary process <strong>of</strong> development <strong>to</strong>ward socialism”through a bourgeois parliament “is not <strong>on</strong>ly possible buthas already become a real fact”. 2 They virtually equate capi-1Ilya Kosanović, His<strong>to</strong>rical Materialism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958,p. 352.2Edvard Kardelj, “Socialist Democracy in Yugoslav Practice”, alecture delivered before activists <strong>of</strong> the Norwegian Labour Party inOslo <strong>on</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 8, 1954.406
talism with socialism, asserting that the present-day world “asa whole has deeply ‘plunged’ in<strong>to</strong> socialism, become socialist”. 1They also say that “now the questi<strong>on</strong> — socialism or capitalismis already solved <strong>on</strong> a world scale”. 2Browderite revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, the theory <strong>of</strong> structural reform andTi<strong>to</strong>ite revisi<strong>on</strong>ism — these have been the chief manifestati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist trend since World War II.Between the 20th and the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> the CPSU,Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”, “peacefulcoexistence” and “peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>” became a completesystem. He has been hawking this stuff everywhere ashis “new creati<strong>on</strong>”. Yet it is nothing new but is merely a rehashedand meretricious combinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Browderite revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,the theory <strong>of</strong> structural reform and Ti<strong>to</strong>ite revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.In internati<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>s, Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism practisescapitulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> U.S. imperialism; in the imperialist and capitalistcountries it practises capitulati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the reacti<strong>on</strong>aryruling classes; in the socialist countries it encourages the development<strong>of</strong> capitalist forces.If Bernstein, Kautsky and the other revisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al ran in a single line and bel<strong>on</strong>ged <strong>to</strong> thesame family around the time <strong>of</strong> World War I, then the sameis true <strong>of</strong> Browder, Ti<strong>to</strong> and Khrushchov after World War II.Browder has made this point clear. He wrote in 1960,“Khrushchov has now adopted the ‘heresy’ for which I waskicked out <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party in 1945.” And he addedthat Khrushchov’s new policy “is almost word for word thesame line I advocated fifteen years ago. So my crime has become— at least for the moment — the new orthodoxy”. 31Mialko Todorović, “On the Declarati<strong>on</strong> C<strong>on</strong>cerning Relati<strong>on</strong>s Betweenthe LCY and the CPSU”, Komunist, Belgrade, Nos. 7-8, 1956.2Mirko Perović, Politicka Ek<strong>on</strong>omija, 2nd ed., Belgrade, 1958, p. 466.3Earl Browder, “How Stalin Ruined the American CommunistParty”. Harper’s Magazine, March 1960.407
Khrushchov himself has admitted that he and the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique“bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> <strong>on</strong>e and the same idea and are guided by the sametheory”. 1In the nature <strong>of</strong> the case, Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is evenmore pernicious than the revisi<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>of</strong> Bernstein, Kautsky,Browder and Ti<strong>to</strong>. Why? Because the USSR is the first socialiststate, a large country in the socialist camp and the nativeland <strong>of</strong> Leninism. The CPSU is a large party created by Leninand in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement it enjoys aprestige shaped by his<strong>to</strong>ry. Khrushchov is exploiting his positi<strong>on</strong>as the leader <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> pushthrough his revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line.He describes his revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line as a “Leninist” line andutilizes the prestige <strong>of</strong> the great Lenin and <strong>of</strong> the great BolshevikParty <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fuse and deceive people.Exploiting the inherited prestige <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and the positi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> a large party and a large country, he has been wavinghis bat<strong>on</strong> and employing all kinds <strong>of</strong> political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic anddiplomatic measures <strong>to</strong> force others <strong>to</strong> accept his revisi<strong>on</strong>istline.In line with the imperialist policy <strong>of</strong> buying over the labouraris<strong>to</strong>cracy, he is buying over certain bourgeoisified Communistsin the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement who havebetrayed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and inducing them <strong>to</strong> acclaim andserve the anti-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU.That is why all other revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, whether past or present,are dwarfed by Khrushchov.As the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957 points out, the social source <strong>of</strong>modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is surrender <strong>to</strong> external imperialist pressureand acceptance <strong>of</strong> domestic bourgeois influence.Like the old-line revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, the modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ists answer<strong>to</strong> the descripti<strong>on</strong> given by Lenin: “. . . objectively, they are1N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Corresp<strong>on</strong>dents at Bri<strong>on</strong>iin Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963.408
a political detachment <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie, . . . they are transmitters<strong>of</strong> its influence, its agents in the labour movement.” 1The ec<strong>on</strong>omic basis <strong>of</strong> the emergence <strong>of</strong> modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,like that <strong>of</strong> old-line revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, is in the words <strong>of</strong> Lenin “aninsignificant secti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the ‘<strong>to</strong>p’ <strong>of</strong> the labour movements”. 2Modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is the product <strong>of</strong> the policies <strong>of</strong> imperialismand <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital which are bothheaded by the United States. Terrified by the policy <strong>of</strong> nuclearblackmail and corrupted by the policy <strong>of</strong> buying over, the modernrevisi<strong>on</strong>ists are serving as the pawns <strong>of</strong> U.S. imperialismand its servile followers in opposing revoluti<strong>on</strong>.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov is also scared out <strong>of</strong> his wits bythe hysterical war cries <strong>of</strong> the U.S. imperialists, and he thinksthat this “Noah’s ark”, the earth, is threatened with destructi<strong>on</strong>at any moment and he has completely lost c<strong>on</strong>fidence inthe future <strong>of</strong> mankind. Proceeding from nati<strong>on</strong>al egoism, hefears that revoluti<strong>on</strong>s by the oppressed classes and nati<strong>on</strong>smight create trouble for him and implicate him. Therefore, hetries <strong>to</strong> oppose every revoluti<strong>on</strong> by all means and, as in the case<strong>of</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>go, does not scruple <strong>to</strong> take joint acti<strong>on</strong> with U.S.imperialism in stamping out a people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>. He thinksthat by so doing he can avoid risks and at the same time c<strong>on</strong>spirewith U.S. imperialism <strong>to</strong> divide the world in<strong>to</strong> spheres <strong>of</strong>influence, thus killing two birds with <strong>on</strong>e st<strong>on</strong>e. All this<strong>on</strong>ly goes <strong>to</strong> show that Khrushchov is the greatest capitulati<strong>on</strong>istin his<strong>to</strong>ry. The enforcement <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s perniciouspolicy will inevitably result in inestimable damage <strong>to</strong> the greatSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> itself.Why has Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism emerged in the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>, a socialist state with a his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> several decades?1V. I. Lenin, “The Collapse <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. XVIII,p. 310.2V. I. Lenin, “Opportunism and the Collapse <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al”,Collected Works, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, NewYork, 1930, Vol. XVIII, p. 389.409
Actually, this is not so strange. For in every socialist countrythe questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> who wins over whom — socialism or capitalism— can <strong>on</strong>ly be gradually settled over a very l<strong>on</strong>g his<strong>to</strong>ricalperiod. So l<strong>on</strong>g as there are capitalist forces and there areclasses in society, there is soil for the growth <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.Khrushchov asserts that in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> classes havebeen abolished, the danger <strong>of</strong> capitalist res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> is ruled outand the building <strong>of</strong> communism is under way. All these asserti<strong>on</strong>sare lies.In fact, as a result <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ist rule, <strong>of</strong> theOpen declarati<strong>on</strong> that the Soviet state has changed its natureand is no l<strong>on</strong>ger a dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, and <strong>of</strong> theexecuti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a whole series <strong>of</strong> err<strong>on</strong>eous domestic and foreignpolicies, the capitalist forces in Soviet society have become adeluge sweeping over all fields <strong>of</strong> life in the USSR, includingthe political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic, cultural and ideological fields. Thesocial source <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism lies precisely in thecapitalist forces which are ceaselessly spreading in the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>.Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism represents and serves these capitalistforces. Therefore, it will never bring communism <strong>to</strong>the Soviet people; <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary, it is seriously jeopardizingthe fruits <strong>of</strong> socialism and is opening the floodgates for theres<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism. This is the very road <strong>of</strong> “peacefulevoluti<strong>on</strong>” craved by U.S. imperialism.The whole his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat tellsus that peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism is impossible.However, there is already the Yugoslav precedentfor the “peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>” <strong>of</strong> socialism back in<strong>to</strong> capitalism.Now Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is leading the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>al<strong>on</strong>g this road.This is the gravest less<strong>on</strong> in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat. All <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, all revoluti<strong>on</strong>ariesand the generati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> come must under no circumstancesforget this great less<strong>on</strong>.410
OUR HOPESOnly eight years have elapsed since the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU. In this extremely short period <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry, Khrushchov’srevisi<strong>on</strong>ism has inflicted very great and grave damage <strong>on</strong> theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alproletariat.Now is the time — now it is high time — <strong>to</strong> repudiate andliquidate Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism!Here, we would give the leading comrades <strong>of</strong> the CPSU apiece <strong>of</strong> advice: Since so many opportunists and revisi<strong>on</strong>istshave been thrown <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the rubbish heap <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry, why mustyou obdurately follow their example?Here, <strong>to</strong>o, we express the hope that those leading comrades<strong>of</strong> other fraternal Parties who have committed revisi<strong>on</strong>isterrors will think this over: What have they gained by followingthe revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPSU? We understandthat, excepting those who have fallen deep in<strong>to</strong> therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist quagmire, quite a number <strong>of</strong> comrades have beenc<strong>on</strong>fused and deceived, or compelled <strong>to</strong> follow the wr<strong>on</strong>g path.We believe that all those who are proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>arieswill eventually choose the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line and reject theanti-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary line, will eventually choose <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and reject revisi<strong>on</strong>ism. We entertain very greathopes in this regard.Revisi<strong>on</strong>ism can never s<strong>to</strong>p the wheel <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry, the wheel<strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Revisi<strong>on</strong>ist leaders who do not make revoluti<strong>on</strong>themselves can never prevent the genuine <strong>Marx</strong>ists and therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people from rising in revoluti<strong>on</strong>. In “The ProletarianRevoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Renegade Kautsky” Lenin wrotethat when Kautsky became a renegade, the German <strong>Marx</strong>istLiebknecht could <strong>on</strong>ly express his appeal <strong>to</strong> the working classin this way — “<strong>to</strong> push aside such ‘leaders,’ <strong>to</strong> free themselvesfrom their stultifying and debasing propaganda, <strong>to</strong> rise in re-411
volt in spite <strong>of</strong> them! without them, and march over theirheads <strong>to</strong>wards revoluti<strong>on</strong>!” 1When the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al’s brand <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism prevailedin many Parties in Europe, Lenin attached great significance<strong>to</strong> the views <strong>of</strong> the French Communist Paul Golay.Golay said:Our adversaries talked loudly <strong>of</strong> the bankruptcy <strong>of</strong> Socialism.That is going a bit <strong>to</strong>o fast. Still, who would dare<strong>to</strong> assert that they are entirely wr<strong>on</strong>g? What is dying atpresent is not Socialism at all, but <strong>on</strong>e variety <strong>of</strong> socialism, asugary socialism without the spirit <strong>of</strong> idealism and withoutpassi<strong>on</strong>, with the ways <strong>of</strong> a paunchy <strong>of</strong>ficial and <strong>of</strong> a substantialpaterfamilias, a socialism without boldness or fierce enthusiasm,a devotee <strong>of</strong> statistics with its nose buried infriendly agreements with capitalism, a socialism which ispreoccupied solely with reforms and which has sold its birthrightfor a mess <strong>of</strong> pottage, a socialism which in the eyes<strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie is a throttle <strong>on</strong> the popular impatienceand an au<strong>to</strong>matic brake <strong>on</strong> proletarian audacity. 2What a superb descripti<strong>on</strong>! Lenin called it the h<strong>on</strong>est voice<strong>of</strong> a French Communist. People now ask: Is not modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ismprecisely the “variety <strong>of</strong> socialism” which is dying?They will so<strong>on</strong> hear the resounding ring <strong>of</strong> the h<strong>on</strong>est voices<strong>of</strong> innumerable Communists inside the Parties dominated byrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism.“A thousand sails pass by the shipwreck; ten thousandsaplings shoot up bey<strong>on</strong>d the withered tree.” Bogus socialismis dying, whereas scientific socialism is bursting with youthfulvigour and is advancing in bigger strides than ever. Revoluti<strong>on</strong>arysocialism with its vitality will overcome all difficultiesand obstacles and advance step by step <strong>to</strong>wards vic<strong>to</strong>ry untilit has w<strong>on</strong> the whole world.1V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Renegade Kautsky”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 105.2The Socialism Which Is Dying and the Socialism Which Must BeReborn, Lausanne, 1915.412
Let us wind up this article with the c<strong>on</strong>cluding words <strong>of</strong> theCommunist Manifes<strong>to</strong>:“The Communists disdain <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ceal their views and aims.They openly declare that their ends can be attained <strong>on</strong>ly bythe forcible overthrow <strong>of</strong> all existing social c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s. Letthe ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Theproletarians have nothing <strong>to</strong> lose but their chains. They havea world <strong>to</strong> win.“WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!”
ON KHRUSHCHOV'SPHONEY COMMUNISM ANDITS HISTORICAL LESSONSFOR THE WORLDNinth Comment <strong>on</strong> the Open Letter <strong>of</strong>the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSUby the Edi<strong>to</strong>rial Departments <strong>of</strong> Renmin Ribao(People's Daily) and H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(July 4, 1964)
HE theories <strong>of</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the dicta<strong>to</strong>r-Tship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat are the quintessence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. The questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> whether revoluti<strong>on</strong> should beupheld or opposed and whether the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatshould be upheld or opposed have always been the focus<strong>of</strong> struggle between <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and all brands <strong>of</strong>revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and are now the focus <strong>of</strong> struggle between <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists the world over and the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique.At the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchovclique developed their revisi<strong>on</strong>ism in<strong>to</strong> a complete systemnot <strong>on</strong>ly by rounding <strong>of</strong>f their anti-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theories <strong>of</strong>“peaceful coexistence”, “peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>” and “peacefultransiti<strong>on</strong>” but also by declaring that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat is no l<strong>on</strong>ger necessary in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> andadvancing the absurd theories <strong>of</strong> the “state <strong>of</strong> the wholepeople” and the “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”.The Programme put forward by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchovclique at the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU is a programme <strong>of</strong>ph<strong>on</strong>ey communism, a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist programme against proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong> and for the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat and the proletarian party.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique abolish the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat behind the camouflage <strong>of</strong> the “state <strong>of</strong> thewhole people”, change the proletarian character <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> behind the camouflage <strong>of</strong>the “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” and pave the way for theres<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism behind that <strong>of</strong> “full-scale communistc<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>”.In its Proposal C<strong>on</strong>cerning the <strong>General</strong> <strong>Line</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>alCommunist Movement dated June 14, 1963, theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China pointedout that it is most absurd in theory and extremely harmful417
in practice <strong>to</strong> substitute the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people” forthe state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the “party<strong>of</strong> the entire people” for the vanguard party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.This substituti<strong>on</strong> is a great his<strong>to</strong>rical retrogressi<strong>on</strong> whichmakes any transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> communism impossible and helps <strong>on</strong>ly<strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSUand the press <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> resort <strong>to</strong> sophistry in selfjustificati<strong>on</strong>and charge that our criticisms <strong>of</strong> the “state <strong>of</strong>the whole people” and the “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” areallegati<strong>on</strong>s “far removed from <strong>Marx</strong>ism”, “betray completeisolati<strong>on</strong> from Soviet life” and are a demand that they “return<strong>to</strong> the past”.Well, let us ascertain who is actually far removed from<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, what Soviet life is actually like and whoactually wants the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> the past.SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE DICTATORSHIPOF THE PROLETARIATWhat is the correct c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialist society? Doclasses and class struggle exist throughout the stage <strong>of</strong> socialism?Should the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat be maintainedand the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> be carried through <strong>to</strong> the end?Or should the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat be abolished soas <strong>to</strong> pave the way for capitalist res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong>? These questi<strong>on</strong>smust be answered correctly according <strong>to</strong> the basic theory<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the his<strong>to</strong>rical experience <strong>of</strong> thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.The replacement <strong>of</strong> capitalist society by socialist society isa great leap in the his<strong>to</strong>rical development <strong>of</strong> human society.Socialist society covers the important his<strong>to</strong>rical period <strong>of</strong>transiti<strong>on</strong> from class <strong>to</strong> classless society. It is by going throughsocialist society that mankind will enter communist society.418
The socialist system is incomparably superior <strong>to</strong> thecapitalist system. In socialist society, the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat replaces bourgeois dicta<strong>to</strong>rship and the publicownership <strong>of</strong> the means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> replaces private ownership.The proletariat, from being an oppressed and exploitedclass, turns in<strong>to</strong> the ruling class and a fundamental changetakes place in the social positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the working people.Exercising dicta<strong>to</strong>rship over a few exploiters <strong>on</strong>ly, the state<strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat practises the broadestdemocracy am<strong>on</strong>g the masses <strong>of</strong> the working people, ademocracy which is impossible in capitalist society. Thenati<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> industry and collectivizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> agricultureopen wide vistas for the vigorous development <strong>of</strong> the socialproductive forces, ensuring a rate <strong>of</strong> growth incomparablygreater than that in any older society.However, <strong>on</strong>e cannot but see that socialist society is asociety born out <strong>of</strong> capitalist society and is <strong>on</strong>ly the firstphase <strong>of</strong> communist society. It is not yet a fully mature communistsociety in the ec<strong>on</strong>omic and other fields. It isinevitably stamped with the birthmarks <strong>of</strong> capitalist society.When defining socialist society <strong>Marx</strong> said:What we have <strong>to</strong> deal with here is a communist society,not as it has developed <strong>on</strong> its own foundati<strong>on</strong>s, but, <strong>on</strong> thec<strong>on</strong>trary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; whichis thus in every respect, ec<strong>on</strong>omically, morally and intellectually,still stamped with the birth marks <strong>of</strong> the oldsociety from whose womb it emerges. 1Lenin also pointed out that in socialist society, which is thefirst phase <strong>of</strong> communism, “Communism cannot as yet be fullyripe ec<strong>on</strong>omically and entirely free from traditi<strong>on</strong>s or traces<strong>of</strong> capitalism”. 21Karl <strong>Marx</strong>, “Critique <strong>of</strong> the Gotha Programme”, Selected Works <strong>of</strong>Karl <strong>Marx</strong> and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow 1951, Vol. II,p. 21.2V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 302.419
In socialist society, the differences between workers andpeasants, between <strong>to</strong>wn and country, and between manualand mental labourers still remain, bourgeois rights are not yetcompletely abolished, it is not possible “at <strong>on</strong>ce <strong>to</strong> eliminatethe other injustice, which c<strong>on</strong>sists in the distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> articles<strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> ‘according <strong>to</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> labour performed’(and not according <strong>to</strong> needs)”, 1 and therefore differences inwealth still exist. The disappearance <strong>of</strong> these differences,phenomena and bourgeois rights can <strong>on</strong>ly be gradual and l<strong>on</strong>gdrawn out. As <strong>Marx</strong> said, <strong>on</strong>ly after these differences havevanished and bourgeois rights have completely disappeared,will it be possible <strong>to</strong> realize full communism with its principle,“from each according <strong>to</strong> his ability, <strong>to</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> hisneeds”.<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the practice <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>,China and other socialist countries all teach us that socialistsociety covers a very, very l<strong>on</strong>g his<strong>to</strong>rical stage. Throughoutthis stage, the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and theproletariat goes <strong>on</strong> and the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> “who will win” betweenthe roads <strong>of</strong> capitalism and socialism remains, as doesthe danger <strong>of</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism.In its Proposal C<strong>on</strong>cerning the <strong>General</strong> <strong>Line</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Internati<strong>on</strong>alCommunist Movement dated June 14, 1963, theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Communist Party states:For a very l<strong>on</strong>g his<strong>to</strong>rical period after the proletariat takespower, class struggle c<strong>on</strong>tinues as an objective law independent<strong>of</strong> man’s will, differing <strong>on</strong>ly in form from whatit was before the taking <strong>of</strong> power.After the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, Lenin pointed out a number<strong>of</strong> times that:a. The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousandand <strong>on</strong>e ways <strong>to</strong> recover the “paradise” they have beendeprived <strong>of</strong>.1Ibid., p. 296.420
. New elements <strong>of</strong> capitalism are c<strong>on</strong>stantly and sp<strong>on</strong>taneouslygenerated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere.c. Political degenerates and new bourgeois elementsmay emerge in the ranks <strong>of</strong> the working class and am<strong>on</strong>ggovernment functi<strong>on</strong>aries as a result <strong>of</strong> bourgeois influenceand the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere <strong>of</strong> thepetty bourgeoisie.d. The external c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for the c<strong>on</strong>tinuance <strong>of</strong> classstruggle within a socialist country are encirclement byinternati<strong>on</strong>al capitalism, the imperialists’ threat <strong>of</strong> armedinterventi<strong>on</strong> and their subversive activities <strong>to</strong> accomplishpeaceful disintegrati<strong>on</strong>.Life has c<strong>on</strong>firmed these c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Lenin’s.In socialist society, the overthrown bourgeoisie and otherreacti<strong>on</strong>ary classes remain str<strong>on</strong>g for quite a l<strong>on</strong>g time, andindeed in certain respects are quite powerful. They have athousand and <strong>on</strong>e links with the internati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisie.They are not rec<strong>on</strong>ciled <strong>to</strong> their defeat and stubbornly c<strong>on</strong>tinue<strong>to</strong> engage in trials <strong>of</strong> strength with the proletariat. Theyc<strong>on</strong>duct open and hidden struggles against the proletariatin every field. C<strong>on</strong>stantly parading such signboards as supportfor socialism, the Soviet system, the Communist Partyand <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, they work <strong>to</strong> undermine socialismand res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism. Politically, they persist for a l<strong>on</strong>gtime as a force antag<strong>on</strong>istic <strong>to</strong> the proletariat and c<strong>on</strong>stantlyattempt <strong>to</strong> overthrow the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. Theysneak in<strong>to</strong> the government organs, public organizati<strong>on</strong>s,ec<strong>on</strong>omic departments and cultural and educati<strong>on</strong>al instituti<strong>on</strong>sso as <strong>to</strong> resist or usurp the leadership <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Ec<strong>on</strong>omically, they employ every means <strong>to</strong> damage socialis<strong>to</strong>wnership by the whole people and socialist collective ownershipand <strong>to</strong> develop the forces <strong>of</strong> capitalism. In the ideological,cultural and educati<strong>on</strong>al fields, they counterpose the bourgeoisworld outlook <strong>to</strong> the proletarian world outlook and try421
<strong>to</strong> corrupt the proletariat and other working people withbourgeois ideology.The collectivizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> agriculture turns individual in<strong>to</strong>collective farmers and provides favourable c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for thethorough remoulding <strong>of</strong> the peasants. However, until collectiveownership advances <strong>to</strong> ownership by the whole peopleand until the remnants <strong>of</strong> private ec<strong>on</strong>omy disappear completely,the peasants inevitably retain some <strong>of</strong> the inherentcharacteristics <strong>of</strong> small producers. In these circumstancessp<strong>on</strong>taneous capitalist tendencies are inevitable, the soil forthe growth <strong>of</strong> new rich peasants still exists and polarizati<strong>on</strong>am<strong>on</strong>g the peasants may still occur.The activities <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie as described above, itscorrupting effects in the political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic, ideological andcultural and educati<strong>on</strong>al fields, the existence <strong>of</strong> sp<strong>on</strong>taneouscapitalist tendencies am<strong>on</strong>g urban and rural small producers,and the influence <strong>of</strong> the remaining bourgeois rights and theforce <strong>of</strong> habit <strong>of</strong> the old society all c<strong>on</strong>stantly breed politicaldegenerates in the ranks <strong>of</strong> the working class and Party andgovernment organizati<strong>on</strong>s, new bourgeois elements and embezzlersand grafters in state enterprises owned by the wholepeople and new bourgeois intellectuals in the cultural andeducati<strong>on</strong>al instituti<strong>on</strong>s and intellectual circles. These newbourgeois elements and these political degenerates attacksocialism in collusi<strong>on</strong> with the old bourgeois elements andelements <strong>of</strong> other exploiting classes which have been overthrownbut not eradicated. The political degenerates entrenchedin the leading organs are particularly dangerous,for they support and shield the bourgeois elements in organsat lower levels.As l<strong>on</strong>g as imperialism exists, the proletariat in the socialistcountries will have <strong>to</strong> struggle both against the bourgeoisieat home and against internati<strong>on</strong>al imperialism. Imperialismwill seize every opportunity and try <strong>to</strong> undertake armedinterventi<strong>on</strong> against the socialist countries or <strong>to</strong> bring abouttheir peaceful disintegrati<strong>on</strong>. It will do its utmost <strong>to</strong> destroy422
the socialist countries or <strong>to</strong> make them degenerate in<strong>to</strong>capitalist countries. The internati<strong>on</strong>al class struggle willinevitably find its reflecti<strong>on</strong> within the socialist countries.Lenin said:The transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> Communism representsan entire his<strong>to</strong>rical epoch. Until this epoch has terminated,the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope <strong>of</strong> res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong>,and this hope is c<strong>on</strong>verted in<strong>to</strong> attempts at res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong>. 1He also pointed out:The aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> classes requires a l<strong>on</strong>g, difficult andstubborn class struggle, which after the overthrow <strong>of</strong> thepower <strong>of</strong> capital, after the destructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois state,after the establishment <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat,does not disappear (as the vulgar representatives <strong>of</strong> the oldSocialism and the old Social-Democracy imagine), butmerely changes its forms and in many respects becomesmore fierce. 2Throughout the stage <strong>of</strong> socialism the class struggle betweenthe proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic,ideological and cultural and educati<strong>on</strong>al fields cannotbe s<strong>to</strong>pped. It is a protracted, repeated, <strong>to</strong>rtuous and complexstruggle. Like the waves <strong>of</strong> the sea it sometimes rises highand sometimes subsides, is now fairly calm and now veryturbulent. It is a struggle that decides the fate <strong>of</strong> a socialistsociety. Whether a socialist society will advance <strong>to</strong> communismor revert <strong>to</strong> capitalism depends up<strong>on</strong> the outcome <strong>of</strong> thisprotracted struggle.The class struggle in socialist society is inevitably reflectedin the Communist Party. The bourgeoisie and internati<strong>on</strong>al1V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the Renegade Kautsky”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2,p. 61.2V. I. Lenin, “Greetings <strong>to</strong> the Hungarian Workers”, Selected Works,Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 210-11.423
imperialism both understand that in order <strong>to</strong> make a socialistcountry degenerate in<strong>to</strong> a capitalist country, it is first necessary<strong>to</strong> make the Communist Party degenerate in<strong>to</strong> a revisi<strong>on</strong>istparty. The old and new bourgeois elements, the oldand new rich peasants and the degenerate elements <strong>of</strong> all sortsc<strong>on</strong>stitute the social basis <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, and they use everypossible means <strong>to</strong> find agents within the Communist Party.The existence <strong>of</strong> bourgeois influence is the internal source <strong>of</strong>revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and surrender <strong>to</strong> imperialist pressure the externalsource. Throughout the stage <strong>of</strong> socialism, there is inevitablestruggle between <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and various kinds <strong>of</strong>opportunism — mainly revisi<strong>on</strong>ism — in the Communist Parties<strong>of</strong> socialist countries. The characteristic <strong>of</strong> this revisi<strong>on</strong>ismis that, denying the existence <strong>of</strong> classes and class struggle,it sides with the bourgeoisie in attacking the proletariat andturns the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in<strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie.In the light <strong>of</strong> the experience <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al workingclassmovement and in accordance with the objective law <strong>of</strong>class struggle, the founders <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism pointed out that thetransiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> communism, from class <strong>to</strong> classlesssociety, must depend <strong>on</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand that there is no other road.<strong>Marx</strong> said that “the class struggle necessarily leads <strong>to</strong> thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat”. 1 He also said:Between capitalist and communist society lies the period<strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary transformati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e in<strong>to</strong> theother. There corresp<strong>on</strong>ds <strong>to</strong> this also a political transiti<strong>on</strong>period in which the state can be nothing but the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arydicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. 21“<strong>Marx</strong> <strong>to</strong> J. Weydemeyer, March 5, 1852”, Selected Works <strong>of</strong> Karl<strong>Marx</strong> and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II,p. 410.2Karl <strong>Marx</strong>, “Critique <strong>of</strong> the Gotha Programme”, Selected Works <strong>of</strong>Karl <strong>Marx</strong> and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II,p. 30.424
The development <strong>of</strong> socialist society is a process <strong>of</strong> uninterruptedrevoluti<strong>on</strong>. In explaining revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary socialism<strong>Marx</strong> said:This socialism is the declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the permanence <strong>of</strong>the revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the class dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat asthe necessary transit point <strong>to</strong> the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> class distincti<strong>on</strong>sgenerally, <strong>to</strong> the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all the relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong> which they rest, <strong>to</strong> the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all the socialrelati<strong>on</strong>s that corresp<strong>on</strong>d <strong>to</strong> these relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>,<strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>izing <strong>of</strong> all the ideas that result fromthese social relati<strong>on</strong>s. 1In his struggle against the opportunism <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>dInternati<strong>on</strong>al, Lenin creatively expounded and developed<strong>Marx</strong>’s theory <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. Hepointed out:The dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is not the end <strong>of</strong> classstruggle but its c<strong>on</strong>tinuati<strong>on</strong> in new forms. The dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat is class struggle waged by a proletariatwhich has been vic<strong>to</strong>rious and has taken politicalpower in its hands against a bourgeoisie that has been defeatedbut not destroyed, a bourgeoisie that has not vanished,not ceased <strong>to</strong> <strong>of</strong>fer resistance, but that has intensifiedits resistance. 2He also said:The dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is a persistent struggle— bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, militaryand ec<strong>on</strong>omic, educati<strong>on</strong>al and administrative — againstthe forces and traditi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the old society. 31Karl <strong>Marx</strong>, “The Class Struggles in France, 1848 <strong>to</strong> 1850”, SelectedWorks <strong>of</strong> Karl <strong>Marx</strong> and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. I,p. 203.2V. I. Lenin, “Foreword <strong>to</strong> the Speech ‘On Decepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Peoplewith Slogans <strong>of</strong> Freedom and Equality’”, Alliance <strong>of</strong> the WorkingClass and the Peasantry, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 302.3V. I. Lenin, “‘Left-Wing’ Communism, an Infantile Disorder”,Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 367.425
In his celebrated work On the Correct Handling <strong>of</strong> C<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>sAm<strong>on</strong>g the People and in other works, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong>Tse-tung, basing himself <strong>on</strong> the fundamental principles <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the his<strong>to</strong>rical experience <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat, gives a comprehensive and systematicanalysis <strong>of</strong> classes and class struggle in socialist society,and creatively develops the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory <strong>of</strong> thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung examines the objective laws <strong>of</strong> socialistsociety from the viewpoint <strong>of</strong> materialist dialectics. Hepoints out that the universal law <strong>of</strong> the unity and struggle <strong>of</strong>opposites operating both in the natural world and in humansociety is applicable <strong>to</strong> socialist society, <strong>to</strong>o. In socialist society,class c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s still remain and class struggle doesnot die out after the socialist transformati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the ownership<strong>of</strong> the means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>. The struggle between the tworoads <strong>of</strong> socialism and capitalism runs through the entire stage<strong>of</strong> socialism. To ensure the success <strong>of</strong> socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>and <strong>to</strong> prevent the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism, it is necessary <strong>to</strong>carry the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> through <strong>to</strong> the end <strong>on</strong> the political,ec<strong>on</strong>omic, ideological and cultural fr<strong>on</strong>ts. The completevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism cannot be brought about in <strong>on</strong>e or twogenerati<strong>on</strong>s; <strong>to</strong> resolve this questi<strong>on</strong> thoroughly requires fiveor ten generati<strong>on</strong>s or even l<strong>on</strong>ger.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung stresses the fact that two types <strong>of</strong>social c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s exist in socialist society, namely, c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>sam<strong>on</strong>g the people and c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s between ourselvesand the enemy, and that the former are very numerous.Only by distinguishing between the two types <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s,which are different in nature, and by adopting differentmeasures <strong>to</strong> handle them correctly is it possible <strong>to</strong> unite thepeople, who c<strong>on</strong>stitute more than 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> the populati<strong>on</strong>,defeat their enemies, who c<strong>on</strong>stitute <strong>on</strong>ly a few per cent,and c<strong>on</strong>solidate the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.The dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is the basic guarantee forthe c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> and development <strong>of</strong> socialism, for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry426
<strong>of</strong> the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and <strong>of</strong> socialism in thestruggle between the two roads.Only by emancipating all mankind can the proletariat ultimatelyemancipate itself. The his<strong>to</strong>rical task <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat has two aspects, <strong>on</strong>e internal and theother internati<strong>on</strong>al. The internal task c<strong>on</strong>sists mainly <strong>of</strong> completelyabolishing all the exploiting classes, developing socialistec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>to</strong> the maximum, enhancing the communistc<strong>on</strong>sciousness <strong>of</strong> the masses, abolishing the differences betweenownership by the whole people and collective ownership,between workers and peasants, between <strong>to</strong>wn and countryand between mental and manual labourers, eliminatingany possibility <strong>of</strong> the re-emergence <strong>of</strong> classes and the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> capitalism and providing c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for the realizati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> a communist society with its principle, “from each according<strong>to</strong> his ability, <strong>to</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> his needs”. Theinternati<strong>on</strong>al task c<strong>on</strong>sists mainly <strong>of</strong> preventing attacks byinternati<strong>on</strong>al imperialism (including armed interventi<strong>on</strong> anddisintegrati<strong>on</strong> by peaceful means) and <strong>of</strong> giving support <strong>to</strong> theworld revoluti<strong>on</strong> until the people <strong>of</strong> all countries finally abolishimperialism, capitalism and the system <strong>of</strong> exploitati<strong>on</strong>.Before the fulfilment <strong>of</strong> both tasks and before the advent <strong>of</strong>a full communist society, the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatis absolutely necessary.Judging from the actual situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>day, the tasks <strong>of</strong> thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat are still far from accomplishedin any <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries. In all socialist countrieswithout excepti<strong>on</strong>, there are classes and class struggle, thestruggle between the socialist and the capitalist roads, thequesti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> carrying the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> through <strong>to</strong> the endand the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> preventing the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism.All the socialist countries still have a very l<strong>on</strong>g way <strong>to</strong> go beforethe differences between ownership by the whole peopleand collective ownership, between workers and peasants, between<strong>to</strong>wn and country and between mental and manuallabourers are eliminated, before all classes and class differences427
are abolished and a communist society with its principle, “fromeach according <strong>to</strong> his ability, <strong>to</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> his needs”,is realized. Therefore, it is necessary for all the socialist countries<strong>to</strong> uphold the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.In these circumstances, the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique is nothingbut the betrayal <strong>of</strong> socialism and communism.ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLEEXIST IN THE SOVIET UNIONIn announcing the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatin the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov cliquebase themselves mainly <strong>on</strong> the argument that antag<strong>on</strong>isticclasses have been eliminated and that class struggle no l<strong>on</strong>gerexists.But what is the actual situati<strong>on</strong> in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>? Arethere really no antag<strong>on</strong>istic classes and no class struggle there?Following the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the Great Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Socialist Revoluti<strong>on</strong>,the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat was establishedin the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, capitalist private ownership was destroyedand socialist ownership by the whole people and socialistcollective ownership were established through the nati<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> industry and the collectivizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> agriculture, andgreat achievements in socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> were scored duringseveral decades. All this c<strong>on</strong>stituted an indelible vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong>tremendous his<strong>to</strong>ric significance w<strong>on</strong> by the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the Soviet people under the leadership<strong>of</strong> Lenin and Stalin.However, the old bourgeoisie and other exploiting classeswhich had been overthrown in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> were noteradicated and survived after industry was nati<strong>on</strong>alized andagriculture collectivized. The political and ideological influence<strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie remained. Sp<strong>on</strong>taneous capitalisttendencies c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> exist both in the city and in the coun-428
tryside. New bourgeois elements and kulaks were still incessantlygenerated. Throughout the l<strong>on</strong>g intervening period,the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisieand the struggle between the socialist and capitalist roads havec<strong>on</strong>tinued in the political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic and ideological spheres.As the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> was the first, and at the time the <strong>on</strong>ly,country <strong>to</strong> build socialism and had no foreign experience <strong>to</strong> goby, and as Stalin departed from <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist dialecticsin his understanding <strong>of</strong> the laws <strong>of</strong> class struggle in socialistsociety, he prematurely declared after agriculture was basicallycollectivized that there were “no l<strong>on</strong>ger antag<strong>on</strong>istic classes” 1in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and that it was “free <strong>of</strong> class c<strong>on</strong>flicts”, 2<strong>on</strong>e-sidedly stressed the internal homogeneity <strong>of</strong> socialistsociety and overlooked its c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s, failed <strong>to</strong> rely up<strong>on</strong>the working class and the masses in the struggle against theforces <strong>of</strong> capitalism and regarded the possibility <strong>of</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> capitalism as associated <strong>on</strong>ly with armed attack byinternati<strong>on</strong>al imperialism. This was wr<strong>on</strong>g both in theory andin practice. Nevertheless, Stalin remained a great <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist. As l<strong>on</strong>g as he led the Soviet Party and state, heheld fast <strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the socialistcourse, pursued a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line and ensured the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>’s vic<strong>to</strong>rious advance al<strong>on</strong>g the road <strong>of</strong> socialism.Ever since Khrushchov seized the leadership <strong>of</strong> the SovietParty and state, he has pushed through a whole series <strong>of</strong>revisi<strong>on</strong>ist policies which have greatly hastened the growth<strong>of</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> capitalism and again sharpened the classstruggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and thestruggle between the roads <strong>of</strong> socialism and capitalism in theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.Scanning the reports in Soviet newspapers over the last fewyears, <strong>on</strong>e finds numerous examples dem<strong>on</strong>strating not <strong>on</strong>ly1J. V. Stalin, “On the Draft C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the U.S.S.R.”, Problems<strong>of</strong> Leninism, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, p. 690.2J. V. Stalin, “Report <strong>to</strong> the Eighteenth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the C.P.S.U.(B)<strong>on</strong> the Work <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee”, Problems <strong>of</strong> Leninism, Eng.ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, p. 777.429
the presence <strong>of</strong> many elements <strong>of</strong> the old exploiting classesin Soviet society, but also the generati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> new bourgeoiselements <strong>on</strong> a large scale and the accelerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> classpolarizati<strong>on</strong>.Let us first look at the activities <strong>of</strong> the various bourgeoiselements in the Soviet enterprises owned by the whole people.Leading functi<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> some state-owned fac<strong>to</strong>ries andtheir gangs abuse their positi<strong>on</strong>s and amass large fortunes byusing the equipment and materials <strong>of</strong> the fac<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>to</strong> set up“underground workshops” for private producti<strong>on</strong>, selling theproducts illicitly and dividing the spoils. Here are someexamples.In a Leningrad plant producing military items, the leadingfuncti<strong>on</strong>aries placed their own men in “all key posts” and“turned the state enterprise in<strong>to</strong> a private <strong>on</strong>e”. They illicitlyengaged in the producti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> n<strong>on</strong>-military goods and fromthe sale <strong>of</strong> fountain pens al<strong>on</strong>e embezzled 1,200,000 old roublesin three years. Am<strong>on</strong>g these people was a man who “was aNepman . . . in the 1920’s” and had been a “lifel<strong>on</strong>g thief”. 1In a silk-weaving mill in Uzbekistan, the manager gangedup with the chief engineer, the chief accountant, the chief <strong>of</strong>the supply and marketing secti<strong>on</strong>, heads <strong>of</strong> workshops andothers, and they all became “new-born entrepreneurs”. Theypurchased more than ten t<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> artificial and pure silkthrough various illegal channels in order <strong>to</strong> manufacture goodswhich “did not pass through the accounts”. They employedworkers without going through the proper procedures andenforced “a twelve-hour working day”. 2The manager <strong>of</strong> a furniture fac<strong>to</strong>ry in Kharkov set up an“illegal knitwear workshop” and carried <strong>on</strong> secret operati<strong>on</strong>sinside the fac<strong>to</strong>ry. This man “had several wives, severalcars, several houses, 176 neck-ties, about a hundred shirts and1Krasnava Zvezda, May 19, 1962.2Pravda Vos<strong>to</strong>ka, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 8, 1963.430
dozens <strong>of</strong> suits”. He was also a big gambler at the horseraces.1Such people do not operate all by themselves. They invariablywork hand in glove with functi<strong>on</strong>aries in the statedepartments in charge <strong>of</strong> supplies and in the commercial andother departments. They have their own men in the policeand judicial departments who protect them and act as theiragents. Even high-ranking <strong>of</strong>ficials in the state organs supportand shield them. Here are a few examples.The chief <strong>of</strong> the workshops affiliated <strong>to</strong> a Moscow psych<strong>on</strong>eurologicaldispensary and his gang set up an “undergroundenterprise”, and by bribery “obtained fifty-eight knitting machines”and a large amount <strong>of</strong> raw material. They enteredin<strong>to</strong> business relati<strong>on</strong>s with “fifty-two fac<strong>to</strong>ries, handicraftco-operatives and collective farms” and made three milli<strong>on</strong>roubles in a few years. They bribed functi<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> the Departmentfor Combating Theft <strong>of</strong> Socialist Property and Speculati<strong>on</strong>,c<strong>on</strong>trollers, inspec<strong>to</strong>rs, instruc<strong>to</strong>rs and others. 2The manager <strong>of</strong> a machinery plant in the Russian Federati<strong>on</strong>,<strong>to</strong>gether with the deputy manager <strong>of</strong> a sec<strong>on</strong>d machineryplant and other functi<strong>on</strong>aries, or forty-three pers<strong>on</strong>s in all,s<strong>to</strong>le more than nine hundred looms and sold them <strong>to</strong> fac<strong>to</strong>riesin Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the Caucasus and other places,whose leading functi<strong>on</strong>aries used them for illicit producti<strong>on</strong>. 3In the Kirghiz SSR, a gang <strong>of</strong> over forty embezzlers andgrafters, having gained c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong> two fac<strong>to</strong>ries, organizedunderground producti<strong>on</strong> and plundered more than thirty milli<strong>on</strong>roubles’ worth <strong>of</strong> state property. This gang included theChairman <strong>of</strong> the Planning Commissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Republic, aVice-Minister <strong>of</strong> Commerce, seven bureau chiefs and divisi<strong>on</strong>chiefs <strong>of</strong> the Republic’s Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers, Nati<strong>on</strong>al Eco-1Pravda Ukrainy, May 18, 1962.2Izvestia, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 20, 1963, and Izvestia Sunday Supplement, No. 12,1964.3Komsomolskaya Pravda, August 9, 1963.431
nomic Council and State C<strong>on</strong>trol Commissi<strong>on</strong>, as well as “a bigkulak who had fled from exile”. 1These examples show that the fac<strong>to</strong>ries which have fallenin<strong>to</strong> the clutches <strong>of</strong> such degenerates are socialist enterprises<strong>on</strong>ly in name, that in fact they have become capitalist enterprisesby which these pers<strong>on</strong>s enrich themselves. The relati<strong>on</strong>ship<strong>of</strong> such pers<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> the workers has turned in<strong>to</strong> <strong>on</strong>ebetween exploiters and exploited, between oppressors andoppressed. Are not such degenerates who possess and makeuse <strong>of</strong> means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> exploit the labour <strong>of</strong> othersout-and-out bourgeois elements? Are not their accomplicesin government organizati<strong>on</strong>s, who work hand in glove withthem, participate in many types <strong>of</strong> exploitati<strong>on</strong>, engage inembezzlement, accept bribes, and share the spoils, also outand-outbourgeois elements?Obviously all these people bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> a class that is antag<strong>on</strong>istic<strong>to</strong> the proletariat — they bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> the bourgeoisie. Theiractivities against socialism are definitely class struggle withthe bourgeoisie attacking the proletariat.Now let us look at the activities <strong>of</strong> various kulak elements<strong>on</strong> the collective farms.Some leading collective-farm functi<strong>on</strong>aries and their gangssteal and speculate at will, freely squander public m<strong>on</strong>ey andfleece the collective farmers. Here are some examples.The chairman <strong>of</strong> a collective farm in Uzbekistan “held thewhole village in terror”. All the important posts <strong>on</strong> this farm“were occupied by his in-laws and other relatives and friends”.He squandered “over 132,000 roubles <strong>of</strong> the collective farm forhis pers<strong>on</strong>al ‘needs’”. He had a car, two mo<strong>to</strong>r-cycles andthree wives, each with “a house <strong>of</strong> her own”. 2The chairman <strong>of</strong> a collective farm in the Kursk Regi<strong>on</strong> regardedthe farm as his “hereditary estate”. He c<strong>on</strong>spiredwith its accountant, cashier, chief warehouse-keeper, agr<strong>on</strong>omist,general-s<strong>to</strong>re manager and others. Shielding each other,1Sovietskaya Kirghizia, January 9, 1962.2Selskaya Zhizn, June 26, 1962.432
they “fleeced the collective farmers” and pocketed more than100,000 roubles in a few years. 1The chairman <strong>of</strong> a collective farm in the Ukraine made over50,000 roubles at its expense by forging purchase certificatesand cash-account orders in collusi<strong>on</strong> with its woman accountant,who had been praised for keeping “model accounts” andwhose deeds had been displayed at the Moscow Exhibiti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Achievements <strong>of</strong> the Nati<strong>on</strong>al Ec<strong>on</strong>omy. 2The chairman <strong>of</strong> a collective farm in the Alma-Ata Regi<strong>on</strong>specialized in commercial speculati<strong>on</strong>. He bought “fruit juicein the Ukraine or Uzbekistan, and sugar and alcohol fromDjambul”, processed them and then sold the wine at very highprices in many localities. In this farm a winery was createdwith a capacity <strong>of</strong> over a milli<strong>on</strong> litres a year, its speculativecommercial network spread throughout the Kazakhstan SSR,and commercial speculati<strong>on</strong> became <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the farm’s mainsources <strong>of</strong> income. 3The chairman <strong>of</strong> a collective farm in Byelorussia c<strong>on</strong>sideredhimself “a feudal princeling <strong>on</strong> the farm” and acted “pers<strong>on</strong>ally”in all matters. He lived not <strong>on</strong> the farm but in thecity or in his own splendid villa, and was always busy with“various commercial machinati<strong>on</strong>s” and “illegal deals”. Hebought cattle from the outside, represented them as the products<strong>of</strong> his collective farm and falsified output figures. Andyet “not a few commenda<strong>to</strong>ry newspaper reports” had beenpublished about him and he had been called a “model leader”. 4These examples show that collective farms under the c<strong>on</strong>trol<strong>of</strong> such functi<strong>on</strong>aries virtually become their private property.Such men turn socialist collective ec<strong>on</strong>omic enterprises in<strong>to</strong>ec<strong>on</strong>omic enterprises <strong>of</strong> new kulaks. There are <strong>of</strong>ten peoplein their superior organizati<strong>on</strong>s who protect them. Their relati<strong>on</strong>ship<strong>to</strong> the collective farmers has likewise become that <strong>of</strong>1Ek<strong>on</strong>omicheskaya Gazeta, No. 35, 1963.2Selskaya Zhizn, August 14, 1963.3Pravda, January 14, 1962.4Pravda, February 6, 1961.433
oppressors <strong>to</strong> oppressed, <strong>of</strong> exploiters <strong>to</strong> exploited. Are notsuch neo-exploiters who ride <strong>on</strong> the backs <strong>of</strong> the collectivefarmers <strong>on</strong>e hundred-per-cent neo-kulaks?Obviously, they all bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> a class that is antag<strong>on</strong>istic <strong>to</strong>the proletariat and the labouring farmers, bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> the kulakor rural bourgeois class. Their anti-socialist activities areprecisely class struggle with the bourgeoisie attacking theproletariat and the labouring farmers.Apart from the bourgeois elements in state enterprises andcollective farms, there are many others in both <strong>to</strong>wn andcountry in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.Some <strong>of</strong> them set up private enterprises for private producti<strong>on</strong>and sale; others organize c<strong>on</strong>trac<strong>to</strong>r teams and openlyundertake c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> jobs for state or co-operative enterprises;still others open private hotels. A “Soviet woman capitalist”in Leningrad hired workers <strong>to</strong> make nyl<strong>on</strong> blousesfor sale, and her “daily income amounted <strong>to</strong> 700 new roubles”. 1The owner <strong>of</strong> a workshop in the Kursk Regi<strong>on</strong> made felt bootsfor sale at speculative prices. He had in his possessi<strong>on</strong> 540pairs <strong>of</strong> felt boots, eight kilogrammes <strong>of</strong> gold coins, 3,000 metres<strong>of</strong> high-grade textiles, 20 carpets, 1,200 kilogrammes <strong>of</strong>wool and many other valuables. 2 A private entrepreneur inthe Gomel Regi<strong>on</strong> “hired workers and artisans” and in thecourse <strong>of</strong> two years secured c<strong>on</strong>tracts for the c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> andoverhauling <strong>of</strong> furnaces in twelve fac<strong>to</strong>ries at a high price. 3In the Orenburg Regi<strong>on</strong> there are “hundreds <strong>of</strong> private hotelsand trans-shipment points”, and “the m<strong>on</strong>ey <strong>of</strong> the collectivefarms and the state is c<strong>on</strong>tinuously streaming in<strong>to</strong> the pockets<strong>of</strong> the hostelry owners”. 4Some engage in commercial speculati<strong>on</strong>, making tremendouspr<strong>of</strong>its through buying cheap and selling dear or bringinggoods from far away. In Moscow there are a great many1Izvestia, April 9, 1963.2Sovietskaya Rossiya, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 9, 1960.3Izvestia, Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 18, 1960.4Selskaya Zhizn, July 17, 1963.434
specula<strong>to</strong>rs engaged in the re-sale <strong>of</strong> agricultural produce.They “bring <strong>to</strong> Moscow t<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> citrus fruit, apples and vegetablesand re-sell them at speculative prices”. “These pr<strong>of</strong>itgrabbersare provided with every facility, with market inns,s<strong>to</strong>re-rooms and other services at their disposal”. 1 In theKrasnodar Terri<strong>to</strong>ry, a specula<strong>to</strong>r set up her own agency and“employed twelve salesmen and two stevedores”. She transported“thousands <strong>of</strong> hogs, hundreds <strong>of</strong> quintals <strong>of</strong> grain andhundreds <strong>of</strong> t<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> fruit” from the rural areas <strong>to</strong> the D<strong>on</strong>Basin and moved “great quantities <strong>of</strong> s<strong>to</strong>len slag bricks, wholewag<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> glass” and other building materials from the city <strong>to</strong>the villages. She reaped huge pr<strong>of</strong>its out <strong>of</strong> such re-sale. 2Others specialize as brokers and middlemen. They havewide c<strong>on</strong>tacts and through them <strong>on</strong>e can get any thing inreturn for a bribe. There was a broker in Leningrad who“though he is not the Minister <strong>of</strong> Trade, c<strong>on</strong>trols all thes<strong>to</strong>cks”, and “though he holds no post <strong>on</strong> the railway, disposes<strong>of</strong> wag<strong>on</strong>s”. He could obtain “things the s<strong>to</strong>cks <strong>of</strong> which arestrictly c<strong>on</strong>trolled, from outside the s<strong>to</strong>cks”. “All the s<strong>to</strong>rehousesin Leningrad are at his service.” For delivering goods,he received huge “b<strong>on</strong>uses” — 700,000 roubles from <strong>on</strong>e timbercombine in 1960 al<strong>on</strong>e. In Leningrad, there is “a wholegroup” <strong>of</strong> such brokers. 3These private entrepreneurs and specula<strong>to</strong>rs are engagedin the most naked capitalist exploitati<strong>on</strong>. Isn’t it clear thatthey bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> the bourgeoisie, the class antag<strong>on</strong>istic <strong>to</strong> theproletariat?Actually the Soviet press itself calls these people “Sovietcapitalists”, “new-born entrepreneurs”, “private entrepreneurs”,“newly-emerged kulaks”, “specula<strong>to</strong>rs”, “exploiters”,etc. Aren’t the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique c<strong>on</strong>tradictingthemselves when they assert that antag<strong>on</strong>istic classes d<strong>on</strong>ot exist in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>?1Ek<strong>on</strong>omicheskaya Gazeta, No. 27, 1963.2Literaturnaya Gazeta, July 27 and August 17, 1963.3Sovietskaya Rossiya, January 27, 1961.435
The facts cited above are <strong>on</strong>ly a part <strong>of</strong> those published inthe Soviet press. They are enough <strong>to</strong> shock people, but thereare many more which have not been published, many biggerand more serious cases which are covered up and shielded.We have quoted the above data in order <strong>to</strong> answer the questi<strong>on</strong>whether there are antag<strong>on</strong>istic classes and class strugglein the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. These data are readily available andeven the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique are unable <strong>to</strong> denythem.These data suffice <strong>to</strong> show that the unbridled activities <strong>of</strong>the bourgeoisie against the proletariat are widespread in theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, in the city as well as the countryside, in industryas well as agriculture, in the sphere <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> as well asthe sphere <strong>of</strong> circulati<strong>on</strong>, all the way from the ec<strong>on</strong>omic departments<strong>to</strong> Party and government organizati<strong>on</strong>s, and fromthe grass-roots <strong>to</strong> the higher leading bodies. These anti-socialistactivities are nothing if not the sharp class struggle <strong>of</strong> thebourgeoisie against the proletariat.It is not strange that attacks <strong>on</strong> socialism should be madein a socialist country by old and new bourgeois elements.There is nothing terrifying about this so l<strong>on</strong>g as the leadership<strong>of</strong> the Party and state remains a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist <strong>on</strong>e. Butin the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>day, the gravity <strong>of</strong> the situati<strong>on</strong> liesin the fact that the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique have usurpedthe leadership <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Party and state and that a privilegedbourgeois stratum has emerged in Soviet society.We shall deal with this problem in the following secti<strong>on</strong>.THE SOVIET PRIVILEGED STRATUM AND THEREVISIONIST KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUEThe privileged stratum in c<strong>on</strong>temporary Soviet society iscomposed <strong>of</strong> degenerate elements from am<strong>on</strong>g the leadingcadres <strong>of</strong> Party and government organizati<strong>on</strong>s, enterprisesand farms as well as bourgeois intellectuals; it stands in op-436
positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the workers, the peasants and the overwhelmingmajority <strong>of</strong> the intellectuals and cadres <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.Lenin pointed out so<strong>on</strong> after the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> thatbourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies and force <strong>of</strong> habitwere encircling and influencing the proletariat from all directi<strong>on</strong>sand were corrupting certain <strong>of</strong> its secti<strong>on</strong>s. This circumstanceled <strong>to</strong> the emergence from am<strong>on</strong>g the Soviet <strong>of</strong>ficialsand functi<strong>on</strong>aries both <strong>of</strong> bureaucrats alienated from themasses and <strong>of</strong> new bourgeois elements. Lenin also pointed outthat although the high salaries paid <strong>to</strong> the bourgeois technicalspecialists staying <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> work for the Soviet regime werenecessary, they were having a corrupting influence <strong>on</strong> it.Therefore, Lenin laid great stress <strong>on</strong> waging persistentstruggles against the influence <strong>of</strong> bourgeois and petty-bourgeoisideologies, <strong>on</strong> arousing the broad masses <strong>to</strong> take partin government work, <strong>on</strong> ceaselessly exposing and purgingbureaucrats and new bourgeois elements in the Soviet organs,and <strong>on</strong> creating c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s that would bar the existence andreproducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie. Lenin pointed out sharplythat “without a systematic and determined struggle <strong>to</strong> improvethe apparatus, we shall perish before the basis <strong>of</strong> socialismis created”. 1At the same time, he laid great stress <strong>on</strong> adherence <strong>to</strong> theprinciple <strong>of</strong> the Paris Commune in wage policy, that is, allpublic servants were <strong>to</strong> be paid wages corresp<strong>on</strong>ding <strong>to</strong> those<strong>of</strong> the workers and <strong>on</strong>ly bourgeois specialists were <strong>to</strong> be paidhigh salaries. <strong>From</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the period <strong>of</strong>Soviet ec<strong>on</strong>omic rehabilitati<strong>on</strong>, Lenin’s directives were in themain observed; the leading pers<strong>on</strong>nel <strong>of</strong> the Party and governmen<strong>to</strong>rganizati<strong>on</strong>s and enterprises and Party membersam<strong>on</strong>g the specialists received salaries roughly equivalent <strong>to</strong>the wages <strong>of</strong> workers.At that time, the Communist Party and the government <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> adopted a number <strong>of</strong> measures in the1V. I. Lenin, “Plan <strong>of</strong> the Pamphlet ‘On the Food Tax’ ”, CollectedWorks, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, p. 301.437
sphere <strong>of</strong> politics and ideology and in the system <strong>of</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> prevent leading cadres in any department from abusingtheir powers or degenerating morally or politically.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> headed by Stalinadhered <strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the road<strong>of</strong> socialism and waged a staunch struggle against the forces<strong>of</strong> capitalism. Stalin’s struggles against the Trotskyites, Zinovievitesand Bukharinites were in essence a reflecti<strong>on</strong> withinthe Party <strong>of</strong> the class struggle between the proletariat andthe bourgeoisie and <strong>of</strong> the struggle between the two roads<strong>of</strong> socialism and capitalism. Vic<strong>to</strong>ry in these struggles smashedthe vain plot <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism in theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.It cannot be denied that before Stalin’s death high salarieswere already being paid <strong>to</strong> certain groups and that somecadres had already degenerated and become bourgeois elements.The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU pointed out inits report <strong>to</strong> the 19th Party C<strong>on</strong>gress in Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1952 thatdegenerati<strong>on</strong> and corrupti<strong>on</strong> had appeared in certain Partyorganizati<strong>on</strong>s. The leaders <strong>of</strong> these organizati<strong>on</strong>s had turnedthem in<strong>to</strong> small communities composed exclusively <strong>of</strong> theirown people, “setting their group interests higher than theinterests <strong>of</strong> the Party and the state”. Some executives <strong>of</strong>industrial enterprises “forget that the enterprises entrusted<strong>to</strong> their charge are state enterprises, and try <strong>to</strong> turn themin<strong>to</strong> their own private domain”. “Instead <strong>of</strong> safeguarding thecomm<strong>on</strong> husbandry <strong>of</strong> the collective farms”, some Party andSoviet functi<strong>on</strong>aries and some cadres in agricultural departments“engage in filching collective-farm property”. In thecultural, artistic and scientific fields <strong>to</strong>o, works attacking andsmearing the socialist system had appeared and a m<strong>on</strong>opolistic“Arakcheyev regime” had emerged am<strong>on</strong>g the scientists.Since Khrushchov usurped the leadership <strong>of</strong> the SovietParty and state, there has been a fundamental change in thestate <strong>of</strong> the class struggle in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.438
Khrushchov has carried out a series <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ist policiesserving the interests <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie and rapidly swellingthe forces <strong>of</strong> capitalism in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.On the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult”, Khrushchovhas defamed the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat andthe socialist system and thus in fact paved the way for theres<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. In completelynegating Stalin, he has in fact negated <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismwhich was upheld by Stalin and opened the floodgates forthe revisi<strong>on</strong>ist deluge.Khrushchov has substituted “material incentive” for thesocialist principle, “from each according <strong>to</strong> his ability, <strong>to</strong> eachaccording <strong>to</strong> his work”. He has widened, and not narrowed,the gap between the incomes <strong>of</strong> a small minority and those <strong>of</strong>the workers, peasants and ordinary intellectuals. He has supportedthe degenerates in leading positi<strong>on</strong>s, encouraging them<strong>to</strong> become even more unscrupulous in abusing their powersand <strong>to</strong> appropriate the fruits <strong>of</strong> labour <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people.Thus he has accelerated the polarizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> classes in Sovietsociety.Khrushchov sabotages the socialist planned ec<strong>on</strong>omy, appliesthe capitalist principle <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it, develops capitalist freecompetiti<strong>on</strong> and undermines socialist ownership by the wholepeople.Khrushchov attacks the system <strong>of</strong> socialist agricultural planning,describing it as “bureaucratic” and “unnecessary”. Eager<strong>to</strong> learn from the big proprie<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> American farms, he isencouraging capitalist management, fostering a kulak ec<strong>on</strong>omyand undermining the socialist collective ec<strong>on</strong>omy.Khrushchov is peddling bourgeois ideology, bourgeois liberty,equality, fraternity and humanity, inculcating bourgeoisidealism and metaphysics and the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary ideas <strong>of</strong>bourgeois individualism, humanism and pacifism am<strong>on</strong>g theSoviet people, and debasing socialist morality. The rottenbourgeois culture <strong>of</strong> the West is now fashi<strong>on</strong>able in the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>, and socialist culture is ostracized and attacked.439
Under the signboard <strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence”, Khrushchovhas been colluding with U.S. imperialism, wrecking the socialistcamp and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, opposingthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoplesand nati<strong>on</strong>s, practising great-power chauvinism and nati<strong>on</strong>alegoism and betraying proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism. All thisis being d<strong>on</strong>e for the protecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the vested interests <strong>of</strong> ahandful <strong>of</strong> people, which he places above the fundamentalinterests <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, the socialist campand the whole world.The line Khrushchov pursues is a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line throughand through. Guided by this line, not <strong>on</strong>ly have the old bourgeoiselements run wild but new bourgeois elements haveappeared in large numbers am<strong>on</strong>g the leading cadres <strong>of</strong> theSoviet Party and government, the chiefs <strong>of</strong> state enterprisesand collective farms, and the higher intellectuals in the fields<strong>of</strong> culture, art, science and technology.In the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> at present, not <strong>on</strong>ly have the newbourgeois elements increased in number as never before, buttheir social status has fundamentally changed. Before Khrushchovcame <strong>to</strong> power, they did not occupy the ruling positi<strong>on</strong>in Soviet society. Their activities were restricted inmany ways and they were subject <strong>to</strong> attack. But since Khrushchov<strong>to</strong>ok over, usurping the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Party andthe state step by step, the new bourgeois elements havegradually risen <strong>to</strong> the ruling positi<strong>on</strong> in the Party and governmentand in the ec<strong>on</strong>omic, cultural and other departments,and formed a privileged stratum in Soviet society.This privileged stratum is the principal comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> thebourgeoisie in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>day and the main socialbasis <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique. The revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique are the political representatives <strong>of</strong> theSoviet bourgeoisie, and particularly <strong>of</strong> its privileged stratum.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique have carried out <strong>on</strong>epurge after another and replaced <strong>on</strong>e group <strong>of</strong> cadres afteranother throughout the country, from the central <strong>to</strong> the local440
odies, from leading Party and government organizati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong>ec<strong>on</strong>omic and cultural and educati<strong>on</strong>al departments, dismissingthose they do not trust and planting their protégés inleading posts.Take the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU as an example.The statistics show that nearly seventy per cent <strong>of</strong> the members<strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU who were electedat its 19th C<strong>on</strong>gress in 1952 were purged in the course <strong>of</strong> the20th and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses held respectively in 1956 and 1961.And nearly fifty per cent <strong>of</strong> the members <strong>of</strong> the Central Committeewho were elected at the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress were purgedat the time <strong>of</strong> the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress.Or take the local organizati<strong>on</strong>s. On the eve <strong>of</strong> the 22ndC<strong>on</strong>gress, <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> “renewing the cadres”, the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique, according <strong>to</strong> incomplete statistics,removed from <strong>of</strong>fice forty-five per cent <strong>of</strong> the members <strong>of</strong> theParty Central Committees <strong>of</strong> the Uni<strong>on</strong> Republics and <strong>of</strong> theParty Committees <strong>of</strong> the Terri<strong>to</strong>ries and Regi<strong>on</strong>s, and forty percent <strong>of</strong> the members <strong>of</strong> the Municipal and District Party Committees.In 1963, <strong>on</strong> the pretext <strong>of</strong> dividing the Party in<strong>to</strong>“industrial” and “agricultural” Party committees, they furtherreplaced more than half the members <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittees <strong>of</strong> the Uni<strong>on</strong> Republics and <strong>of</strong> the Regi<strong>on</strong>al PartyCommittees.Through this series <strong>of</strong> changes the Soviet privileged stratumhas gained c<strong>on</strong>trol <strong>of</strong> the Party, the government andother important organizati<strong>on</strong>s.The members <strong>of</strong> this privileged stratum have c<strong>on</strong>vertedthe functi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> serving the masses in<strong>to</strong> the privilege <strong>of</strong> dominatingthem. They are abusing their powers over the means<strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>of</strong> livelihood for the private benefit <strong>of</strong>their small clique.The members <strong>of</strong> this privileged stratum appropriate thefruits <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people’s labour and pocket in comes thatare dozens or even a hundred times those <strong>of</strong> the averageSoviet worker and peasant. They not <strong>on</strong>ly secure high in-441
comes in the form <strong>of</strong> high salaries, high awards, high royaltiesand a great variety <strong>of</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>al subsidies, but also usetheir privileged positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> appropriate public property bygraft and bribery. Completely divorced from the workingpeople <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, they live the parasitical and decadentlife <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie.The members <strong>of</strong> this privileged stratum have become utterlydegenerate ideologically, have completely departed fromthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary traditi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Bolshevik Party and discardedthe l<strong>of</strong>ty ideals <strong>of</strong> the Soviet working class. They areopposed <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and socialism. They betraythe revoluti<strong>on</strong> and forbid others <strong>to</strong> make revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Theirsole c<strong>on</strong>cern is <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate their ec<strong>on</strong>omic positi<strong>on</strong> andpolitical rule. All their activities revolve around the privateinterests <strong>of</strong> their own privileged stratum.Having usurped the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Party and state,the Khrushchov clique are turning the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> with its glorious revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryhis<strong>to</strong>ry in<strong>to</strong> a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist party; they are turning theSoviet state under the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in<strong>to</strong> astate under the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchovclique; and, step by step, they are turning socialist ownershipby the whole people and socialist collective ownership in<strong>to</strong>ownership by the privileged stratum.People have seen how in Yugoslavia, although the Ti<strong>to</strong>clique still displays the banner <strong>of</strong> “socialism”, a bureaucratbourgeoisie opposed <strong>to</strong> the Yugoslav people has graduallycome in<strong>to</strong> being since the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique <strong>to</strong>ok the road <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ism,transforming the Yugoslav state from a dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat in<strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the bureaucrat bourgeoisieand its socialist public ec<strong>on</strong>omy in<strong>to</strong> state capitalism.Now people see the Khrushchov clique taking the road alreadytravelled by the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique. Khrushchov looks <strong>to</strong> Belgradeas his Mecca, saying again and again that he will learn fromthe Ti<strong>to</strong> clique’s experience and declaring that he and the442
Ti<strong>to</strong> clique “bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> <strong>on</strong>e and the same idea and are guidedby the same theory”. 1 This is not at all surprising.As a result <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, the first socialistcountry in the world built by the great Soviet people withtheir blood and sweat is now facing an unprecedented danger<strong>of</strong> capitalist res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong>.The Khrushchov clique are spreading the tale that “thereare no l<strong>on</strong>ger antag<strong>on</strong>istic classes and class struggle in theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>” in order <strong>to</strong> cover up the facts about theirown ruthless class struggle against the Soviet people.The Soviet privileged stratum represented by the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique c<strong>on</strong>stitutes <strong>on</strong>ly a few per cent <strong>of</strong> theSoviet populati<strong>on</strong>. Am<strong>on</strong>g the Soviet cadres its numbers arealso small. It stands diametrically opposed <strong>to</strong> the Soviet people,who c<strong>on</strong>stitute more than 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>to</strong>tal populati<strong>on</strong>,and <strong>to</strong> the great majority <strong>of</strong> the Soviet cadres and Communists.The c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between the Soviet people andthis privileged stratum is now the principal c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> insidethe Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, and it is an irrec<strong>on</strong>cilable and antag<strong>on</strong>isticclass c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>.The glorious Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, whichwas built by Lenin, and the great Soviet people displayedepoch-making revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary initiative in the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber SocialistRevoluti<strong>on</strong>, they showed their heroism and stamina in defeatingthe White Guards and the armed interventi<strong>on</strong> by morethan a dozen imperialist countries, they scored unprecedentedlybrilliant achievements in the struggle for industrializati<strong>on</strong>and agricultural collectivizati<strong>on</strong>, and they w<strong>on</strong> a tremendousvic<strong>to</strong>ry in the Patriotic War against the German fascistsand saved all mankind. Even under the rule <strong>of</strong> the Khrushchovclique, the mass <strong>of</strong> the members <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and theSoviet people are carrying <strong>on</strong> the glorious revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary traditi<strong>on</strong>snurtured by Lenin and Stalin, and they still upholdsocialism and aspire <strong>to</strong> communism.1N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Corresp<strong>on</strong>dents at Bri<strong>on</strong>iin Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963.443
The broad masses <strong>of</strong> the Soviet workers, collective farmersand intellectuals are seething with disc<strong>on</strong>tent against the oppressi<strong>on</strong>and exploitati<strong>on</strong> practised by the privileged stratum.They have come <strong>to</strong> see ever more clearly the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist features<strong>of</strong> the Khrushchov clique which is betraying socialismand res<strong>to</strong>ring capitalism. Am<strong>on</strong>g the ranks <strong>of</strong> the Sovietcadres, there are many who still persist in the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystand <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, adhere <strong>to</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> socialism andfirmly oppose Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism. The broad masses<strong>of</strong> the Soviet people, <strong>of</strong> Communists and cadres are usingvarious means <strong>to</strong> resist and oppose the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line <strong>of</strong> theKhrushchov clique, so that the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov cliquecannot so easily bring about the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism.The great Soviet people are fighting <strong>to</strong> defend the glorioustraditi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Great Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong> preserve thegreat gains <strong>of</strong> socialism and <strong>to</strong> smash the plot for the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> capitalism.REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED STATE OFTHE WHOLE PEOPLEAt the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU Khrushchov openlyraised the banner <strong>of</strong> oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat,announcing the replacement <strong>of</strong> the state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat by the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”.It is written in the Programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat “has ceased <strong>to</strong> be indispensable in theU.S.S.R.” and that “the state, which arose as a state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat, has, in the new, c<strong>on</strong>temporarystage, become a state <strong>of</strong> the entire people”.Any<strong>on</strong>e with a little knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninismknows that the c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> the state is a class c<strong>on</strong>cept. Leninpointed out that “the distinguishing feature <strong>of</strong> the state isthe existence <strong>of</strong> a separate class <strong>of</strong> people in whose hands444
power is c<strong>on</strong>centrated”. 1 The state is a weap<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> class struggle,a machine by means <strong>of</strong> which <strong>on</strong>e class represses another.Every state is the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> a definite class. So l<strong>on</strong>gas the state exists, it cannot possibly stand above class or bel<strong>on</strong>g<strong>to</strong> the whole people.The proletariat and its political party have never c<strong>on</strong>cealedtheir views; they say explicitly that the very aim <strong>of</strong> the proletariansocialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> is <strong>to</strong> overthrow bourgeois rule andestablish the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. After the vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the proletariat and its party muststrive unremittingly <strong>to</strong> fulfil the his<strong>to</strong>rical tasks <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat and eliminate classes and classdifferences, so that the state will wither away. It is <strong>on</strong>ly thebourgeoisie and its parties which in their attempt <strong>to</strong> hoodwinkthe masses try by every means <strong>to</strong> cover up the classnature <strong>of</strong> state power and describe the state machinery undertheir c<strong>on</strong>trol as being “<strong>of</strong> the whole people” and “aboveclass”.The fact that Khrushchov has announced the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> andadvanced the thesis <strong>of</strong> the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people” dem<strong>on</strong>stratesthat he has replaced the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist teachings<strong>on</strong> the state by bourgeois falsehoods.When <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists criticized their fallacies, the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique hastily defended themselves andtried hard <strong>to</strong> invent a so-called theoretical basis for the “state<strong>of</strong> the whole people”. They now assert that the his<strong>to</strong>ricalperiod <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat menti<strong>on</strong>ed by<strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin refers <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism<strong>to</strong> the first stage <strong>of</strong> communism and not <strong>to</strong> its higher stage.They further assert that “the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat1V. I. Lenin, “The Ec<strong>on</strong>omic C<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> Narodism and the Criticism<strong>of</strong> It in Mr. Struve’s Book”, Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,1960, Vol. I, p. 419.445
will cease <strong>to</strong> be necessary before the state withers away” 1and that after the end <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat,there is yet another stage, the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”.These are out-and-out sophistries.In his “Critique <strong>of</strong> the Gotha Programme”, <strong>Marx</strong> advancedthe well-known axiom that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatis the state <strong>of</strong> the period <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> communism.Lenin gave a clear explanati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Marx</strong>istaxiom.He said:In his “Critique <strong>of</strong> the Gotha Programme” <strong>Marx</strong> wrote:“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period<strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary transformati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e in<strong>to</strong> theother. There corresp<strong>on</strong>ds <strong>to</strong> this also a political transiti<strong>on</strong>period in which the state can be nothing but the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arydicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.”Up <strong>to</strong> now this axiom has never been disputed by Socialists,and yet it implies the recogniti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong>the state right up <strong>to</strong> the time when vic<strong>to</strong>rious socialismhas grown in<strong>to</strong> complete communism. 2Lenin further said:The essence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>’s teaching <strong>on</strong> the state has beenmastered <strong>on</strong>ly by those who understand that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> a single class is necessary not <strong>on</strong>ly for every classsociety in general, not <strong>on</strong>ly for the proletariat which hasoverthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire his<strong>to</strong>ricalperiod which separates capitalism from “classless society”,from Communism. 31“Programme for the Building <strong>of</strong> Communism”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial boardarticle in Pravda, August 18, 1961.2V. I. Lenin, “The Discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Self-Determinati<strong>on</strong> Summed Up”,Collected Works, Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1942, Vol. XIX,pp. 269-70.3V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Selected Works, FLPH,Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 234.446
It is perfectly clear that according <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin, thehis<strong>to</strong>rical period throughout which the state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat exists, is not merely the period <strong>of</strong>transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> the first stage <strong>of</strong> communism,as alleged by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique, but the entireperiod <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> “complete communism”,<strong>to</strong> the time when all class differences will have beeneliminated and “classless society” realized, that is <strong>to</strong> say, <strong>to</strong>the higher stage <strong>of</strong> communism.It is equally clear that the state in the transiti<strong>on</strong> periodreferred <strong>to</strong> by <strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin is the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand not anything else. The dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatis the form <strong>of</strong> the state in the entire period <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong>from capitalism <strong>to</strong> the higher stage <strong>of</strong> communism, andalso the last form <strong>of</strong> the state in human his<strong>to</strong>ry. The witheringaway <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat will mean thewithering away <strong>of</strong> the state. Lenin said:<strong>Marx</strong> deduced from the whole his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> Socialism and <strong>of</strong>the political struggle that the state was bound <strong>to</strong> disappear,and that the transiti<strong>on</strong>al form <strong>of</strong> its disappearance (thetransiti<strong>on</strong> from state <strong>to</strong> n<strong>on</strong>state) would be the “proletaria<strong>to</strong>rganized as the ruling class”. 1His<strong>to</strong>rically the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat may takedifferent forms from <strong>on</strong>e country <strong>to</strong> another and from <strong>on</strong>eperiod <strong>to</strong> another, but in essence it will remain the same.Lenin said:The transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> Communism certainlycannot but yield a tremendous abundance and variety <strong>of</strong>political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same:the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. 2It can thus be seen that it is absolutely not the view <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>and Lenin but an inventi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov1Ibid., pp. 256-57.2Ibid., p. 234.447
that the end <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat will precedethe withering away <strong>of</strong> the state and will be followed byyet another stage, “the state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”.In arguing for their anti-<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist views, therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique have taken great pains <strong>to</strong> finda sentence from <strong>Marx</strong> and dis<strong>to</strong>rted it by quoting it out <strong>of</strong>c<strong>on</strong>text. They have arbitrarily described the future nature<strong>of</strong> the state [Staatswesen in German] <strong>of</strong> communist societyreferred <strong>to</strong> by <strong>Marx</strong> in his “Critique <strong>of</strong> the Gotha Programme”as the “‘state <strong>of</strong> communist society’ [госyдаpствеННость коммyНИстИческогообщества in Russian], which is no l<strong>on</strong>gera dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat”. 1 They gleefully announcedthat the Chinese would not dare <strong>to</strong> quote this from <strong>Marx</strong>.Apparently the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique think it is veryhelpful <strong>to</strong> them.As it happens, Lenin seems <strong>to</strong> have foreseen that revisi<strong>on</strong>istswould make use <strong>of</strong> this phrase <strong>to</strong> dis<strong>to</strong>rt <strong>Marx</strong>ism. Inhis <strong>Marx</strong>ism <strong>on</strong> the State, Lenin gave an excellent explanati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> it. He said, “. . . the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatis a ‘political transiti<strong>on</strong> period’. . . . But <strong>Marx</strong> goes <strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> speak<strong>of</strong> ‘the future nature <strong>of</strong> the state [госyдаpствеННость in Russian,Staatswesen in German] <strong>of</strong> communist society’!! Thus,there will be a state even in ‘communist society’!! Is there nota c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> in this?” Lenin answered, “No.” He then tabulatedthe three stages in the process <strong>of</strong> development fromthe bourgeois state <strong>to</strong> the withering away <strong>of</strong> the state:The first stage — in capitalist society, the state is neededby the bourgeoisie — the bourgeois state.The sec<strong>on</strong>d stage — in the period <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism<strong>to</strong> communism, the state is needed by the proletariat— the state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.The third stage — in communist society, the state is notnecessary, it withers away.1M. A. Suslov, Report at the Plenary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU, February 1964, New Times, Eng. ed., No. 15, 1964,p. 62.448
He c<strong>on</strong>cluded: “Complete c<strong>on</strong>sistency and clarity!!”In Lenin’s tabulati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong>ly the bourgeois state, the state <strong>of</strong>the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the withering away <strong>of</strong>the state are <strong>to</strong> be found. By precisely this tabulati<strong>on</strong> Leninmade it clear that when communism is reached the statewithers away and becomes n<strong>on</strong>-existent.Ir<strong>on</strong>ically enough, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique alsoquoted this very passage from Lenin’s <strong>Marx</strong>ism <strong>on</strong> the Statein the course <strong>of</strong> defending their error. And then they proceeded<strong>to</strong> make the following idiotic statement:In our country the first two periods referred <strong>to</strong> by Leninin the opini<strong>on</strong> quoted already bel<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry. In theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> a state <strong>of</strong> the whole people — a communiststate system, the state <strong>of</strong> the first phase <strong>of</strong> communism, hasarisen and is developing. 1If the first two periods referred <strong>to</strong> by Lenin have alreadybecome a thing <strong>of</strong> the past in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, then the stateshould be withering away, and where could a “state <strong>of</strong> thewhole people” come from? If the state is not yet witheringaway, then it ought <strong>to</strong> be the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand under absolutely no circumstances a “state <strong>of</strong> the wholepeople”.In arguing for their “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”, the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique exert themselves <strong>to</strong> vilify the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat as undemocratic. They assert that<strong>on</strong>ly by replacing the state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatby the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people” can democracy befurther developed and turned in<strong>to</strong> “genuine democracy forthe whole people”. Khrushchov has pretentiously said thatthe aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat exemplifies“a line <strong>of</strong> energetically developing democracy” and that “pro-1“<strong>From</strong> the Party <strong>of</strong> the Working Class <strong>to</strong> the Party <strong>of</strong> the WholeSoviet People”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article in Partyinaya Zhizn, No. 8, 1964.449
letarian democracy is becoming socialist democracy <strong>of</strong> thewhole people”. 1These utterances can <strong>on</strong>ly show that their authors eitherare completely ignorant <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist teachings <strong>on</strong>the state or are maliciously dis<strong>to</strong>rting them.Any<strong>on</strong>e with a little knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism knowsthat the c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> democracy as a form <strong>of</strong> the state, like that<strong>of</strong> dicta<strong>to</strong>rship, is a class <strong>on</strong>e. There can <strong>on</strong>ly be class democracy,there cannot be “democracy for the whole people”.Lenin said:Democracy for the vast majority <strong>of</strong> the people, and suppressi<strong>on</strong>by force, i.e., exclusi<strong>on</strong> from democracy, <strong>of</strong> theexploiters and oppressors <strong>of</strong> the people -- this is the changedemocracy undergoes during the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism<strong>to</strong> Communism. 2Dicta<strong>to</strong>rship over the exploiting classes and democracy am<strong>on</strong>gthe working people — these are the two aspects <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat. It is <strong>on</strong>ly under the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat that democracy for the masses <strong>of</strong> the workingpeople can be developed and expanded <strong>to</strong> an unprecedentedextent. Without the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat there canbe no genuine democracy for the working people.Where there is bourgeois democracy there is no proletariandemocracy, and where there is proletarian democracy thereis no bourgeois democracy. The <strong>on</strong>e excludes the other. Thisis inevitable and admits <strong>of</strong> no compromise. The more thoroughlybourgeois democracy is eliminated, the more willproletarian democracy flourish. In the eyes <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie,any country where this occurs is lacking in democracy.But actually this is the promoti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> proletarian democracy1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>to</strong> the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU,Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1961, and Report <strong>on</strong> the Programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, deliveredat the C<strong>on</strong>gress.2V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 291.450
and the eliminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> bourgeois democracy. As proletariandemocracy develops, bourgeois democracy is eliminated.This fundamental <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist thesis is opposed by therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique. In fact, they hold that so l<strong>on</strong>gas enemies are subjected <strong>to</strong> dicta<strong>to</strong>rship there is no democracyand that the <strong>on</strong>ly way <strong>to</strong> develop democracy is <strong>to</strong> abolish thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship over enemies, s<strong>to</strong>p suppressing them and institute“democracy for the whole people”.Their view is cast from the same mould as the renegadeKautsky’s c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> “pure democracy”.In criticizing Kautsky Lenin said:. . . “pure democracy” is not <strong>on</strong>ly an ignorant phrase,revealing a lack <strong>of</strong> understanding both <strong>of</strong> the class struggleand <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> the state, but also a thrice-emptyphrase, since in communist society democracy will witheraway in the process <strong>of</strong> changing and becoming a habit, butwill never be “pure” democracy. 1He also pointed out:The dialectics (course) <strong>of</strong> the development is as follows:from absolutism <strong>to</strong> bourgeois democracy; from bourgeois <strong>to</strong>proletarian democracy; from proletarian democracy t<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong>e. 2That is <strong>to</strong> say, in the higher stage <strong>of</strong> communism proletariandemocracy will wither away al<strong>on</strong>g with the eliminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>classes and the withering away <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.To speak plainly, as with the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”,the “democracy for the whole people” proclaimed by Khrushchovis a hoax. In thus retrieving the tattered garments <strong>of</strong>the bourgeoisie and the old-line revisi<strong>on</strong>ists, patching them1V. I. Lenin, “The Proletarian Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the RenegadeKautsky”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part2, p. 48.2V. I. Lenin, <strong>Marx</strong>ism <strong>on</strong> the State, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, p. 42.451
up and adding a label <strong>of</strong> his own, Khrushchov’s sole purposeis <strong>to</strong> deceive the Soviet people and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people<strong>of</strong> the world and cover up his betrayal <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat and his oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism.What is the essence <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s “state <strong>of</strong> the wholepeople”?Khrushchov has abolished the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatin the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and established a dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>istclique headed by himself, that is, a dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> aprivileged stratum <strong>of</strong> the Soviet bourgeoisie. Actually his“state <strong>of</strong> the whole people” is not a state <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat but a state in which his small revisi<strong>on</strong>istclique wield their dicta<strong>to</strong>rship over the masses <strong>of</strong> the workers,the peasants and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary intellectuals. Under therule <strong>of</strong> the Khrushchov clique, there is no democracy for theSoviet working people, there is democracy <strong>on</strong>ly for the handful<strong>of</strong> people bel<strong>on</strong>ging <strong>to</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique,for the privileged stratum and for the bourgeois elements, oldand new. Khrushchov’s “democracy for the whole people”is nothing but out-and-out bourgeois democracy, i.e., a despoticdicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the Khrushchov clique over the Soviet people.In the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>day, any<strong>on</strong>e who persists in the proletarianstand, upholds <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and has the courage<strong>to</strong> speak out, <strong>to</strong> resist or <strong>to</strong> fight is watched, followed, summ<strong>on</strong>ed,and even arrested, impris<strong>on</strong>ed or diagnosed as “mentallyill” and sent <strong>to</strong> “mental hospitals”. Recently the Sovietpress has declared that it is necessary <strong>to</strong> “fight” against thosewho show even the slightest dissatisfacti<strong>on</strong>, and called for “relentlessbattle” against the “rotten jokers” 1 who are so boldas <strong>to</strong> make sarcastic remarks about Khrushchov’s agriculturalpolicy. It is particularly ast<strong>on</strong>ishing that the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique should have <strong>on</strong> more than <strong>on</strong>e occasi<strong>on</strong>bloodily suppressed striking workers and the masses who putup resistance.1Izvestia, March 10, 1964.452
The formula <strong>of</strong> abolishing the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatwhile keeping a state <strong>of</strong> the whole people reveals the secret<strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique; that is, they are firmlyopposed <strong>to</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat but will not giveup state power till their doom. The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchovclique know the paramount importance <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trolling statepower. They need the state machinery for repressing theSoviet working people and the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists. They needit for clearing the way for the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. These are Khrushchov’s real aims in raisingthe banners <strong>of</strong> the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people” and “democracyfor the whole people”.REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTYOF THE ENTIRE PEOPLEAt the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU Khrushchov openly raisedanother banner, the alterati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletarian character <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. He announcedthe replacement <strong>of</strong> the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat by a “party <strong>of</strong>the entire people”. The programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU states:As a result <strong>of</strong> the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism in the U.S.S.R. andthe c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> Soviet society, the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the working class has become the vanguard<strong>of</strong> the Soviet people, a party <strong>of</strong> the entire people.The Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU saysthat the CPSU “has become a political organizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theentire people”.How absurd!Elementary knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism tells us that,like the state, a political party is an instrument <strong>of</strong> class struggle.Every political party has a class character. Party spiritis the c<strong>on</strong>centrated expressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> class character. There isno such thing as a n<strong>on</strong>-class or supra-class political party and453
there never has been, nor is there such a thing as a “party <strong>of</strong>the entire people” that does not represent the interests <strong>of</strong> aparticular class.The party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is built in accordance with therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary theory and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary style <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism; it is the party formed by the advanced elementswho are boundlessly faithful <strong>to</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rical missi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theproletariat, it is the organized vanguard <strong>of</strong> the proletariat andthe highest form <strong>of</strong> its organizati<strong>on</strong>. The party <strong>of</strong> the proletariatrepresents the interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> its will.Moreover, the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is the <strong>on</strong>ly partyable <strong>to</strong> represent the interests <strong>of</strong> the people, who c<strong>on</strong>stituteover 90 per cent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>to</strong>tal populati<strong>on</strong>. The reas<strong>on</strong> is thatthe interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariat are identical with those <strong>of</strong> theworking masses, that the proletarian party can approach problemsin the light <strong>of</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rical role as the proletariat andin terms <strong>of</strong> the present and future interests <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand the working masses and <strong>of</strong> the best interests <strong>of</strong> the overwhelmingmajority <strong>of</strong> the people, and that it can give correctleadership in accordance with <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.In additi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> its members <strong>of</strong> working-class origin, the party<strong>of</strong> the proletariat has members <strong>of</strong> other class origins. But thelatter do not join the Party as representatives <strong>of</strong> other classes.<strong>From</strong> the very day they join the Party they must aband<strong>on</strong>their former class stand and take the stand <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.<strong>Marx</strong> and Engels said:If people <strong>of</strong> this kind from other classes join the proletarianmovement, the first c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> must be that theyshould not bring any remnants <strong>of</strong> bourgeois, petty-bourgeois,etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adoptthe proletarian outlook. 11“<strong>Marx</strong> and Engels <strong>to</strong> A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke andOthers (“Circular Letter”), Sept. 17-18, 1879”, Selected Works <strong>of</strong> Karl<strong>Marx</strong> and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II,p. 440.454
The basic principles c<strong>on</strong>cerning the character <strong>of</strong> the proletarianparty were l<strong>on</strong>g ago elucidated by <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.But in the opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique theseprinciples are “stereotyped formulas”, while their “party <strong>of</strong>the entire people” c<strong>on</strong>forms <strong>to</strong> the “actual dialectics <strong>of</strong> thedevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party”. 1The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique have cudgelled theirbrains <strong>to</strong> think up arguments justifying their “party <strong>of</strong> theentire people”. They have argued during the talks betweenthe Chinese and Soviet Parties in July 1963 and in the Sovietpress that they have changed the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> in<strong>to</strong> a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” because:(1) The CPSU expresses the interests <strong>of</strong> the whole people.(2) The entire people have accepted the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistworld outlook <strong>of</strong> the working class, and the aim <strong>of</strong> the workingclass — the building <strong>of</strong> communism — has become theaim <strong>of</strong> the entire people.(3) The ranks <strong>of</strong> the CPSU c<strong>on</strong>sist <strong>of</strong> the best representatives<strong>of</strong> the workers, collective farmers and intellectuals.The CPSU unites in its own ranks representatives <strong>of</strong> overa hundred nati<strong>on</strong>alities and peoples.(4) The democratic method used in the Party’s activitiesis also in accord with its character as the Party <strong>of</strong> the entirepeople.It is obvious even at a glance that n<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> these argumentsadduced by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique shows a seriousapproach <strong>to</strong> a serious problem.When Lenin was fighting the opportunist muddle-heads, heremarked:Can people obviously incapable <strong>of</strong> taking serious problemsseriously, themselves be taken seriously? It is difficult <strong>to</strong>do so, comrades, very difficult! But the questi<strong>on</strong> which1“<strong>From</strong> the Party <strong>of</strong> the Working Class <strong>to</strong> the Party <strong>of</strong> the WholeSoviet People”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial board article in Partyinaya Zhizn, No. 8, 1964.455
certain people cannot treat seriously is in itself so seriousthat it will do no harm <strong>to</strong> examine even patently frivolousreplies <strong>to</strong> it. 1Today, <strong>to</strong>o, it will do no harm <strong>to</strong> examine the patentlyfrivolous replies given by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique <strong>to</strong>so serious a questi<strong>on</strong> as that <strong>of</strong> the party <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.According <strong>to</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique, the CommunistParty should become a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”because it expresses the interests <strong>of</strong> the entire people. Doesit not then follow that from the very beginning it should havebeen a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” instead <strong>of</strong> a party <strong>of</strong> theproletariat?According <strong>to</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique, the CommunistParty should become a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” because“the entire people have accepted the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistworld outlook <strong>of</strong> the working class”. But how can it be saidthat every<strong>on</strong>e has accepted the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist world outlookin Soviet society where sharp class polarizati<strong>on</strong> and classstruggle are taking place? Can it be said that the tens <strong>of</strong>thousands <strong>of</strong> old and new bourgeois elements in your countryare all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists? If <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism has reallybe come the world outlook <strong>of</strong> the entire people, as you allege,does it not then follow that there is no difference in yoursociety between Party and n<strong>on</strong>-Party and no need whatsoeverfor the Party <strong>to</strong> exist? What difference does it make if thereis a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” or not?According <strong>to</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique, the CommunistParty should become a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”because its membership c<strong>on</strong>sists <strong>of</strong> workers, peasants andintellectuals and all nati<strong>on</strong>alities and peoples. Does this meanthen that before the idea <strong>of</strong> the “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”was put forward at its 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress n<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the members <strong>of</strong>the CPSU came from classes other than the working class?1V. I. Lenin, “Clarity First and Foremost!”, Collected Works, Eng.ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XX, p. 544.456
Does it mean that formerly the members <strong>of</strong> the Party all camefrom just <strong>on</strong>e nati<strong>on</strong>ality, <strong>to</strong> the exclusi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> other nati<strong>on</strong>alitiesand peoples? If the character <strong>of</strong> a party is determined bythe social background <strong>of</strong> its membership, does it not then followthat the numerous political parties in the world whosemembers also come from various classes, nati<strong>on</strong>alities andpeoples are all “parties <strong>of</strong> the entire people”?According <strong>to</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique, the Partyshould be a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” because the methodsit uses in its activities are democratic. But from its outset, aCommunist Party is built <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong>democratic centralism and should always adopt the mass lineand the democratic method <strong>of</strong> persuasi<strong>on</strong> and educati<strong>on</strong> inworking am<strong>on</strong>g the people. Does it not then follow that aCommunist Party is a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people” from thefirst day <strong>of</strong> its founding?Briefly, n<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the arguments listed by the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique holds water.Besides making a great fuss about a “party <strong>of</strong> the entirepeople”, Khrushchov has also divided the Party , in<strong>to</strong> an “industrialParty” and an “agricultural Party” <strong>on</strong> the pretext<strong>of</strong> “building the Party organs <strong>on</strong> the producti<strong>on</strong> principle”. 1The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique say that they have d<strong>on</strong>eso because <strong>of</strong> “the primacy <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omics over politics undersocialism” 2 and because they want <strong>to</strong> place “the ec<strong>on</strong>omic andproducti<strong>on</strong> problems, which have been pushed <strong>to</strong> the forefr<strong>on</strong>tby the entire course <strong>of</strong> the communist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, at thecentre <strong>of</strong> the activities <strong>of</strong> the Party organizati<strong>on</strong>s” and makethem “the cornerst<strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> all their work”. 3 Khrushchov said,“We say bluntly that the main thing in the work <strong>of</strong> the Party1N. S. Khrushchov, Report at the Plenary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, November 1962.2“Study, Know, Act”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial <strong>of</strong> Ec<strong>on</strong>omicheskaya Gazeta, No. 50,1962.3“The Communist and Producti<strong>on</strong>”, edi<strong>to</strong>rial <strong>of</strong> Kommunist, Moscow,No. 2, 1963.457
organs is producti<strong>on</strong>.” 1 And what is more, they have foistedthese views <strong>on</strong> Lenin, claiming that they are acting in accordancewith his principles.However, any<strong>on</strong>e at all acquainted with the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> theCPSU knows that, far from being Lenin’s views, they are anti-Leninist views and that they were views held by Trotsky. Onthis questi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong>o, Khrushchov is a worthy disciple <strong>of</strong> Trotsky.In criticizing Trotsky and Bukharin, Lenin said:Politics are the c<strong>on</strong>centrated expressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omics. . . .Politics cannot but have precedence over ec<strong>on</strong>omics. Toargue differently means forgetting the A B C <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism.He c<strong>on</strong>tinued:. . . without a proper political approach <strong>to</strong> the subject thegiven class cannot maintain its rule, and c<strong>on</strong>sequently cannotsolve its own producti<strong>on</strong> problems. 2The facts are crystal clear: the real purpose <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique in proposing a “party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”was completely <strong>to</strong> alter the proletarian character <strong>of</strong> the CPSUand transform the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Party in<strong>to</strong> a revisi<strong>on</strong>istparty.The great Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> is c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>tedwith the grave danger <strong>of</strong> degenerating from a party<strong>of</strong> the proletariat in<strong>to</strong> a party <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie and from a<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist in<strong>to</strong> a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist party.Lenin said:A party that wants <strong>to</strong> exist cannot allow the slightestwavering <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> its existence or any agreementwith those who may bury it. 31N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Electi<strong>on</strong> Meeting <strong>of</strong> the KalininC<strong>on</strong>stituency <strong>of</strong> Moscow, February 27, 1963.2V. I. Lenin, “Once Again <strong>on</strong> the Trade Uni<strong>on</strong>s, the Present Situati<strong>on</strong>and the Mistakes <strong>of</strong> Trotsky and Bukharin”, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. IX, pp. 54 and 55.3V. I. Lenin, “How Vera Zasulich Demolishes Liquidati<strong>on</strong>ism”, CollectedWorks, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XIX, p. 414.458
At present, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique is again c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>tingthe broad membership <strong>of</strong> the great Communist Party<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> with precisely this serious questi<strong>on</strong>.KHRUSHCHOV’S PHONEY COMMUNISMAt the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, Khrushchov announcedthat the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> had already entered the period <strong>of</strong> theextensive building <strong>of</strong> communist society. He also declaredthat “we shall, in the main, have built a communist societywithin twenty years”. 1 This is pure fraud.How can there be talk <strong>of</strong> building communism when therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique are leading the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism and when theSoviet people are in grave danger <strong>of</strong> losing the fruits <strong>of</strong>socialism?In putting up the signboard <strong>of</strong> “building communism”Khrushchov’s real aim is <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ceal the true face <strong>of</strong> his revisi<strong>on</strong>ism.But it is not hard <strong>to</strong> expose this trick. Just as theeyeball <strong>of</strong> a fish cannot be allowed <strong>to</strong> pass as a pearl, sorevisi<strong>on</strong>ism cannot be allowed <strong>to</strong> pass itself <strong>of</strong>f as communism.Scientific communism has a precise and definite meaning.According <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, communist society is a societyin which classes and class differences are completelyeliminated, the entire people have a high level <strong>of</strong> communistc<strong>on</strong>sciousness and morality as well as boundless enthusiasm forand initiative in labour, there is a great abundance <strong>of</strong> socialproducts and the principle <strong>of</strong> “from each according <strong>to</strong> hisability, <strong>to</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> his needs” is applied, and in whichthe state has withered away.<strong>Marx</strong> declared:In the higher phase <strong>of</strong> communist society, after the enslavingsubordinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the individual <strong>to</strong> the divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> labour, and1N. S. Khrushchov, Report <strong>on</strong> the Programme <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, deliveredat the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU in Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1961.459
therewith also the antithesis between mental and physicallabour, has vanished; after labour has become not <strong>on</strong>ly ameans <strong>of</strong> life but life’s prime want; after the productiveforces have also increased with the all-round development<strong>of</strong> the individual, and all the springs <strong>of</strong> co-operative wealthflow more abundantly — <strong>on</strong>ly then can the narrow horiz<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and societyinscribe <strong>on</strong> its banners: <strong>From</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> his ability,<strong>to</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> his needs! 1According <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory, the purpose <strong>of</strong> upholdingthe dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in the period <strong>of</strong> socialismis precisely <strong>to</strong> ensure that society develops in thedirecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> communism. Lenin said that “forward development,i.e., <strong>to</strong>wards Communism, proceeds through the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat, and cannot do otherwise”. 2 Sincethe revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique have aband<strong>on</strong>ed the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, it is going backwardand not forward, going backward <strong>to</strong> capitalism and notforward <strong>to</strong> communism.Going forward <strong>to</strong> communism means moving <strong>to</strong>wards theaboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all classes and class differences. A communistsociety which preserves any classes at all, let al<strong>on</strong>e exploitingclasses, is inc<strong>on</strong>ceivable. Yet Khrushchov is fostering a newbourgeoisie, res<strong>to</strong>ring and extending the system <strong>of</strong> exploitati<strong>on</strong>and accelerating class polarizati<strong>on</strong> in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. Aprivileged bourgeois stratum opposed <strong>to</strong> the Soviet peoplenow occupies the ruling positi<strong>on</strong> in the Party and governmentand in the ec<strong>on</strong>omic, cultural and other departments. Can<strong>on</strong>e find an iota <strong>of</strong> communism in all this?Going forward <strong>to</strong> communism means moving <strong>to</strong>wards aunitary system <strong>of</strong> the ownership <strong>of</strong> the means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>1Karl <strong>Marx</strong>, “Critique <strong>of</strong> the Gotha Programme”, Selected Works <strong>of</strong>Karl <strong>Marx</strong> and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol.II, p. 23.2V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revoluti<strong>on</strong>”, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 291.460
y the whole people. A communist society in which severalkinds <strong>of</strong> ownership <strong>of</strong> the means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> coexist is inc<strong>on</strong>ceivable.Yet Khrushchov is creating a situati<strong>on</strong> in whichenterprises owned by the whole people are graduallydegenerating in<strong>to</strong> capitalist enterprises and farms under thesystem <strong>of</strong> collective ownership are gradually degenerating in<strong>to</strong>units <strong>of</strong> a kulak ec<strong>on</strong>omy. Again, can <strong>on</strong>e find an iota <strong>of</strong>communism in all this?Going forward <strong>to</strong> communism means moving <strong>to</strong>wards agreat abundance <strong>of</strong> social products and the realizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theprinciple <strong>of</strong> “from each according <strong>to</strong> his ability, <strong>to</strong> each according<strong>to</strong> his needs”. A communist society built <strong>on</strong> the enrichment<strong>of</strong> a handful <strong>of</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>s and the impoverishment <strong>of</strong>the masses is inc<strong>on</strong>ceivable. Under the socialist system thegreat Soviet people developed the social productive forces atunprecedented speed. But the evils <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ismare creating havoc in the Soviet socialist ec<strong>on</strong>omy. C<strong>on</strong>stantlybeset with innumerable c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s, Khrushchovmakes frequent changes in his ec<strong>on</strong>omic policies and <strong>of</strong>tengoes back <strong>on</strong> his own words, thus throwing the Soviet nati<strong>on</strong>alec<strong>on</strong>omy in<strong>to</strong> a state <strong>of</strong> chaos. Khrushchov is truly an incorrigiblewastrel. He has squandered the grain reservesbuilt up under Stalin and brought great difficulties in<strong>to</strong> thelives <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people. He has dis<strong>to</strong>rted and violated thesocialist principle <strong>of</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> “from each according <strong>to</strong>his ability, <strong>to</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> his work”, and enabled a handful<strong>of</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> appropriate the fruits <strong>of</strong> the labour <strong>of</strong> thebroad masses <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people. These points al<strong>on</strong>e aresufficient <strong>to</strong> prove that the road taken by Khrushchov leadsaway from communism.Going forward <strong>to</strong> communism means moving <strong>to</strong>wards enhancingthe communist c<strong>on</strong>sciousness <strong>of</strong> the masses. A communistsociety with bourgeois ideas running rampant is inc<strong>on</strong>ceivable.Yet Khrushchov is zealously reviving bourgeoisideology in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and serving as a missi<strong>on</strong>ary forthe decadent American culture. By propagating material461
incentive, he is turning all human relati<strong>on</strong>s in<strong>to</strong> m<strong>on</strong>ey relati<strong>on</strong>sand encouraging individualism and selfishness. Because<strong>of</strong> him, manual labour is again c<strong>on</strong>sidered sordid and love <strong>of</strong>pleasure at the expense <strong>of</strong> other people’s labour is again c<strong>on</strong>sideredh<strong>on</strong>ourable. Certainly, the social ethics and atmospherepromoted by Khrushchov are far removed fromcommunism, as far as far can be.Going forward <strong>to</strong> communism means moving <strong>to</strong>wards thewithering away <strong>of</strong> the state. A communist society with astate apparatus for oppressing the people is in c<strong>on</strong>ceivable. Thestate <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is actually no l<strong>on</strong>gera state in its original sense, because it is no l<strong>on</strong>ger a machineused by the exploiting few <strong>to</strong> oppress the overwhelming majority<strong>of</strong> the people but a machine for exercising dicta<strong>to</strong>rshipover a very small number <strong>of</strong> exploiters, while democracy ispractised am<strong>on</strong>g the overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> the people.Khrushchov is altering the character <strong>of</strong> Soviet state power andchanging the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat back in<strong>to</strong> an instrumentwhereby a handful <strong>of</strong> privileged bourgeois elementsexercise dicta<strong>to</strong>rship over the mass <strong>of</strong> the Soviet workers,peasants and intellectuals. He is c<strong>on</strong>tinuously strengtheninghis dicta<strong>to</strong>rial state apparatus and intensifying his repressi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Soviet people. It is indeed a great mockery <strong>to</strong> talkabout communism in these circumstances.A comparis<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all this with the principles <strong>of</strong> scientificcommunism readily reveals that in every respect the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique are leading the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> away fromthe path <strong>of</strong> socialism and <strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> capitalism and, asa c<strong>on</strong>sequence, further and further away from, instead <strong>of</strong>closer <strong>to</strong>, the communist goal <strong>of</strong> “from each according <strong>to</strong> hisability, <strong>to</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> his needs”.Khrushchov has ulterior motives when he puts up the signboard<strong>of</strong> communism. He is using it <strong>to</strong> fool the Soviet peopleand cover up his effort <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism. He is using it<strong>to</strong> deceive the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople the world over and betray proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.462
Under this signboard, the Khrushchov clique has itselfaband<strong>on</strong>ed proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism and is seeking apartnership with U.S. imperialism for the partiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theworld; moreover, it wants the fraternal socialist countries <strong>to</strong>serve its own private interests and not <strong>to</strong> oppose imperialismor <strong>to</strong> support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the oppressed peoples andnati<strong>on</strong>s, and it wants them <strong>to</strong> accept its political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic andmilitary c<strong>on</strong>trol and be its virtual dependencies and col<strong>on</strong>ies.Furthermore, the Khrushchov clique wants all the oppressedpeoples and nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> serve its private interests and aband<strong>on</strong>their revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles, so as not <strong>to</strong> disturb its sweetdream <strong>of</strong> partnership with imperialism for the divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theworld, and instead submit <strong>to</strong> enslavement and oppressi<strong>on</strong> byimperialism and its lackeys.In short, Khrushchov’s slogan <strong>of</strong> basically “building a communistsociety within twenty years” in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> isnot <strong>on</strong>ly false but also reacti<strong>on</strong>ary.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique say that the Chinese “go<strong>to</strong> the length <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>ing the very right <strong>of</strong> our Party andpeople <strong>to</strong> build communism”. 1 This is a despicable attempt<strong>to</strong> fool the Soviet people and pois<strong>on</strong> the friendship <strong>of</strong> the Chineseand Soviet people. We have never had any doubt thatthe great Soviet people will eventually enter in<strong>to</strong> communistsociety. But right now the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique aredamaging the socialist fruits <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people and takingaway their right <strong>to</strong> go forward <strong>to</strong> communism. In the circumstances,the issue c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting the Soviet people is not how<strong>to</strong> build communism but rather how <strong>to</strong> resist and opposeKhrushchov’s effort <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique also say that “the CPCleaders hint that, since our Party has made its aim a better lifefor the people, Soviet society is being ‘bourgeoisified’, is1 M. A. Suslov, Report at the Plenary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the CPSU, February 1964.463
‘degenerating’”. 1 This trick <strong>of</strong> deflecting the Soviet people’sdissatisfacti<strong>on</strong> with the Khrushchov clique is deplorable aswell as stupid. We sincerely wish the Soviet people an increasinglybetter life. But Khrushchov’s boasts <strong>of</strong> “c<strong>on</strong>cernfor the well-being <strong>of</strong> the people” and <strong>of</strong> “a better life forevery man” are utterly false and demagogic. For the masses<strong>of</strong> the Soviet people life is already bad enough at Khrushchov’shands. The Khrushchov clique seek a “better life” <strong>on</strong>ly forthe members <strong>of</strong> the privileged stratum and the bourgeois elements,old and new, in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. These people areappropriating the fruits <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people’s labour and livingthe life <strong>of</strong> bourgeois lords. They have indeed becomethoroughly bourgeoisified.Khrushchov’s “communism” is in essence a variant <strong>of</strong> bourgeoissocialism. He does not regard communism as completelyabolishing classes and class differences but describes it as “abowl accessible <strong>to</strong> all and brimming with the products <strong>of</strong>physical and mental labour”. 2 He does not regard the struggle<strong>of</strong> the working class for communism as a struggle for thethorough emancipati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all mankind as well as itself butdescribes it as a struggle for “a good dish <strong>of</strong> goulash”. Thereis not an iota <strong>of</strong> scientific communism in his head but <strong>on</strong>lythe image <strong>of</strong> a society <strong>of</strong> bourgeois philistines.Khrushchov’s “communism” takes the United States for itsmodel. Imitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the methods <strong>of</strong> management <strong>of</strong> U.S.capitalism and the bourgeois way <strong>of</strong> life has been raised byKhrushchov <strong>to</strong> the level <strong>of</strong> state policy. He says that he “alwaysthinks highly” <strong>of</strong> the achievements <strong>of</strong> the United States.He “rejoices in these achievements, is a little envious at1Open Letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> All Party Organizati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>to</strong> All Communists <strong>of</strong> theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, July 14, 1963.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech for the Austrian Radio and Televisi<strong>on</strong>,July 7, 1960.464
times”. 1 He ex<strong>to</strong>ls <strong>to</strong> the sky a letter by Roswell Garst, a bigU.S. farmer, which propagates the capitalist system; 2 actuallyhe has taken it as his agricultural programme. He wants <strong>to</strong>copy the United States in the sphere <strong>of</strong> industry as well asthat <strong>of</strong> agriculture and, in particular, <strong>to</strong> imitate the pr<strong>of</strong>itmotive <strong>of</strong> U.S. capitalist enterprises. He shows great admirati<strong>on</strong>for the American way <strong>of</strong> life, asserting that the Americanpeople “do not live badly” 3 under the rule and enslavement<strong>of</strong> m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital. Going further, Khrushchov is hopeful <strong>of</strong>building communism with loans from U.S. imperialism. Duringhis visits <strong>to</strong> the United States and Hungary, he expressed <strong>on</strong>more than <strong>on</strong>e occasi<strong>on</strong> his readiness “<strong>to</strong> take credits from thedevil himself”.Thus it can be seen that Khrushchov’s “communism” is indeed“goulash communism”, the “communism <strong>of</strong> the Americanway <strong>of</strong> life” and “communism seeking credits from the devil”.No w<strong>on</strong>der he <strong>of</strong>ten tells representatives <strong>of</strong> Western m<strong>on</strong>opolycapital that <strong>on</strong>ce such “communism” is realized in the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>, “you will go forward <strong>to</strong> communism without any callfrom me”. 4There is nothing new about such “communism”. It is simplyanother name for capitalism. It is <strong>on</strong>ly a bourgeois label,sign or advertisement. In ridiculing the old-line revisi<strong>on</strong>istparties which set up the signboard <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism, Lenin said:Wherever <strong>Marx</strong>ism is popular am<strong>on</strong>g the workers, thispolitical tendency, this “bourgeois labour party,” will swearby the name <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>. It cannot be prohibited from doing1N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Leaders <strong>of</strong> U.S. C<strong>on</strong>gress andMembers <strong>of</strong> the Senate Foreign Relati<strong>on</strong>s Committee, September 16,1959.2N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Plenary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, February 1964.3N. S. Khrushchov, Talk at a Meeting with Businessman and PublicLeaders in Pittsburgh, U.S.A., September 24, 1959.4N. S. Khrushchov, Talk at a Meeting with French Parliamentarians,March 25, 1960.465
this, just as a trading firm cannot be prohibited from usingany particular label, sign, or advertisement. 1It is thus easily understandable why Khrushchov’s “communism”is appreciated by imperialism and m<strong>on</strong>opoly capital.The U.S. Secretary <strong>of</strong> State Dean Rusk has said:. . . <strong>to</strong> the extent that goulash and the sec<strong>on</strong>d pair <strong>of</strong>trousers and questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> that sort become more importantin the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, I think <strong>to</strong> that extent a moderating influencehas come in<strong>to</strong> the present scene. 2And the British Prime Minister Douglas-Home has said:Mr. Khrushchov said that the Russian brand <strong>of</strong> communismputs educati<strong>on</strong> and goulash first. That is good; goulashcommunismis better than war-communism, and I am glad<strong>to</strong> have this c<strong>on</strong>firmati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> our view that fat and comfortableCommunists are better than lean and hungry Communists.3Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism entirely caters <strong>to</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong>“peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>” which U.S. imperialism is pursuing withregard <strong>to</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and other socialist countries. JohnFoster Dulles said:. . . there was evidence within the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces<strong>to</strong>ward greater liberalism which, if they persisted, couldbring about a basic change within the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. 4The liberal forces Dulles talked about are capitalist forces.The basic change Dulles hoped for is the degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialismin<strong>to</strong> capitalism. Khrushchov is effecting exactly the“basic change” Dulles dreamed <strong>of</strong>.1V. I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”, SelectedWorks, Eng. ed., Internati<strong>on</strong>al Publishers, New York, Vol. XI,p. 761.2Dean Rusk, Interview <strong>on</strong> British Broadcasting Corporati<strong>on</strong> Televisi<strong>on</strong>,May 10, 1964.3A. Douglas Home, Speech at Norwich, England, April 6, 1964.4J. F. Dulles, Press C<strong>on</strong>ference, May 15, 1956.466
How the imperialists are hoping for the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalismin the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>! How they are rejoicing!We would advise the imperialist lords not <strong>to</strong> be happy <strong>to</strong>oso<strong>on</strong>. Notwithstanding all the services <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchovclique, nothing can save imperialism from its doom.The revisi<strong>on</strong>ist ruling clique suffer from the same kind <strong>of</strong>disease as the imperialist ruling clique; they are extremelyantag<strong>on</strong>istic <strong>to</strong> the masses <strong>of</strong> the people who comprise over 90per cent <strong>of</strong> the world’s populati<strong>on</strong>, and therefore they, <strong>to</strong>o, areweak and powerless and are paper tigers. Like the clay Buddhathat tried <strong>to</strong> wade across the river, the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchovclique cannot even save themselves, so how can theyendow imperialism with l<strong>on</strong>g life?HISTORICAL LESSONS OF THE DICTATORSHIPOF THE PROLETARIATKhrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism has inflicted heavy damage <strong>on</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, but at the same timeit has educated the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary peoplethroughout the world by negative example.If it may be said that the Great Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> provided<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists in all countries with the most importantpositive experience and opened up the road for the proletarianseizure <strong>of</strong> political power, then <strong>on</strong> its part Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ismmay be said <strong>to</strong> have provided them with the mostimportant negative experience, enabling <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists inall countries <strong>to</strong> draw the appropriate less<strong>on</strong>s for preventing thedegenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletarian party and the socialist state.His<strong>to</strong>rically all revoluti<strong>on</strong>s have had their reverses andtheir twists and turns. Lenin <strong>on</strong>ce asked:. . . if we take the matter in its essence, has it ever happenedin his<strong>to</strong>ry that a new mode <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>ok root467
immediately, without a l<strong>on</strong>g successi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> setbacks, blundersand relapses? 1The internati<strong>on</strong>al proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> has a his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong>less than a century counting from 1871 when the proletariat<strong>of</strong> the Paris Commune made the first heroic attempt at theseizure <strong>of</strong> political power, or barely half a century countingfrom the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>. The proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>, thegreatest revoluti<strong>on</strong> in human his<strong>to</strong>ry, replaces capitalism bysocialism and private ownership by public ownership anduproots all the systems <strong>of</strong> exploitati<strong>on</strong> and all the exploitingclasses. It is all the more natural that so earth-shaking arevoluti<strong>on</strong> should have <strong>to</strong> go through serious and fierce classstruggles, inevitably traverse a l<strong>on</strong>g and <strong>to</strong>rtuous course besetwith reverses.His<strong>to</strong>ry furnishes a number <strong>of</strong> examples in which proletarianrule suffered defeat as a result <strong>of</strong> armed suppressi<strong>on</strong> by thebourgeoisie, for instance, the Paris Commune and the HungarianSoviet Republic <strong>of</strong> 1919. In c<strong>on</strong>temporary times, <strong>to</strong>o,there was the counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary rebelli<strong>on</strong> in Hungary in1956, when the rule <strong>of</strong> the proletariat was almost overthrown.People can easily perceive this form <strong>of</strong> capitalist res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong>and are more alert and watchful against it.However, they cannot easily perceive and are <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>of</strong>f theirguard or not vigilant against another form <strong>of</strong> capitalist res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong>,which therefore presents a greater danger. The state <strong>of</strong>the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat takes the road <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ismor the road <strong>of</strong> “peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>” as a result <strong>of</strong> thedegenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Party and the state. Aless<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this kind was provided some years ago by the revisi<strong>on</strong>istTi<strong>to</strong> clique who brought about the degenerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialistYugoslavia in<strong>to</strong> a capitalist country. But the Yugoslavless<strong>on</strong> al<strong>on</strong>e has not sufficed <strong>to</strong> arouse people’s attenti<strong>on</strong> fully.Some may say that perhaps it was an accident.1V. I. Lenin, “A Great Beginning”, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 229.468
But now the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique have usurpedthe leadership <strong>of</strong> the Party and the state, and there is gravedanger <strong>of</strong> a res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, theland <strong>of</strong> the Great Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> with its his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> severaldecades in building socialism. And this sounds the alarmfor all socialist countries, including China, and for all the Communistand Workers’ Parties, including the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> China. Inevitably it arouses very great attenti<strong>on</strong> and forces<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people the world over <strong>to</strong>p<strong>on</strong>der deeply and sharpen their vigilance.The emergence <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism is a bad thing,and it is also a good thing. So l<strong>on</strong>g as the countries wheresocialism has been achieved and also those that will later embark<strong>on</strong> the socialist road seriously study the less<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the“peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>” promoted by the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchovclique and take the appropriate measures, they will be able <strong>to</strong>prevent this kind <strong>of</strong> “peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>” as well as crushthe enemy’s armed attacks. Thus, the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the worldproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong> will be more certain.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China has a his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> forty-threeyears. During its protracted revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle, ourParty combated both Right and “Left” opportunist errors andthe <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist leadership <strong>of</strong> the Central Committeeheaded by Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung was established. Closelyintegrating the universal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism with thec<strong>on</strong>crete practice <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> in China,Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung has led the Chinese people from vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>to</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry. The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Chinese CommunistParty and Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung have taught us <strong>to</strong>wage unremitting struggle in the theoretical, political andorganizati<strong>on</strong>al fields, as well as in practical work, so as <strong>to</strong>combat revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and prevent a res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism.The Chinese people have g<strong>on</strong>e through protracted revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryarmed struggles and possess a glorious revoluti<strong>on</strong>arytraditi<strong>on</strong>. The Chinese People’s Liberati<strong>on</strong> Army is armedwith <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung’s thinking and inseparably linked <strong>to</strong> the469
masses. The numerous cadres <strong>of</strong> the Chinese CommunistParty have been educated and tempered in rectificati<strong>on</strong> movementsand sharp class struggles. All these fac<strong>to</strong>rs make itvery difficult <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism in our country.But let us look at the facts. Is our society <strong>to</strong>day thoroughlyclean? No, it is not. Classes and class struggle still remain,the activities <strong>of</strong> the overthrown reacti<strong>on</strong>ary classes plotting acomeback still c<strong>on</strong>tinue, and we still have speculative activitiesby old and new bourgeois elements and desperate foraysby embezzlers, grafters and degenerates. There are also cases<strong>of</strong> degenerati<strong>on</strong> in a few primary organizati<strong>on</strong>s; what is more,these degenerates do their utmost <strong>to</strong> find protec<strong>to</strong>rs and agentsin the higher leading bodies. We should not in the leastslacken our vigilance against such phenomena but must keepfully alert.The struggle in the socialist countries between the road <strong>of</strong>socialism and the road <strong>of</strong> capitalism — between the forces <strong>of</strong>capitalism attempting a comeback and the forces opposing it —is unavoidable. But the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism in the socialistcountries and their degenerati<strong>on</strong> in<strong>to</strong> capitalist countriesare certainly not unavoidable. We can prevent the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> capitalism so l<strong>on</strong>g as there is a correct leadership anda correct understanding <strong>of</strong> the problem, so l<strong>on</strong>g as we adhere<strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist line, take the appropriatemeasures and wage a prol<strong>on</strong>ged, unremitting struggle.The struggle between the socialist and capitalist roads canbecome a driving force for social advance.How can the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism be prevented? Onthis questi<strong>on</strong> Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung has formulated a set<strong>of</strong> theories and policies, after summing up the practical experience<strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in China andstudying the positive and negative experience <strong>of</strong> other countries,mainly <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, in accordance with the basicprinciples <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and has thus enriched anddeveloped the <strong>Marx</strong>ist Leninist theory <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat.470
The main c<strong>on</strong>tents <strong>of</strong> the theories and policies advancedby Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung in this c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> are as follows:FIRST, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> apply the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist law <strong>of</strong>the unity <strong>of</strong> opposites <strong>to</strong> the study <strong>of</strong> socialist society. Thelaw <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> in all things, i.e., the law <strong>of</strong> the unity<strong>of</strong> opposites, is the fundamental law <strong>of</strong> materialist dialectics.It operates everywhere, whether in the natural world, inhuman society, or in human thought. The opposites in a c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>both unite and struggle with each other, and it isthis that forces things <strong>to</strong> move and change. Socialist societyis no excepti<strong>on</strong>. In socialist society there are two kinds <strong>of</strong>social c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s, namely, the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g thepeople and those between ourselves and the enemy. Thesetwo kinds <strong>of</strong> social c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s are entirely different in theiressence, and the methods for handling them should be different,<strong>to</strong>o. Their correct handling will result in the increasingc<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and thefurther strengthening and development <strong>of</strong> socialist society.Many people acknowledge the law <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> oppositesbut are unable <strong>to</strong> apply it in studying and handling questi<strong>on</strong>sin socialist society. They refuse <strong>to</strong> admit that there are c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>sin socialist society -- that there are not <strong>on</strong>ly c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>sbetween ourselves and the enemy but also c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>sam<strong>on</strong>g the people -- and they do not know how<strong>to</strong> distinguish between these two kinds <strong>of</strong> social c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>sand how <strong>to</strong> handle them correctly, and are therefore unable<strong>to</strong> deal correctly with the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat.SECOND, socialist society covers a very l<strong>on</strong>g his<strong>to</strong>ricalperiod. Classes and class struggle c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> exist in thissociety, and the struggle still goes <strong>on</strong> between the road <strong>of</strong> socialismand the road <strong>of</strong> capitalism. The socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>the ec<strong>on</strong>omic fr<strong>on</strong>t (in the ownership <strong>of</strong> the means <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong>)is insufficient by itself and cannot be c<strong>on</strong>solidated. Theremust also be a thorough socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the political andideological fr<strong>on</strong>ts. Here a very l<strong>on</strong>g period <strong>of</strong> time is needed471
<strong>to</strong> decide “who will win” in the struggle between socialismand capitalism. Several decades w<strong>on</strong>’t do it; success requiresanywhere from <strong>on</strong>e <strong>to</strong> several centuries. On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>durati<strong>on</strong>, it is better <strong>to</strong> prepare for a l<strong>on</strong>ger rather than ashorter period <strong>of</strong> time. On the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> effort, it is better<strong>to</strong> regard the task as difficult rather than easy. It will bemore advantageous and less harmful <strong>to</strong> think and act in thisway. Any<strong>on</strong>e who fails <strong>to</strong> see this or <strong>to</strong> appreciate it fullywill make tremendous mistakes. During the his<strong>to</strong>rical period<strong>of</strong> socialism it is necessary <strong>to</strong> maintain the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat and carry the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> through <strong>to</strong> theend if the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism is <strong>to</strong> be prevented, socialistc<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> carried forward and the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s created forthe transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> communism.THIRD, the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is led by theworking class, with the worker-peasant alliance as its basis.This means the exercise <strong>of</strong> dicta<strong>to</strong>rship by the working classand by the people under its leadership over the reacti<strong>on</strong>aryclasses and individuals and those elements who oppose socialisttransformati<strong>on</strong> and socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>. Within the ranks<strong>of</strong> the people democratic centralism is practised. Ours is thebroadest democracy bey<strong>on</strong>d the bounds <strong>of</strong> possibility for anybourgeois state.FOURTH, in both socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> and socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>it is necessary <strong>to</strong> adhere <strong>to</strong> the mass line, boldly <strong>to</strong> arousethe masses and <strong>to</strong> unfold mass movements <strong>on</strong> a large scale.The mass line <strong>of</strong> “from the masses, <strong>to</strong> the masses” is the basicline in all the work <strong>of</strong> our Party. It is necessary <strong>to</strong> havefirm c<strong>on</strong>fidence in the majority <strong>of</strong> the people and, above all,in the majority <strong>of</strong> the worker-peasant masses. We must begood at c<strong>on</strong>sulting the masses in our work and under nocircumstances alienate ourselves from them. Both commandismand the attitude <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e dispensing favours have <strong>to</strong> befought. The full and frank expressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> views and greatdebates are important forms <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle whichhave been created by the people <strong>of</strong> our country in the course472
<strong>of</strong> their l<strong>on</strong>g revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary fight, forms <strong>of</strong> struggle which rely<strong>on</strong> the masses for resolving c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the peopleand c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s between ourselves and the enemy.FIFTH, whether in socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> or in socialistc<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> solve the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> whom<strong>to</strong> rely <strong>on</strong>, whom <strong>to</strong> win over and whom <strong>to</strong> oppose. The proletariatand its vanguard must make a class analysis <strong>of</strong> socialistsociety, rely <strong>on</strong> the truly dependable forces that firmlytake the socialist road, win over all allies that can be w<strong>on</strong>over, and unite with the masses <strong>of</strong> the people, who c<strong>on</strong>stitutemore than 95 per cent <strong>of</strong> the populati<strong>on</strong>, in a comm<strong>on</strong> struggleagainst the enemies <strong>of</strong> socialism. In the rural areas, after thecollectivizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> agriculture it is necessary <strong>to</strong> rely <strong>on</strong> thepoor and lower middle peasants in order <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate thedicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the worker-peasant alliance,defeat the sp<strong>on</strong>taneous capitalist tendencies and c<strong>on</strong>stantlystrengthen and extend the positi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> socialism.SIXTH, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct extensive socialist educati<strong>on</strong>movements repeatedly in the cities and the countryside.In these c<strong>on</strong>tinuous movements for educating the people wemust be good at organizing the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary class forces, enhancingtheir class c<strong>on</strong>sciousness, correctly handling c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>sam<strong>on</strong>g the people and uniting all those who can be united.In these movements it is necessary <strong>to</strong> wage a sharp, tit-for-tatstruggle against the anti-socialist, capitalist and feudal forces— the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries andbourgeois rightists, and the embezzlers, grafters and degenerates— in order <strong>to</strong> smash the attacks they unleash against socialismand <strong>to</strong> remould the majority <strong>of</strong> them in<strong>to</strong> new men.SEVENTH, <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the basic tasks <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat is actively <strong>to</strong> expand the socialist ec<strong>on</strong>omy. It isnecessary <strong>to</strong> achieve the modernizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> industry, agriculture,science and technology, and nati<strong>on</strong>al defence step by stepunder the guidance <strong>of</strong> the general policy <strong>of</strong> developing the nati<strong>on</strong>alec<strong>on</strong>omy with agriculture as the foundati<strong>on</strong> and industryas the leading fac<strong>to</strong>r. On the basis <strong>of</strong> the growth <strong>of</strong> produc-473
ti<strong>on</strong>, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> raise the living standards <strong>of</strong> the peoplegradually and <strong>on</strong> a broad scale.EIGHTH, ownership by the whole people and collectiveownership are the two forms <strong>of</strong> socialist ec<strong>on</strong>omy. The transiti<strong>on</strong>from collective ownership <strong>to</strong> ownership by the wholepeople, from two kinds <strong>of</strong> ownership <strong>to</strong> a unitary ownershipby the whole people, is a rather l<strong>on</strong>g process. Collectiveownership itself develops from lower <strong>to</strong> higher levels andfrom smaller <strong>to</strong> larger scale. The people’s commune whichthe Chinese people have created is a suitable form <strong>of</strong> organizati<strong>on</strong>for the soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this transiti<strong>on</strong>.NINTH, “Let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundredschools <strong>of</strong> thought c<strong>on</strong>tend” is a policy for stimulating thegrowth <strong>of</strong> the arts and the progress <strong>of</strong> science and for promotinga flourishing socialist culture. Educati<strong>on</strong> must serve proletarianpolitics and must be combined with productive labour.The manual workers should at the same time be intellectualsand the intellectuals manual workers. Am<strong>on</strong>g those engagedin science, culture, the arts and educati<strong>on</strong>, the struggle <strong>to</strong>promote proletarian ideology and destroy bourgeois ideologyis a protracted and fierce class struggle. It is necessary <strong>to</strong>build up a large detachment <strong>of</strong> working-class intellectualswho serve socialism and who are both “red and expert”,i.e., who are both politically c<strong>on</strong>scious and pr<strong>of</strong>essi<strong>on</strong>allycompetent, by means <strong>of</strong> the cultural revoluti<strong>on</strong>, and revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypractice in class struggle, the struggle for producti<strong>on</strong>and scientific experiment.TENTH, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> maintain the system <strong>of</strong> cadreparticipati<strong>on</strong> in collective productive labour. The cadres <strong>of</strong>our Party and state are ordinary workers and not overlordssitting <strong>on</strong> the backs <strong>of</strong> the people. By taking part in collectiveproductive labour, the cadres maintain extensive, c<strong>on</strong>stantand close ties with the working people. This is a major measure<strong>of</strong> fundamental importance for a socialist system; it helps<strong>to</strong> overcome bureaucracy and <strong>to</strong> prevent revisi<strong>on</strong>ism anddogmatism.474
ELEVENTH, the system <strong>of</strong> high salaries for a small number<strong>of</strong> people should never be applied. The gap between the incomes<strong>of</strong> the working pers<strong>on</strong>nel <strong>of</strong> the Party, the government,the enterprises and the people’s communes, <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand,and the incomes <strong>of</strong> the mass <strong>of</strong> the people, <strong>on</strong> the other, shouldbe rati<strong>on</strong>ally and gradually narrowed and not widened. Allworking pers<strong>on</strong>nel must be prevented from abusing theirpower and enjoying special privileges.TWELFTH, it is always necessary for the people’s armedforces <strong>of</strong> a socialist country <strong>to</strong> be under the leadership <strong>of</strong> theParty <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and under the supervisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> themasses, and they must always maintain the glorious traditi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> a people’s army, with unity between the army and the peopleand between <strong>of</strong>ficers and men. It is necessary <strong>to</strong> keep thesystem under which <strong>of</strong>ficers serve as comm<strong>on</strong> soldiers at regularintervals. It is necessary <strong>to</strong> practise military democracy,political democracy and ec<strong>on</strong>omic democracy. Moreover,militia units should be organized and trained all over the country,so as <strong>to</strong> make everybody a soldier. The guns must forever be in the hands <strong>of</strong> the Party and the people and mustnever be allowed <strong>to</strong> become the instruments <strong>of</strong> careerists.THIRTEENTH, the people’s public security organs must alwaysbe under the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Party <strong>of</strong> the proletariatand under the supervisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the mass <strong>of</strong> the people. In thestruggle <strong>to</strong> defend the fruits <strong>of</strong> socialism and the people’s interests,the policy must be applied <strong>of</strong> relying <strong>on</strong> the combinedefforts <strong>of</strong> the broad masses and the security organs, so thatnot a single bad pers<strong>on</strong> escapes or a single good pers<strong>on</strong> iswr<strong>on</strong>ged. Counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries must be suppressed wheneverfound, and mistakes must be corrected whenever discovered.FOURTEENTH, in foreign policy, it is necessary <strong>to</strong> upholdproletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism and oppose great-power chauvinismand nati<strong>on</strong>al egoism. The socialist camp is the product <strong>of</strong>the struggle <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and working people.It bel<strong>on</strong>gs <strong>to</strong> the proletariat and working people <strong>of</strong> the475
whole world as well as <strong>to</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries.We must truly put in<strong>to</strong> effect the fighting slogans, “Workers<strong>of</strong> all countries, unite!” and “Workers and oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the world, unite!”, resolutely combat the anti-Communist,anti-popular and counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary policies <strong>of</strong> imperialismand reacti<strong>on</strong> and support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> all theoppressed classes and oppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s. Relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g socialistcountries should be based <strong>on</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> independence,complete equality and the proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alistprinciple <strong>of</strong> mutual support and mutual assistance. Everysocialist country should rely mainly <strong>on</strong> itself for its c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>.If any socialist country practises nati<strong>on</strong>al egoism inits foreign policy, or, worse yet, eagerly works in partnershipwith imperialism for the partiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the world, such c<strong>on</strong>ductis degenerate and a betrayal <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.FIFTEENTH, as the vanguard <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, the CommunistParty must exist as l<strong>on</strong>g as the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariatexists. The Communist Party is the highest form <strong>of</strong>organizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. The leading role <strong>of</strong> the proletariatis realized through the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty. The system <strong>of</strong> Party committees exercising leadershipmust be put in<strong>to</strong> effect in all departments. During the period<strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, the proletarian partymust maintain and strengthen its close ties with the proletariatand the broad masses <strong>of</strong> the working people, maintain anddevelop its vigorous revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary style, uphold the principle<strong>of</strong> integrating the universal truth <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism withthe c<strong>on</strong>crete practice <strong>of</strong> its own country, and persist in thestruggle against revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, dogmatism and opportunism <strong>of</strong>every kind.In the light <strong>of</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rical less<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung has stated:Class struggle, the struggle for producti<strong>on</strong> and scientificexperiment are the three great revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movementsfor building a mighty socialist country. These movements476
are a sure guarantee that Communists will be free frombureaucracy and immune against revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and dogmatism,and will forever remain invincible. They are areliable guarantee that the proletariat will be able <strong>to</strong> unitewith the broad working masses and realize a democratic dicta<strong>to</strong>rship.If, in the absence <strong>of</strong> these movements, the landlords,rich peasants, counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries, bad elementsand ogres <strong>of</strong> all kinds were allowed <strong>to</strong> crawl out, while ourcadres were <strong>to</strong> shut their eyes <strong>to</strong> all this and in many casesfail even <strong>to</strong> differentiate between the enemy and ourselvesbut were <strong>to</strong> collaborate with the enemy and become corruptedand demoralized, if our cadres were thus draggedin<strong>to</strong> the enemy camp or the enemy were able <strong>to</strong> sneak in<strong>to</strong>our ranks, and if many <strong>of</strong> our workers, peasants, and intellectualswere left defenceless against both the s<strong>of</strong>t and thehard tactics <strong>of</strong> the enemy, then it would not take l<strong>on</strong>g,perhaps <strong>on</strong>ly several years or a decade, or several decadesat most, before a counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> a nati<strong>on</strong>alscale inevitably occurred, the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Partywould undoubtedly become a revisi<strong>on</strong>ist party or a fascistparty, and the whole <strong>of</strong> China would change its colour. 1Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung has pointed out that, in order <strong>to</strong>guarantee that our Party and country do not change theircolour, we must not <strong>on</strong>ly have a correct line and correct policiesbut must train and bring up milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> successors whowill carry <strong>on</strong> the cause <strong>of</strong> proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>.In the final analysis, the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> training successors forthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> whetheror not there will be people who can carry <strong>on</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause started by the older generati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries, whether or not the leadership<strong>of</strong> our Party and state will remain in the hands <strong>of</strong> proletarian1<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, Note <strong>on</strong> “The Seven Well-Written Documents <strong>of</strong> theChekiang Province C<strong>on</strong>cerning Cadres’ Participati<strong>on</strong> in Physical Labour”,May 9, 1963.477
evoluti<strong>on</strong>aries, whether or not our descendants will c<strong>on</strong>tinue<strong>to</strong> march al<strong>on</strong>g the correct road laid down by <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism,or, in other words, whether or not we can successfullyprevent the emergence <strong>of</strong> Khrushchovite revisi<strong>on</strong>ism in China.In short, it is an extremely important questi<strong>on</strong>, a matter <strong>of</strong>life and death for our Party and our country. It is a questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> fundamental importance <strong>to</strong> the proletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>arycause for a hundred, a thousand, nay ten thousand years.Basing themselves <strong>on</strong> the changes in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, theimperialist prophets are pinning their hopes <strong>of</strong> “peaceful evoluti<strong>on</strong>”<strong>on</strong> the third or fourth generati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Chinese Party.We must shatter these imperialist prophecies. <strong>From</strong> ourhighest organizati<strong>on</strong>s down <strong>to</strong> the grass-roots, we must everywheregive c<strong>on</strong>stant attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the training and upbringing<strong>of</strong> successors <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause.What are the requirements for worthy successors <strong>to</strong> therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the proletariat?They must be genuine <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists and not revisi<strong>on</strong>istslike Khrushchov wearing the cloak <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.They must be revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries who whole-heartedly serve themajority <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> China and the whole world, andmust not be like Khrushchov who serves both the interests <strong>of</strong>the handful <strong>of</strong> members <strong>of</strong> the privileged bourgeois stratumin his own country and those <strong>of</strong> foreign imperialism andreacti<strong>on</strong>.They must be proletarian statesmen capable <strong>of</strong> unitingand working <strong>to</strong>gether with the overwhelming majority. Not<strong>on</strong>ly must they unite with those who agree with them, theymust also be good at uniting with those who disagree andeven with those who formerly opposed them and have sincebeen proved wr<strong>on</strong>g. But they must especially watch out forcareerists and c<strong>on</strong>spira<strong>to</strong>rs like Khrushchov and prevent suchbad elements from usurping the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Party andgovernment at any level.They must be models in applying the Party’s democraticcentralism, must master the method <strong>of</strong> leadership based <strong>on</strong>478
the principle <strong>of</strong> “from the masses, <strong>to</strong> the masses”, and mustcultivate a democratic style and be good at listening <strong>to</strong> themasses. They must not be despotic like Khrushchov andviolate the Party’s democratic centralism, make surprise attacks<strong>on</strong> comrades or act arbitrarily and dicta<strong>to</strong>rially.They must be modest and prudent and guard against arroganceand impetuosity; they must be imbued with the spirit<strong>of</strong> self-criticism and have the courage <strong>to</strong> correct mistakes andshortcomings in their work. They must not cover up theirerrors like Khrushchov, and claim all the credit for themselvesand shift all the blame <strong>on</strong> others.Successors <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the proletariatcome forward in mass struggles and are tempered in the greats<strong>to</strong>rms <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>. It is essential <strong>to</strong> test and know cadresand choose and train successors in the l<strong>on</strong>g course <strong>of</strong> massstruggle.The above series <strong>of</strong> principles advanced by Comrade <strong>Mao</strong>Tse-tung are creative developments <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, <strong>to</strong>the theoretical arsenal <strong>of</strong> which they add new weap<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>decisive importance for us in preventing the res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>capitalism. So l<strong>on</strong>g as we follow these principles, we canc<strong>on</strong>solidate the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, ensure that ourParty and state will never change colour, successfully c<strong>on</strong>ductthe socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> and socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, help all peoples’revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movements for the overthrow <strong>of</strong> imperialismand its lackeys, and guarantee the future transiti<strong>on</strong> fromsocialism <strong>to</strong> communism.* * *Regarding the emergence <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchovclique in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, our attitude as <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists isthe same as our attitude <strong>to</strong>wards any “disturbance” — first,we are against it; sec<strong>on</strong>d, we are not afraid <strong>of</strong> it.We did not wish it and are opposed <strong>to</strong> it, but since the revisi<strong>on</strong>istKhrushchov clique have already emerged, there isnothing terrifying about them, and there is no need for alarm.479
The earth will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> revolve, his<strong>to</strong>ry will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong>move forward, the people <strong>of</strong> the world will, as always, makerevoluti<strong>on</strong>s, and the imperialists and their lackeys will inevitablymeet their doom.The his<strong>to</strong>ric c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the great Soviet people willremain forever glorious; they can never be tarnished by therevisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique’s betrayal. The broad masses<strong>of</strong> the workers, peasants, revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary intellectuals and Communists<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> will eventually surmount allthe obstacles in their path and march <strong>to</strong>wards communism.The Soviet people, the people <strong>of</strong> all the socialist countriesand the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people the world over will certainlylearn less<strong>on</strong>s from the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist Khrushchov clique’s betrayal.In the struggle against Khrushchov’s revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement has grown and will c<strong>on</strong>tinue<strong>to</strong> grow mightier than ever before.<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists have always had an attitude <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryoptimism <strong>to</strong>wards the future <strong>of</strong> the cause <strong>of</strong> theproletarian revoluti<strong>on</strong>. We are pr<strong>of</strong>oundly c<strong>on</strong>vinced that thebrilliant light <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, <strong>of</strong> socialismand <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism will shine forth over the Sovietland. The proletariat is sure <strong>to</strong> win the whole world andcommunism is sure <strong>to</strong> achieve complete and final vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>on</strong>earth.
WHYKHRUSHCHEV FELLEdi<strong>to</strong>rial. H<strong>on</strong>gqi (Red Flag)(November 21, 1964)
K HRUSHCHOV has fallen.This arch-schemer who usurped the leadership <strong>of</strong> the SovietParty and state, this number <strong>on</strong>e representative <strong>of</strong> modernrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism, has finally been driven <strong>of</strong>f the stage <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry.This is a very good thing and is advantageous <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arycause <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the world.The collapse <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov is a great vic<strong>to</strong>ry for the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists<strong>of</strong> the world in their persistent struggle againstrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism. It marks the bankruptcy, the fiasco, <strong>of</strong> modernrevisi<strong>on</strong>ism.How was it that Khrushchov fell? Why couldn’t he muddle<strong>on</strong> any l<strong>on</strong>ger?This questi<strong>on</strong> has aroused different comments from differentpolitical groups all over the world.The imperialists, the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries, and the opportunists andrevisi<strong>on</strong>ists <strong>of</strong> all shades, whether they sympathize withKhrushchov or have had c<strong>on</strong>flicts <strong>of</strong> interest with him, haveexpressed varied views <strong>on</strong> the sudden collapse <strong>of</strong> this seemingly“str<strong>on</strong>g man”, Khrushchov.Many Communist and Workers’ Parties have also publishedarticles or documents expressing their opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Khrushchov’sdownfall.In the present article we <strong>to</strong>o would like <strong>to</strong> discuss the questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’s downfall.For <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists, this downfall is not something whichis hard <strong>to</strong> understand. Indeed, it may be said <strong>to</strong> have beenfully expected. <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists had l<strong>on</strong>g foreseen thatKhrushchov would come <strong>to</strong> such an end.People may list hundreds or even thousands <strong>of</strong> chargesagainst Khrushchov <strong>to</strong> account for his collapse. But the mostimportant <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> all is that he has vainly tried <strong>to</strong> obstruct theadvance <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry, flying in the face <strong>of</strong> the law <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>rical483
development as discovered by <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and <strong>of</strong> therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary will <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and thewhole world. Any obstacle <strong>on</strong> the peoples road <strong>of</strong> advancemust be removed. The people were sure <strong>to</strong> reject Khrushchov,whether he and his kind liked it or not. Khrushchov’s downfallis the inevitable result <strong>of</strong> the anti-revisi<strong>on</strong>ist strugglewaged staunchly by the people <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople throughout the world.Ours is an epoch in which world capitalism and imperialismare moving <strong>to</strong> their doom and socialism and communism aremarching <strong>to</strong>wards vic<strong>to</strong>ry. The his<strong>to</strong>ric missi<strong>on</strong> this epochhas placed <strong>on</strong> the people is <strong>to</strong> bring the proletarian world revoluti<strong>on</strong>step by step <strong>to</strong> complete vic<strong>to</strong>ry and establish a newworld without imperialism, without capitalism and withoutthe exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> man by man through their own efforts andin the light <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>crete c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> their respective countries.This is the inexorable trend <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>rical developmentand the comm<strong>on</strong> demand <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> theworld. This his<strong>to</strong>rical trend is an objective law which operatesindependently <strong>of</strong> man’s will, and it is irresistible. But Khrushchov,this buffo<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>temporary political stage, chose<strong>to</strong> go against this trend in the vain hope <strong>of</strong> turning the wheel<strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry back <strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the old capitalist road and <strong>of</strong> thus prol<strong>on</strong>gingthe life <strong>of</strong> the moribund exploiting classes and theirmoribund system <strong>of</strong> exploitati<strong>on</strong>.Khrushchov collected all the anti-<strong>Marx</strong>ist views <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry’sopportunists and revisi<strong>on</strong>ists and out <strong>of</strong> them knocked <strong>to</strong>gethera full-fledged revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line c<strong>on</strong>sisting <strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence”,“peaceful competiti<strong>on</strong>”, “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>”, “thestate <strong>of</strong> the whole people” and “the party <strong>of</strong> the entire people”.He pursued a capitulati<strong>on</strong>ist line <strong>to</strong>wards imperialism andused the theory <strong>of</strong> class c<strong>on</strong>ciliati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> oppose and liquidatethe people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles. In the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, he enforced a divisive line, replacingproletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism with great-power chauvinism. Inthe Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> he worked hard <strong>to</strong> disintegrate the dicta<strong>to</strong>r-484
ship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat, attempting <strong>to</strong> replace the socialistsystem with the ideology, politics, ec<strong>on</strong>omy and culture <strong>of</strong> thebourgeoisie, and <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re capitalism.In the last eleven years, exploiting the prestige <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and <strong>of</strong> the first socialistcountry that had been built up under the leadership <strong>of</strong> Leninand Stalin, Khrushchov did all the bad things he possiblycould in c<strong>on</strong>traventi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the genuine will <strong>of</strong> the Sovietpeople. These bad things may be summed up as follows:1. On the pretext <strong>of</strong> “combating the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult” andusing the most scurrilous language, he railed at Stalin, theleader <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and theSoviet people. In opposing Stalin, he opposed <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. He tried at <strong>on</strong>e stroke <strong>to</strong> write <strong>of</strong>f all the greatachievements <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people in the entire period underStalin’s leadership in order <strong>to</strong> defame the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat, the socialist system, the great Soviet CommunistParty, the great Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. In so doing, Khrushchov provided the imperialistsand the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> all countries with the dirtiest <strong>of</strong>weap<strong>on</strong>s for their anti-Soviet and anti-Communist activities.2. In open violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 1957 and theStatement <strong>of</strong> 1960, he sought “all-round co-operati<strong>on</strong>” withU.S. imperialism and fallaciously maintained that the heads<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the United States would “decide thefate <strong>of</strong> humanity”, c<strong>on</strong>stantly praising the chieftains <strong>of</strong> U.S.imperialism as “having a sincere desire for peace”. Pursuingan adventurist policy at <strong>on</strong>e moment, he transported guidedmissiles <strong>to</strong> Cuba, and pursuing a capitulati<strong>on</strong>ist policy at another,he docilely withdrew the missiles and bombers fromCuba <strong>on</strong> the order <strong>of</strong> the U.S. pirates. He accepted inspecti<strong>on</strong>by the U.S. fleet and even tried <strong>to</strong> sell out Cuba’s sovereigntyby agreeing, behind the Cuban Government’s back, <strong>to</strong>the “inspecti<strong>on</strong>” <strong>of</strong> Cuba by the United Nati<strong>on</strong>s, which isunder U.S. c<strong>on</strong>trol. In so doing, Khrushchov brought a humil-485
iating disgrace up<strong>on</strong> the great Soviet people unheard <strong>of</strong> inthe forty years and more since the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>.3. To cater <strong>to</strong> the U.S. imperialist policy <strong>of</strong> nuclear blackmailand prevent socialist China from building up her ownnuclear strength for self-defence, he did not hesitate <strong>to</strong> damagethe defense capabilities <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> itself and c<strong>on</strong>cludedthe so-called partial nuclear test ban treaty in collusi<strong>on</strong>with the two imperialist powers <strong>of</strong> the United States andBritain. Facts have shown that this treaty is a pure swindle.In signing this treaty Khrushchov perversely tried <strong>to</strong> sell outthe interests <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people, the people <strong>of</strong> all the socialistcountries and all the peace-loving people <strong>of</strong> the world.4. In the name <strong>of</strong> “peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong>” he tried by everymeans <strong>to</strong> obstruct the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movements <strong>of</strong> the peoplein the capitalist countries, demanding that they take the socalledlegal, parliamentary road. This err<strong>on</strong>eous line paralysesthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary will <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and disarms the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople ideologically, causing serious setbacks <strong>to</strong> thecause <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong> in certain countries. It has made theCommunist Parties in a number <strong>of</strong> capitalist countries lifelesssocial-democratic parties <strong>of</strong> a new type and caused them <strong>to</strong>degenerate in<strong>to</strong> servile <strong>to</strong>ols <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie.5. Under the signboard <strong>of</strong> “peaceful coexistence” he didhis utmost <strong>to</strong> oppose and sabotage the nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>movement and went so far as <strong>to</strong> work hand in glove with U.S.imperialism in suppressing the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> theoppressed nati<strong>on</strong>s. He instructed the Soviet delegate at theUnited Nati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> vote for the dispatch <strong>of</strong> forces <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>go, which helped the U.S. imperialists <strong>to</strong> suppressthe C<strong>on</strong>golese people, and he used Soviet transport facilities<strong>to</strong> move these so-called United Nati<strong>on</strong>s troops <strong>to</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>go.He actually opposed the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggles <strong>of</strong> the Algerianpeople, describing the Algerian nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> struggleas an “internal affair” <strong>of</strong> France. He had the audacity <strong>to</strong>“stand alo<strong>of</strong>” over the events in the Gulf <strong>of</strong> Bac Bo engineeredby U.S. imperialism against Viet Nam, and cudgelled his brains486
for ways <strong>to</strong> help the U.S. provocateurs get out <strong>of</strong> their predicamentand <strong>to</strong> whitewash the criminal aggressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theU.S. pirates.6. In brazen violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960, he sparedno effort <strong>to</strong> reverse its verdict <strong>on</strong> the renegade Ti<strong>to</strong> clique,describing Ti<strong>to</strong> who had degenerated in<strong>to</strong> a lackey <strong>of</strong> U.S.imperialism as a “<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist” and Yugoslavia which haddegenerated in<strong>to</strong> a capitalist country as a “socialist country”.Time and again he declared that he and the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique ha“the same ideology” and were “guided by the same theory”and expressed his desire <strong>to</strong> learn modestly from this renegadewho had betrayed the interests <strong>of</strong> the Yugoslav people andsabotaged the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.7. He regarded Albania, a fraternal socialist country, ashis sworn enemy, devising every possible means <strong>to</strong> injure andundermine it, and <strong>on</strong>ly wishing he could devour it in <strong>on</strong>e gulp.He brazenly broke <strong>of</strong>f all ec<strong>on</strong>omic and diplomatic relati<strong>on</strong>swith Albania, arbitrarily deprived it <strong>of</strong> its legitimate rightsas a member state in the Warsaw Treaty Organizati<strong>on</strong> and inthe Council <strong>of</strong> Mutual Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Assistance, and publicly calledfor the overthrow <strong>of</strong> its Party and state leadership.8. He nourished an inveterate hatred for the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China which upholds <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and a revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryline, because the Chinese Communist Party was agreat obstacle <strong>to</strong> his effort <strong>to</strong> press <strong>on</strong> with revisi<strong>on</strong>ism andcapitulati<strong>on</strong>ism. He spread innumerable rumours and slandersagainst the Chinese Communist Party and Comrade <strong>Mao</strong>-Tsetungand resorted <strong>to</strong> every kind <strong>of</strong> baseness in his futile attempt<strong>to</strong> subvert socialist China. He perfidiously <strong>to</strong>re upseveral hundred agreements and c<strong>on</strong>tracts and arbitrarilywithdrew more than <strong>on</strong>e thousand Soviet experts working inChina. He engineered border disputes between China and theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and even c<strong>on</strong>ducted large-scale subversiveactivities in Sinkiang. He backed the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> India intheir armed attacks <strong>on</strong> socialist China and, <strong>to</strong>gether with the487
United States, incited and helped them <strong>to</strong> perpetrate armedprovocati<strong>on</strong>s against China by giving them military aid.9. In flagrant violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>sam<strong>on</strong>g the fraternal countries, he encroached up<strong>on</strong> their independenceand sovereignty and wilfully interfered in theirinternal affairs. In the name <strong>of</strong> “mutual ec<strong>on</strong>omic assistance”,he opposed the independent development <strong>of</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omies <strong>of</strong>fraternal countries and forced them <strong>to</strong> become a source <strong>of</strong>raw materials and an outlet for finished goods, thus reducingtheir industries <strong>to</strong> appendages. He bragged that these wereall new theories and doctrines <strong>of</strong> his own inventi<strong>on</strong>, but in factthey were the jungle law <strong>of</strong> the capitalist world which heapplied <strong>to</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g socialist countries, taking the Comm<strong>on</strong>Market <strong>of</strong> the m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalist blocs as his model.10. In complete violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the principles guiding relati<strong>on</strong>sam<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties, he resorted <strong>to</strong> all sorts <strong>of</strong>schemes <strong>to</strong> carry out subversive and disruptive activitiesagainst them. Not <strong>on</strong>ly did he use the sessi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the CentralCommittee and C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> his own Party as well as theC<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> some fraternal Parties <strong>to</strong> launch overt largescaleunbridled attacks <strong>on</strong> the fraternal Parties which uphold<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, but in the case <strong>of</strong> many fraternal Partieshe shamelessly bought over political degenerates, renegadesand turncoats <strong>to</strong> support his revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line, <strong>to</strong> attack andeven illegally expel <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists from these Parties, thuscreating splits without c<strong>on</strong>sidering the c<strong>on</strong>sequences.11. He want<strong>on</strong>ly violated the principle <strong>of</strong> reaching unanimitythrough c<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal Parties and, playingthe “patriarchal father Party” role, he wilfully decided<strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>vene an illegal internati<strong>on</strong>al meeting <strong>of</strong> the fraternalParties. In the notice dated July 30, 1964, he ordered that ameeting <strong>of</strong> the so-called drafting committee <strong>of</strong> the twenty-sixfraternal Parties be held <strong>on</strong> December 15 this year, so as <strong>to</strong>create an open split in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.12. To cater <strong>to</strong> the needs <strong>of</strong> the imperialists and thedomestic forces <strong>of</strong> capitalism, he pursued a series <strong>of</strong> revisi<strong>on</strong>ist488
policies leading back <strong>to</strong> capitalism. Under the signboard <strong>of</strong>the “state <strong>of</strong> the whole people”, he abolished the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the proletariat; under the signboard <strong>of</strong> the “party <strong>of</strong> theentire people”, he altered the proletarian character <strong>of</strong> theCommunist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and divided the Partyin<strong>to</strong> an “industrial” and an “agricultural” Party in c<strong>on</strong>traventi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist principle <strong>of</strong> Party organizati<strong>on</strong>.Under the signboard <strong>of</strong> “full-scale communist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>”he tried in a thousand and <strong>on</strong>e ways <strong>to</strong> switch back <strong>to</strong> the oldpath <strong>of</strong> capitalism the world’s first socialist state which theSoviet people under the leadership <strong>of</strong> Lenin and Stalin hadcreated by their sweat and blood. His blind directi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Sovietagriculture and industry wrought great havoc with theSoviet nati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omy and brought great difficulties <strong>to</strong> thelife <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people.Everything Khrushchov did over the last eleven years provesthat the policy he pursued was <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> alliance with imperialismagainst socialism, alliance with the United States againstChina, alliance with the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries everywhere against thenati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> movements and the people’s revoluti<strong>on</strong>s,and alliance with the Ti<strong>to</strong> clique and renegades <strong>of</strong> all descripti<strong>on</strong>sagainst all <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist fraternal Parties and allrevoluti<strong>on</strong>aries fighting imperialism. This policy <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov’shas jeopardized the basic interests <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people,the people <strong>of</strong> the countries <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypeople all over the world.Such are the so-called meri<strong>to</strong>rious deeds <strong>of</strong> Khrushchov.The downfall <strong>of</strong> a fellow like Khrushchov is certainly notdue <strong>to</strong> old age or ill health, nor is it merely due <strong>to</strong> mistakesin his methods <strong>of</strong> work and style <strong>of</strong> leadership. Khrushchov’sdownfall is the result <strong>of</strong> the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist general line and themany err<strong>on</strong>eous policies he pursued at home and abroad.Khrushchov c<strong>on</strong>sidered the masses <strong>of</strong> the people as simplybeneath his notice, thinking that he could manipulate thedestiny <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people at his own sweet will and thatthe “heads” <strong>of</strong> the two great powers, the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and489
the United States, could settle the destiny <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong>all countries. To him, the people were nothing but foolsand he al<strong>on</strong>e was the “hero” making his<strong>to</strong>ry. He vainly tried<strong>to</strong> force the Soviet people and the people <strong>of</strong> other countries<strong>to</strong> prostrate themselves under his revisi<strong>on</strong>ist bat<strong>on</strong>. Thus heplaced himself in direct oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the Soviet people, <strong>to</strong> thepeople <strong>of</strong> the countries <strong>of</strong> the socialist camp and <strong>to</strong> the proletariatand revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary people <strong>of</strong> the whole world, and gothimself in<strong>to</strong> an impasse — he was deserted by his own followersand could not extricate himself from internal and externaldifficulties. He put the noose around his own neck —dug his own grave.His<strong>to</strong>ry has witnessed many buffo<strong>on</strong>s who cherished theidle hope <strong>of</strong> turning back the tide <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry, but they allcame <strong>to</strong> an ignominious end. Countless instances have dem<strong>on</strong>stratedthat the evil-doer who goes counter <strong>to</strong> the needs<strong>of</strong> social development and the will <strong>of</strong> the people can <strong>on</strong>ly endup as a ridiculous good-for-nothing, no matter what kind <strong>of</strong>“hero” he may have been, and no matter how arrogant. Tostart with the aim <strong>of</strong> doing harm <strong>to</strong> others <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> end up byruining <strong>on</strong>eself — such is the general law governing thesepeople.“Pers<strong>on</strong>ages” such as Bakunin in the period <strong>of</strong> the FirstInternati<strong>on</strong>al were arrogant anti-<strong>Marx</strong>ist “heroes” in theirday, but they were so<strong>on</strong> relegated <strong>to</strong> the garbage-heap <strong>of</strong>his<strong>to</strong>ry. Anti-<strong>Marx</strong>ist “heroes” like Bernstein and Kautsky inthe period <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d Internati<strong>on</strong>al were <strong>on</strong>ce “formidablegiants” entrenched in leading positi<strong>on</strong>s, but in the end his<strong>to</strong>rywrote them down as no<strong>to</strong>rious renegades. Trotsky, the ringleader<strong>of</strong> the oppositi<strong>on</strong> facti<strong>on</strong>, decked himself out as a “hero”after Lenin’s death, but facts c<strong>on</strong>firmed the correctness <strong>of</strong>Stalin’s remark: “. . . he resembles an ac<strong>to</strong>r rather than ahero; and an ac<strong>to</strong>r should not be c<strong>on</strong>fused with a hero underany circumstances.”“But progress is the eternal law <strong>of</strong> man’s world.” His<strong>to</strong>ryhas taught us that whoever wants <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>p the wheel <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry490
will be ground <strong>to</strong> dust. As Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung has repeatedlypointed out, imperialism and all reacti<strong>on</strong>aries arepaper tigers, and the revisi<strong>on</strong>ists are <strong>to</strong>o. However rampantand overbearing they may be, “heroes” representing reacti<strong>on</strong>aryclasses and reacti<strong>on</strong>ary forces are actually paper tigers,powerful <strong>on</strong>ly in appearance; they are <strong>on</strong>ly fleeting transientsso<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> be overwhelmed by the surging waves <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry.Khrushchov is no excepti<strong>on</strong>. Just think <strong>of</strong> his inordinatearrogance in the days when he viciously attacked Stalin and<strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism at the 20th and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses, and whenat the Bucharest meeting he launched his surprise attack <strong>on</strong>the Chinese Communist Party which upholds <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. But it did not take l<strong>on</strong>g for this anti-Soviet, anti-Communist and anti-Chinese “hero” <strong>to</strong> meet the same fate ashis revisi<strong>on</strong>ist predecessors. However much people reas<strong>on</strong>edwith him and asked him <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> the fold, he paid not theslightest heed and finally plunged <strong>to</strong> his doom.Khrushchov has fallen and the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist line he enthusiasticallypursued is discredited, but <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism will c<strong>on</strong>tinue<strong>to</strong> overcome the revisi<strong>on</strong>ist trend and forge ahead, andthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> all countries willc<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> sweep away the obstacles in its path and surgeforward.Nevertheless, the course <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> be<strong>to</strong>rtuous. Although Khrushchov has fallen, his supporters —the U.S. imperialists, the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and the modern revisi<strong>on</strong>ists— will not resign themselves <strong>to</strong> this failure. Theseogres are c<strong>on</strong>tinuing <strong>to</strong> pray for Khrushchov and aretrying <strong>to</strong> “resurrect” him with their incantati<strong>on</strong>s, vociferouslyproclaiming his “c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>s” and “meri<strong>to</strong>rious deeds” inthe hope that events will develop al<strong>on</strong>g the lines prescribedby Khrushchov, so that “Khrushchevism without Khrushchev”may prevail. It can be asserted categorically that theirs is ablind alley.Different ideological trends and their representatives invariablystrive <strong>to</strong> take the stage and perform It is entirely up491
<strong>to</strong> them <strong>to</strong> decide which directi<strong>on</strong> they will take. But thereis <strong>on</strong>e point <strong>on</strong> which we have not the slightest doubt. His<strong>to</strong>rywill develop in accordance with the laws discovered by <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism;it will march forward al<strong>on</strong>g the road <strong>of</strong> theOc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Bey<strong>on</strong>d all doubt, the great CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the great Soviet people, withtheir revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary traditi<strong>on</strong>s, are fully capable <strong>of</strong> making newc<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>s in safeguarding the great socialist achievements,the l<strong>of</strong>ty prestige <strong>of</strong> the first socialist power founded by Lenin,the purity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and the vic<strong>to</strong>rious advance<strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary cause <strong>of</strong> the proletariat.Let the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement unite <strong>on</strong> thebasis <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism!
APPENDICIES
THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OFTHE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEEOF THE CPC(March 30, 1963)The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCommunist Party <strong>of</strong> ChinaMarch 30, 1963Dear Comrades,The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> notes with satisfacti<strong>on</strong> that our proposals <strong>on</strong>measures aimed at strengthening unity and solidarity in theranks <strong>of</strong> the communist movement have met with a favourableresp<strong>on</strong>se <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China. We welcome your agreement <strong>to</strong> theholding <strong>of</strong> a meeting between representatives <strong>of</strong> the CPSU andCPC. This meeting is called up<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> play an important part increating a favourable atmosphere in relati<strong>on</strong>s between the fraternalParties and in smoothing out the differences which havearisen in recent times in the world communist movement. Wewould like <strong>to</strong> hope that as a result <strong>of</strong> this meeting it will bepossible <strong>to</strong> carry out a number <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>structive measures <strong>to</strong> surmountexisting difficulties.In its letter the CPC Central Committee invites ComradeN. S. Khrushchov <strong>to</strong> visit Peking en route <strong>to</strong> Cambodia. TheCPSU Central Committee and Comrade N. S. Khrushchov expressgratitude for this invitati<strong>on</strong>. Comrade N. S. Khrushchovwould with great pleasure visit the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China,and meet the leadership <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China <strong>to</strong>exchange views <strong>on</strong> urgent questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al situa-495
ti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>of</strong> the communist movement with the object <strong>of</strong> achievinga comm<strong>on</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> our tasks and strengtheningsolidarity between our Parties. However, it is not in factplanned that Comrade N. S. Khrushchov will make a <strong>to</strong>ur <strong>of</strong>Cambodia as you menti<strong>on</strong> in your letter. As we all know, inc<strong>on</strong>formity with a decisi<strong>on</strong> passed by our leading bodies <strong>on</strong>February 12, 1963, Comrade L. I. Brezhnev, President <strong>of</strong> thePresidium <strong>of</strong> the USSR Supreme Soviet, will travel <strong>to</strong> Cambodia,as the Cambodian Government has already been notifiedand as has been announced in the press. Comrade N. S.Khrushchov, who has already visited the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong>China three times, does not lose hope <strong>of</strong> availing himself <strong>of</strong>your kind invitati<strong>on</strong> in the future <strong>to</strong> visit China and meet theChinese comrades.We remember that during his stay in Moscow in 1957 Comrade<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said that he had <strong>on</strong>ly been in the USSRtwice and had <strong>on</strong>ly visited Moscow and Leningrad. He expressedthe desire <strong>to</strong> visit the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> again <strong>to</strong> becomebetter acquainted with our country. He said then that he wouldlike <strong>to</strong> travel from the Far Eastern borders <strong>of</strong> our country <strong>to</strong>the western borders, and from the northern <strong>to</strong> the southernborders. We welcomed this desire <strong>of</strong> Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung.The CPSU Central Committee sent a letter <strong>to</strong> Comrade <strong>Mao</strong>Tse-tung <strong>on</strong> May 12, 1960, inviting him <strong>to</strong> come and spend aholiday in the USSR and familiarize himself with the life <strong>of</strong>the Soviet people. Unfortunately, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tungcould not at that time avail himself <strong>of</strong> our invitati<strong>on</strong>. TheCPSU Central Committee would welcome a visit by Comrade<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung. The best time for such a visit would be the approachingspring or summer, which are the good seas<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>the year in our country. We are also ready at any other time <strong>to</strong>give a worthy recepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung as a representative<strong>of</strong> a fraternal Party and <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Chinesepeople. In this <strong>to</strong>ur <strong>of</strong> our country, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tungwould not, <strong>of</strong> course, be al<strong>on</strong>e. Comrades from the leadership<strong>of</strong> our Party would go with him and it would be a fine op-496
portunity for an exchange <strong>of</strong> opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> different questi<strong>on</strong>s.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung would be able <strong>to</strong> see how the Sovietpeople are working, and what successes they have scored inthe c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> communism and in the implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the Programme <strong>of</strong> our Party.If a visit by Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung <strong>to</strong> Moscow cannot takeplace at present, we are ready <strong>to</strong> accept your ideas about a <strong>to</strong>plevelmeeting between representatives <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and CPCin Moscow. We believe that a meeting <strong>of</strong> this kind could takeplace around May 15, 1963, if this date is acceptable <strong>to</strong> you.We are very pleased that the Chinese comrades, like ourselves,regard the forthcoming meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong>the CPC and the CPSU as a “necessary step in preparing forthe meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> Communist and Workers’Parties <strong>of</strong> all countries.” Indeed, without violating the principle<strong>of</strong> equality and without infringing up<strong>on</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong>other fraternal Parties, this meeting must facilitate the betterpreparati<strong>on</strong> and holding <strong>of</strong> the meeting. Without such a meeting,and without the ending <strong>of</strong> open polemics in the press and<strong>of</strong> criticism within the Party <strong>of</strong> other fraternal Parties, preparati<strong>on</strong>for the meeting and the achievement <strong>of</strong> its main aim— the strengthening <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement — would be difficult. Precisely for this reas<strong>on</strong> theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, while agreeing with the proposalsmade by the Vietnamese, Ind<strong>on</strong>esian, British, Swedishand other comrades at the beginning <strong>of</strong> 1962 regarding thec<strong>on</strong>vocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a meeting <strong>of</strong> fraternal Parties <strong>of</strong> all countries,at the same time stressed the need for taking such measures aswould create a favourable atmosphere for the work <strong>of</strong> the worldcommunist forum.In its letter <strong>of</strong> February 22, 1962, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the CPSU urged that “unnecessary arguments be s<strong>to</strong>pped regardingquesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> which we have different opini<strong>on</strong>s, thatpublic statements capable <strong>of</strong> aggravating rather than smoothingout our differences be given up.” In the letter <strong>to</strong> the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPC <strong>of</strong> May 31, 1962, we wrote:497
As you are well aware, our Party has always come out andstill comes out for collective discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> vital problems <strong>of</strong>the world communist movement. The Central Committee <strong>of</strong>the CPSU was the initia<strong>to</strong>r <strong>of</strong> the meetings <strong>of</strong> fraternal Partiesin 1957 and 1960. In both cases these meetings werec<strong>on</strong>nected with serious changes in the internati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong>and the need for working out corresp<strong>on</strong>ding tactics in thecommunist movement. Now <strong>to</strong>o we fully support the proposalfor the c<strong>on</strong>vocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a meeting <strong>of</strong> all the fraternalParties.We c<strong>on</strong>sidered it would be useful in the preparati<strong>on</strong>s for sucha meeting that the fraternal Parties could thoroughly and pr<strong>of</strong>oundlyanalyse the new phenomena in internati<strong>on</strong>al affairsand their own activity in carrying out the collective decisi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> our movement. The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU displayedc<strong>on</strong>cern, perfectly understandable <strong>to</strong> all Communists,that the meeting should not aggravate the differences butdo as much as possible <strong>to</strong> overcome them.In their pr<strong>on</strong>ouncements many <strong>of</strong> the leaders <strong>of</strong> fraternalParties have recently been justly expressing the same point <strong>of</strong>view <strong>on</strong> the necessity <strong>of</strong> taking, before the meeting, a number<strong>of</strong> steps <strong>to</strong> create a normal situati<strong>on</strong> in the communist movementand <strong>to</strong> place c<strong>on</strong>flicts <strong>of</strong> opini<strong>on</strong>s within the permissiblebounds <strong>of</strong> a comradely Party discussi<strong>on</strong>. Now you also agreewith this, as is seen from your letter, and it can be said thatcertain progress has been made in the preparati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theforthcoming meeting.It goes without saying that when our two Parties are discussingquesti<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>cerning all fraternal Parties, the discussi<strong>on</strong>can <strong>on</strong>ly be <strong>of</strong> a preliminary nature. The 1957 and 1960 Meetingshave shown that the elaborati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement can be successful <strong>on</strong>ly if allfraternal Parties collectively take part in it and if due c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>is given <strong>to</strong> the extensive experience <strong>of</strong> all its comp<strong>on</strong>entdetachments.498
We have attentively studied your views c<strong>on</strong>cerning the range<strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s which could be discussed at the meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives<strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and theCommunist Party <strong>of</strong> China. These are important questi<strong>on</strong>s,and we are ready <strong>to</strong> discuss them.In our turn, we would like <strong>to</strong> dwell in this letter <strong>on</strong> somequesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle, which, in our opini<strong>on</strong>, are the centre <strong>of</strong>attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties and their struggle for ourcomm<strong>on</strong> cause. We do not mean, <strong>of</strong> course, an exhaustivestatement <strong>of</strong> our views <strong>on</strong> these questi<strong>on</strong>s. We <strong>on</strong>ly wish t<strong>on</strong>ote that which is <strong>of</strong> paramount importance, by which we areguided in our policy in the internati<strong>on</strong>al arena and in ourrelati<strong>on</strong>s with fraternal Parties.We hope that this statement <strong>of</strong> our views will help <strong>to</strong> definethe range <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s requiring an exchange <strong>of</strong> opini<strong>on</strong>s at abilateral meeting and will c<strong>on</strong>tribute <strong>to</strong> overcoming the existingdifferences. We are doing this so as <strong>to</strong> stress <strong>on</strong>ce againour determinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> uphold firmly and c<strong>on</strong>sistently theideological standpoint <strong>of</strong> the entire world communist movement,its general line as expressed in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> andthe Statement.During the time that has passed since the adopti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theStatement, experience has not <strong>on</strong>ly not invalidated any <strong>of</strong> itsmain c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s, but has, <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary, fully c<strong>on</strong>firmed thecorrectness <strong>of</strong> the course taken by the world communist movement,as worked out jointly through generalizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> presentdayexperience and the creative development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> proceeds from thebasis that our epoch, whose main c<strong>on</strong>tent is the transiti<strong>on</strong> fromcapitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism, initiated by the Great Oc<strong>to</strong>ber SocialistRevoluti<strong>on</strong>, is an epoch <strong>of</strong> struggle between two opposed socialsystems, an epoch <strong>of</strong> socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>s and nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong>revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, an epoch <strong>of</strong> the collapse <strong>of</strong> imperialism, <strong>of</strong>the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ial system, an epoch <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>499
socialism by ever more nati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>of</strong> the triumph <strong>of</strong> socialism andcommunism <strong>on</strong> a world scale.The situati<strong>on</strong> that has developed in the world and thechanges in the development <strong>of</strong> the class forces in the internati<strong>on</strong>alarena which opened up new opportunities for ourmovement demanded that a general line be worked out forthe world communist movement, a general line in c<strong>on</strong>formitywith its basic tasks at the present stage.After the Sec<strong>on</strong>d World War a number <strong>of</strong> countries inEurope <strong>to</strong>ok the road <strong>of</strong> socialism, a socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>triumphed in China and other Asian countries, and a worldsocialist system was formed. The new system grew str<strong>on</strong>g inthe countries <strong>of</strong> People’s Democracy and was able <strong>to</strong> ensurea rapid rate <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic, political and cultural developmentin the countries following the road <strong>of</strong> socialism. The socialistcommunity was closely united politically and militarily.Thanks <strong>to</strong> the achievements <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and otherfraternal countries the correlati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces in the worldchanged substantially in favour <strong>of</strong> socialism, and <strong>to</strong> thedetriment <strong>of</strong> imperialism. An important part in this respectwas played by the ending <strong>of</strong> America’s m<strong>on</strong>opoly <strong>of</strong> a<strong>to</strong>micand hydrogen weap<strong>on</strong>s and by the creati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a mighty warpotential by the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.The formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the world socialist system is a his<strong>to</strong>ricachievement <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al working class and <strong>of</strong> all theworking people. This achievement is the incarnati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> mankind’sdreams <strong>of</strong> a new society. The growth <strong>of</strong> producti<strong>on</strong> andthe vast achievements <strong>of</strong> science and engineering in the socialistcountries have helped <strong>to</strong> provide the socialist communitywith an ec<strong>on</strong>omic and military might that reliably defends thegains <strong>of</strong> socialism and also serves as a mighty mainstay <strong>of</strong>peace and security for the peoples <strong>of</strong> the world.The radical change in the correlati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces is also c<strong>on</strong>nectedwith a further intensificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the general crisis <strong>of</strong>capitalism, the intensificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all its c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s. Afterthe end <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d World War a change occurred in the500
distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces within the imperialist camp. Followingthe ec<strong>on</strong>omic centre, the political and military centres <strong>of</strong> imperialismalso shifted from Europe <strong>to</strong> the United States <strong>of</strong>America. The m<strong>on</strong>opolist bourgeoisie <strong>of</strong> the U.S.A. has becomethe main citadel <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al reacti<strong>on</strong>, and has assumedthe role <strong>of</strong> the saviour <strong>of</strong> capitalism. The American imperialistsare now performing the functi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> an internati<strong>on</strong>algendarme. Using the policy <strong>of</strong> military blocs, the Americanimperialists endeavour <strong>to</strong> subordinate <strong>to</strong> their rule other capitaliststates. This evokes oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the United States <strong>on</strong> thepart <strong>of</strong> France, West Germany, Japan and other major capitaliststates. The recovery <strong>of</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>of</strong> the capitalist countrieswhich had suffered in the world war, and their rate <strong>of</strong>development, more rapid than in the United States, intensifythe desire <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> European countries <strong>to</strong> free themselvesfrom the American diktat. All this leads <strong>to</strong> the aggravati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> existing centres <strong>of</strong> imperialist competiti<strong>on</strong> and c<strong>on</strong>flicts,and the appearance <strong>of</strong> new <strong>on</strong>es and weakens thecapitalist system <strong>on</strong> the whole.The anti-popular and rapacious nature <strong>of</strong> imperialism hasnot changed, but with the formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the world socialistsystem and the growth <strong>of</strong> its ec<strong>on</strong>omic and military might theability <strong>of</strong> imperialism <strong>to</strong> influence the course <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>rical developmenthas been noticeably narrowed, while the forms andmethods <strong>of</strong> its struggle against the socialist countries and theworld revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary and nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement havechanged. The imperialists are frightened by the tempestuousgrowth <strong>of</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> socialism and the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong>movement, they unite their forces, make feverish efforts <strong>to</strong>c<strong>on</strong>tinue the struggle for their exploiting aims, and everywherestrive <strong>to</strong> undermine the positi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries andthe nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement, and <strong>to</strong> weaken their influence.It is perfectly obvious that in our age the main c<strong>on</strong>tent andthe chief trends <strong>of</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rical development <strong>of</strong> human societyare no l<strong>on</strong>ger determined by imperialism but by the world501
socialist system by all the progressive forces struggling againstimperialism for the reorganizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> society al<strong>on</strong>g socialista lines. The c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> between capitalism and socialism isthe chief c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> our epoch. On the outcome <strong>of</strong> thestruggle <strong>of</strong> the two world systems the destinies <strong>of</strong> peace, democracyand socialism depend <strong>to</strong> a decisive extent. And thecorrelati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces in the world arena is changing all thetime in favour <strong>of</strong> socialism.The struggle <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> Asia, Africa and Latin Americafor their nati<strong>on</strong>al and social liberati<strong>on</strong>, and the successes alreadyachieved in this field, the growing struggle <strong>of</strong> the workingclass, <strong>of</strong> all the working people <strong>of</strong> the capitalist countriesagainst the m<strong>on</strong>opolies and against exploitati<strong>on</strong>, in the interests<strong>of</strong> social progress, are <strong>of</strong> the greatest importance for thedestinies <strong>of</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rical development <strong>of</strong> mankind. Socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>s, nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> anti-imperialist and anticol<strong>on</strong>ialrevoluti<strong>on</strong>s, people’s democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, extensivepeasant movements, the struggle <strong>of</strong> the masses for theoverthrow <strong>of</strong> fascist and other tyrannical regimes, generaldemocratic movements against nati<strong>on</strong>al oppressi<strong>on</strong> — in ourtime all these merge in<strong>to</strong> a single world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary streamundermining and destroying capitalism.Working out its policy in c<strong>on</strong>formity with the new c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s,the world communist movement could not fail <strong>to</strong> takein<strong>to</strong> account quite seriously also such an important fac<strong>to</strong>r asthe radical qualitative change in the military-technical means<strong>of</strong> waging war resulting from the emergence and s<strong>to</strong>ckpiling<strong>of</strong> thermo-nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s possessing unprecedented destructiveforce. Until disarmament is effected the socialist communitymust always maintain superiority over the imperialistsin their armed forces. We shall never allow the imperialists t<strong>of</strong>orget that should they unleash a war with the aim <strong>of</strong> decidingby force <strong>of</strong> arms whether mankind must develop al<strong>on</strong>g theroad <strong>of</strong> capitalism or <strong>of</strong> socialism, it will be the last war, the<strong>on</strong>e in which imperialism will be finally routed.502
Under present-day c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s it is the duty <strong>of</strong> all champi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> peace and socialism <strong>to</strong> use <strong>to</strong> the utmost the existing favourableopportunities for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism, and not <strong>to</strong>allow imperialism <strong>to</strong> unleash a world war.The correct analysis <strong>of</strong> the alignment <strong>of</strong> class forces in theworld arena, and the correct <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist policy elaboratedat the Moscow Meetings, made it possible for the fraternal Parties<strong>to</strong> gain major successes in developing the world socialistsystem, and facilitated the growth <strong>of</strong> the class revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggle in the capitalist countries and <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong>movement.The socialist system is exerting an ever-growing influence<strong>on</strong> the course <strong>of</strong> world development. The entire world revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryprocess is <strong>to</strong>day developing under the direct influence<strong>of</strong> the great example provided by the new life in the countries<strong>of</strong> socialism. The more successfully the ideas <strong>of</strong> communismmake their way <strong>to</strong> the minds and hearts <strong>of</strong> the general masses,the greater and more significant are our achievements in thebuilding <strong>of</strong> socialism and communism. It is, therefore, clearthat he who wants <strong>to</strong> bring closer the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialismthroughout the entire world should, in the first place, showc<strong>on</strong>cern for strengthening the great socialist community andits ec<strong>on</strong>omic might, should seek <strong>to</strong> raise the standard <strong>of</strong> living<strong>of</strong> its peoples, develop science, engineering and culture, c<strong>on</strong>solidateits unity and solidarity and the growth <strong>of</strong> its internati<strong>on</strong>alauthority. The Statement <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Meeting placesthe resp<strong>on</strong>sibility <strong>to</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class movementfor the successful building <strong>of</strong> socialism and communism <strong>on</strong>the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties and the peoples <strong>of</strong> the socialistcountries.Tirelessly strengthening the world socialist system, thefraternal Parties and peoples <strong>of</strong> our countries make their c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the great cause <strong>of</strong> the struggle <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking class, <strong>of</strong> all the working people, <strong>of</strong> the entire liberati<strong>on</strong>movement for solving the basic problems <strong>of</strong> the day inthe interests <strong>of</strong> peace, democracy and socialism.503
The present correlati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces in the world arena gavethe socialist countries, <strong>to</strong>gether with all peace-loving forces,the opportunity <strong>of</strong> envisaging as an entirely feasible task forthe first time in his<strong>to</strong>ry that <strong>of</strong> averting a new world war and<strong>of</strong> ensuring peace and security <strong>of</strong> the peoples.The years that have passed since the adopti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this Statementhave fully corroborated the correctness <strong>of</strong> this thesis.The failure <strong>of</strong> the aggressive forces <strong>to</strong> push mankind over theabyss <strong>of</strong> a destructive thermo-nuclear war is a highly importantresult <strong>of</strong> the strengthening <strong>of</strong> the might <strong>of</strong> the socialistcountries, <strong>of</strong> the peace-loving foreign policy which they unswervinglypursue and which is increasingly winning recogniti<strong>on</strong>and support am<strong>on</strong>g hundreds <strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> people andgaining the upper hand over the imperialist policy <strong>of</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>and war.No <strong>Marx</strong>ist doubts that imperialism, losing <strong>on</strong>e positi<strong>on</strong>after another, is trying by every means <strong>to</strong> preserve its dominati<strong>on</strong>over peoples and <strong>to</strong> regain its lost positi<strong>on</strong>s. At presentthe greatest c<strong>on</strong>spiracy ever <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al imperialistsis taking place against the countries <strong>of</strong> socialism and the worldmovement <strong>of</strong> liberati<strong>on</strong>. Of course, there is no guarantee thatthe imperialists will not try <strong>to</strong> unleash a world war. TheCommunists should clearly see this danger.But the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the aggressor under present-day c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sradically differs from his positi<strong>on</strong> before the Sec<strong>on</strong>dWorld War and, even more, before the First World War. Inthe past, wars usually ended with some capitalist countriesdefeating others, but the vanquished c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> live, regainedtheir strength after a time, and even proved able <strong>to</strong> startrenewed aggressi<strong>on</strong>, as is shown, in particular, by the example<strong>of</strong> Germany. A thermo-nuclear war does not <strong>of</strong>fer such aprospect <strong>to</strong> any aggressor, and the imperialists are compelled<strong>to</strong> reck<strong>on</strong> with this. Fear <strong>of</strong> a retalia<strong>to</strong>ry blow, fear <strong>of</strong> retributi<strong>on</strong>,keeps them from letting loose a world war. Thesocialist community has become so str<strong>on</strong>g that imperialism canno l<strong>on</strong>ger impose its c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the peoples and dictate its504
will as before. This is a his<strong>to</strong>ric gain by the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking class and the peoples <strong>of</strong> all countries.By virtue <strong>of</strong> its preda<strong>to</strong>ry nature imperialism cannot getrid <strong>of</strong> the desire <strong>to</strong> solve c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s in the internati<strong>on</strong>alarena by means <strong>of</strong> war. But <strong>on</strong> the other hand it cannot unleasha world thermo-nuclear war without realizing that itwill thereby place itself in danger <strong>of</strong> being destroyed.A world war, such as imperialism threatens mankind with,is not fatally inevitable. With the balance <strong>of</strong> forces increasinglytipping in favour <strong>of</strong> socialism and against imperialism,and with the forces <strong>of</strong> peace increasingly gaining weight overthe forces <strong>of</strong> war, it will become really possible <strong>to</strong> rule out thepossibility <strong>of</strong> world war from the life <strong>of</strong> society even beforesocialism fully triumphs <strong>on</strong> earth, with capitalism still existingin a part <strong>of</strong> the world.Of course, <strong>to</strong> prevent such a war it is necessary <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinuestrengthening the socialist system <strong>to</strong> the utmost and <strong>to</strong> rallyall the forces <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al working-class and thenati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement, <strong>to</strong> rally all democratic forces.Those who prize the interests <strong>of</strong> socialism and the interests <strong>of</strong>peace must do everything <strong>to</strong> frustrate the criminal designs <strong>of</strong>world reacti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>to</strong> prevent it from unleashing a therm<strong>on</strong>uclearwar and dragging hundreds <strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> people downin<strong>to</strong> the grave with it. A sober appraisal <strong>of</strong> the inevitablec<strong>on</strong>sequences that a thermo-nuclear war would have for thewhole <strong>of</strong> mankind and for the cause <strong>of</strong> socialism sets before<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninists the need <strong>to</strong> do everything in our power <strong>to</strong>prevent a new world c<strong>on</strong>flict.The CPSU Central Committee firmly abides by the thesis<strong>of</strong> the 1960 Statement that “In a world divided in<strong>to</strong> twosystems, the <strong>on</strong>ly correct and reas<strong>on</strong>able principle <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alrelati<strong>on</strong>s is the principle <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence <strong>of</strong> stateswith different social systems advanced by V. I. Lenin andfurther elaborated in the Moscow Declarati<strong>on</strong> and Peace Manifes<strong>to</strong><strong>of</strong> 1957, in the decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the 20th and 21st C<strong>on</strong>gresses505
<strong>of</strong> the CPSU, and in the documents <strong>of</strong> other Communist andWorkers’ Parties.”Our Party, which the great Lenin educated in the spirit <strong>of</strong>relentless struggle against imperialism keeps in mind Lenin’swarning that moribund capitalism is still able <strong>to</strong> causehumanity un<strong>to</strong>ld calamities. The Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> is doing everything<strong>to</strong> boost its ec<strong>on</strong>omy and <strong>to</strong> improve its defences <strong>on</strong> thisbasis; it is building up its armed might and maintaining itsarmed forces in a state <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>stant readiness. However, wehave employed and will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> employ our country’s increasingmight not <strong>to</strong> threaten any<strong>on</strong>e or <strong>to</strong> fan war passi<strong>on</strong>s,but <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate peace, prevent another world war, and defendour own country and the other socialist countries.The policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence accords with the vitalinterests <strong>of</strong> all the peoples; it serves <strong>to</strong> strengthen the positi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> socialism, <strong>to</strong> help the internati<strong>on</strong>al influence <strong>of</strong> the socialistcountries, and <strong>to</strong> increase the authority and influence <strong>of</strong> theCommunists.Peaceful coexistence does not imply c<strong>on</strong>ciliati<strong>on</strong> betweensocialist and bourgeois ideologies. That policy would spellaband<strong>on</strong>ment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and obstructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thebuilding <strong>of</strong> socialism. Bourgeois ideology is a sort <strong>of</strong> Trojanhorse, which imperialism is trying <strong>to</strong> sneak in<strong>to</strong> the ranks <strong>of</strong>the communist and working-class movement. The peacefulcoexistence <strong>of</strong> states with different social systems presupposesan unremitting ideological, political and ec<strong>on</strong>omic strugglebetween the two social systems, and the class struggle <strong>of</strong>the working people inside the countries <strong>of</strong> the capitalistsystem, including armed struggle when the peoples find thatnecessary, and the steady advance <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong>movement am<strong>on</strong>g the peoples <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ial and dependentcountries.The facts go <strong>to</strong> show that efforts <strong>to</strong> prevent a world war inno way weaken the forces <strong>of</strong> the world communist andnati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movements but <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary rally thebroadest masses <strong>to</strong> the Communists. It was precisely in c<strong>on</strong>-506
diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence between states with differentsocial systems that the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> triumphed <strong>on</strong>Cuba, that the Algerian people gained nati<strong>on</strong>al independence,that more than 40 countries w<strong>on</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al independence,that the fraternal Parties grew in number and strength,and that the influence <strong>of</strong> the world communist movement increased.Availing themselves <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence,the socialist countries are scoring more and more vic<strong>to</strong>riesin the ec<strong>on</strong>omic competiti<strong>on</strong> with capitalism. Ouradversaries realize that it is difficult for them <strong>to</strong> count <strong>on</strong>winning the competiti<strong>on</strong> against us. They are unable <strong>to</strong> keepup with the rapid ec<strong>on</strong>omic advance <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries;they are powerless in the face <strong>of</strong> the appeal that the example<strong>of</strong> the socialist countries makes <strong>to</strong> the peoples under capitalism’syoke.As the ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>of</strong> the socialist comm<strong>on</strong>wealth advances,the advantages and superiority <strong>of</strong> socialism, and the greateropportunities <strong>of</strong> the working people <strong>to</strong> obtain material andspiritual riches, as compared <strong>to</strong> capitalism, will display themselvesmore and more vividly. The rising standards <strong>of</strong> livingthe socialist countries are a great magnet for the workingclass <strong>of</strong> all the capitalist countries. The achievements <strong>of</strong> thesocialist comm<strong>on</strong>wealth will c<strong>on</strong>stitute a kind <strong>of</strong> catalyst, arevoluti<strong>on</strong>izing fac<strong>to</strong>r in broadening the class struggle in thecapitalist countries and enabling the working class <strong>to</strong> triumphover capitalism.The peoples embarking <strong>on</strong> socialism inherit from the pastec<strong>on</strong>omies and cultures at different levels. Regardless <strong>of</strong> this,however, socialism awakens mighty productive forces — asexemplified by the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the People’s Democracies.The Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> has already outpaced the leadingcapitalist countries <strong>of</strong> Europe in ec<strong>on</strong>omic development andhas taken sec<strong>on</strong>d place in the world; the time is not far <strong>of</strong>fwhen it will take first place in the world. The other socialistcountries have likewise gained great successes. The socialist507
system is so progressive by nature that it enables the peoples<strong>to</strong> swiftly eliminate their backwardness, <strong>to</strong> catch up with themore highly-developed countries, and, marching in <strong>on</strong>e rankwith them, <strong>to</strong> fight for the building <strong>of</strong> communism.All this inspires the peoples, giving them the c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>that they can embark up<strong>on</strong> the road <strong>of</strong> socialism and scoreachievements, regardless <strong>of</strong> their present level <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ricaldevelopment. The advance <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>to</strong> a new life isfacilitated by their opportunity <strong>to</strong> select the best from theworld’s experience in building socialism, taking in<strong>to</strong> accountboth the merits and the shortcomings in the practices <strong>of</strong>socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>.The faster the productive forces <strong>of</strong> the socialist countriesdevelop, the higher their ec<strong>on</strong>omic potential will rise, andthe str<strong>on</strong>ger the influence <strong>of</strong> the socialist community willbecome <strong>on</strong> the rate and trend <strong>of</strong> the whole <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ricaldevelopment in the interests <strong>of</strong> peace and <strong>of</strong> the completetriumph <strong>of</strong> socialism.Our Party proceeds from the thesis that there are favourableinternati<strong>on</strong>al and internal c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in the present epoch formore and more countries <strong>to</strong> go over <strong>to</strong> socialism. This istrue <strong>of</strong> the developed capitalist countries as well as <strong>of</strong> thecountries which have recently achieved nati<strong>on</strong>al independence.The world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary process is developing <strong>on</strong> an everlarger scale, embracing all c<strong>on</strong>tinents. The struggle <strong>of</strong> theworking class in the developed capitalist countries and thenati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement are closely linked, and help <strong>on</strong>eanother. The course <strong>of</strong> social development has led <strong>to</strong> asituati<strong>on</strong> in which the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle, in whichevercountry it takes place, is directed against the main comm<strong>on</strong>enemy, imperialism and the m<strong>on</strong>opoly bourgeoisie.The <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties throughout the world have acomm<strong>on</strong> ultimate aim, <strong>to</strong> mobilize all forces in the strugglefor the winning <strong>of</strong> power by the workers and the labouringpeasantry, and <strong>to</strong> build socialism and communism. In drawingup the tactical policy for their struggle, every Communist508
Party must take in<strong>to</strong> account the experience <strong>of</strong> the entireworld communist movement, must take in<strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>those interests, aims and tasks set by our movement as awhole, its general line at the present time.But at the same time, the working out <strong>of</strong> forms and methods<strong>of</strong> fighting for socialism in each separate country is the internalaffair <strong>of</strong> the working class <strong>of</strong> that country and <strong>of</strong> its communistvanguard. No other fraternal Party, whatever its membership,experience and authority, can lay down the tactics, formsand methods <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle in other countries.Revoluti<strong>on</strong> is the cause <strong>of</strong> the masses themselves. An accurateanalysis <strong>of</strong> the actual situati<strong>on</strong> and a correct estimati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the correlati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces are am<strong>on</strong>g the most important c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>. The enthusiasm <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymasses in the struggle for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> a socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>cannot be kept back when objective and subjective c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sare ripe. It would be tantamount <strong>to</strong> death. But a revoluti<strong>on</strong>cannot be artificially instigated if c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for it are not yetripe. A premature uprising, as the experience <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryclass struggle teaches, is doomed <strong>to</strong> failure. Communistsrally the working people under the red banner inorder <strong>to</strong> win in the struggle for a better life <strong>on</strong> earth, andnot <strong>to</strong> perish, even though heroically. Heroism and selfsacrifice,necessary in revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary battles, are <strong>of</strong> no use bythemselves, but <strong>on</strong>ly for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the great ideas <strong>of</strong>socialism.The CPSU has always hailed and will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> hail therevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary working class and the working people <strong>of</strong> anycountry who, headed by their communist vanguard, makeskilful use <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> inflict a crushingblow against the class enemy and <strong>to</strong> establish a new socialsystem.The tactics and policy <strong>of</strong> the Communist Parties in thecapitalist countries have in comm<strong>on</strong> substantial features c<strong>on</strong>nectedwith the present stage <strong>of</strong> the general crisis <strong>of</strong> capitalismand the correlati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> forces that has developed in the inter-509
nati<strong>on</strong>al arena. The development <strong>of</strong> state-m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalismhas, besides aggravating the c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the capitalistsociety which appeared before, also given birth <strong>to</strong> new c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s.State-m<strong>on</strong>opoly capitalism has led <strong>to</strong> a still greaternarrowing <strong>of</strong> the social base <strong>of</strong> imperialism within a country,and <strong>to</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> power in the hands <strong>of</strong> a smallgroup <strong>of</strong> the str<strong>on</strong>gest m<strong>on</strong>opolists. This gives rise, <strong>on</strong> theother hand, <strong>to</strong> a joint anti-m<strong>on</strong>opoly movement embracing theworking class, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, the workingintellectuals and certain other secti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> capitalist societyinterested in freeing themselves from the sway <strong>of</strong> them<strong>on</strong>opolies and from exploitati<strong>on</strong>, and interested in changingover <strong>to</strong> socialism.Our time is characterized by a sharp growth in thesignificance <strong>of</strong> democratic movements — the struggle forworld peace, for the preventi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a world thermo-nuclearcatastrophe, for the preservati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al sovereignty;movements in defence <strong>of</strong> democracy, against the <strong>on</strong>slaught<strong>of</strong> fascism, for the introducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> agrarian transformati<strong>on</strong>s,the humanistic movement in defence <strong>of</strong> culture, and others.Our Party fully adheres <strong>to</strong> Leninist principles and <strong>to</strong> theprinciples expressed in the Statement, in saying that socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong> is not necessarily c<strong>on</strong>nected with war. If worldwars bring about triumphant revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, revoluti<strong>on</strong>s arenevertheless entirely possible without wars.If Communists were <strong>to</strong> start tying up the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> thesocialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> with world war, this would not evoke anysympathy for socialism, but would drive the masses awayfrom it. With modern means <strong>of</strong> warfare having such terribledestructive c<strong>on</strong>sequences, an appeal like this would <strong>on</strong>ly playin<strong>to</strong> the hands <strong>of</strong> our enemies.The working class and its vanguard, the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-LeninistParties, endeavour <strong>to</strong> carry out socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>s in a peacefulway without civil war. The realizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> such a possibilityis in keeping with the interests <strong>of</strong> the working class and allthe people, and with the nati<strong>on</strong>al interests <strong>of</strong> the country. At510
the same time the choice pf the means <strong>of</strong> developing therevoluti<strong>on</strong> depends not <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the working class. If theexploiting classes resort <strong>to</strong> violence against the people, theworking class will be forced <strong>to</strong> use n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful means <strong>of</strong>seizing power. Everything depends <strong>on</strong> the particular c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sand <strong>on</strong> the distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> class forces within the countryand in the world arena.Naturally, no matter what means are used for the transiti<strong>on</strong>from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism, such a transiti<strong>on</strong> is possible <strong>on</strong>lyby means <strong>of</strong> a socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>of</strong> the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong>the proletariat in various forms. Appreciating highly theselfless struggle <strong>of</strong> the working class headed by the Communistsin the capitalist countries, the CPSU c<strong>on</strong>siders it itsduty <strong>to</strong> render them every kind <strong>of</strong> aid and support.Our Party regards the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement as anintegral part <strong>of</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary process, as a mightyforce destroying the fr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> imperialism. The peoples <strong>of</strong> theformer col<strong>on</strong>ies are <strong>to</strong>day rising <strong>to</strong> full stature as independentcrea<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry, and are seeking ways <strong>to</strong> promote theirnati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omy and culture. The growth <strong>of</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong>the socialist system actively helps the liberati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theoppressed peoples, their achievement <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic independence,the further development and expansi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>movement, and the peoples’ struggle against allforms <strong>of</strong> old and new col<strong>on</strong>ialism.The nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement has entered the final stage<strong>of</strong> the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ial regimes. The time is not far <strong>of</strong>fwhen all the peoples as yet living under the yoke <strong>of</strong> thecol<strong>on</strong>ialists will win freedom and independence. The freedpeoples are now faced with the problem <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidatingpolitical independence, overcoming ec<strong>on</strong>omic and culturalbackwardness and putting an end <strong>to</strong> all forms <strong>of</strong> dependenceup<strong>on</strong> imperialism.The countries that have thrown <strong>of</strong>f the col<strong>on</strong>ial yoke carryout the vital tasks <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al resurgence successfully <strong>on</strong>ly invigorous struggle against imperialism and the remnants <strong>of</strong>511
feudalism, by uniting all the patriotic forces <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong> ina single nati<strong>on</strong>al fr<strong>on</strong>t — the working class, the peasantry,the nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisie and the democratic intellectuals.The peoples who are fighting for their nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>and have already w<strong>on</strong> political independence have ceased, orare ceasing, <strong>to</strong> serve as a reserve for imperialism; with thesupport <strong>of</strong> the socialist states and <strong>of</strong> all progressive forcesthey are more and more frequently inflicting defeats up<strong>on</strong>the imperialist powers and coaliti<strong>on</strong>s.The young nati<strong>on</strong>al states are developing at a time whenthere is competiti<strong>on</strong> between the two world social systems.This circumstance has the str<strong>on</strong>gest influence up<strong>on</strong> theirpolitical and ec<strong>on</strong>omic development, up<strong>on</strong> the choice <strong>of</strong> theroads they will follow in the future. The states that haverecently achieved their nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong> bel<strong>on</strong>g neither <strong>to</strong>the system <strong>of</strong> socialist states nor <strong>to</strong> the system <strong>of</strong> capitaliststates, but the overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> them have not yetbroken away from the orbit <strong>of</strong> the world capitalist ec<strong>on</strong>omy,although they hold a special place there. This part <strong>of</strong> theworld is still exploited by the capitalist m<strong>on</strong>opolies.Now when political independence has been w<strong>on</strong>, the struggle<strong>of</strong> the young sovereign states against imperialism, for theirultimate nati<strong>on</strong>al revival, for ec<strong>on</strong>omic independence, comes<strong>to</strong> the forefr<strong>on</strong>t. The achievement <strong>of</strong> complete independenceby the developing countries would mean a further seriousweakening <strong>of</strong> imperialism, for then the entire present system<strong>of</strong> the preda<strong>to</strong>ry, unequal internati<strong>on</strong>al divisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> labourwould be destroyed, and the foundati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omicexploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the “world countryside” by the capitalistm<strong>on</strong>opolies would be undermined. The development <strong>of</strong> independentnati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omies in the developing countries relyingup<strong>on</strong> the effective assistance <strong>of</strong> the socialist system will deala further heavy blow against imperialism.In the struggle for the attainment and c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>independence it is necessary <strong>to</strong> muster the whole <strong>of</strong> a nati<strong>on</strong>’sforces in readiness <strong>to</strong> fight against imperialism. In an512
endeavour <strong>to</strong> strengthen its dominant positi<strong>on</strong> after theattainment <strong>of</strong> independence, the right-wing nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisiesometimes succeeds in establishing reacti<strong>on</strong>ary politicalregimes for a time, and starts persecuting Communists andother democrats. However, such regimes are short-lived forthe simple reas<strong>on</strong> that they obstruct progress and the soluti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> vital nati<strong>on</strong>al problems — primarily the attainment <strong>of</strong>ec<strong>on</strong>omic independence and the development <strong>of</strong> productiveforces. That is why, in spite <strong>of</strong> the active support <strong>of</strong> theimperialists, these regimes will be overthrown as a result <strong>of</strong>the struggle <strong>of</strong> the masses.The CPSU regards fraternal alliance with the peoples whohave shaken <strong>of</strong>f the col<strong>on</strong>ial yoke and with the peoples <strong>of</strong>semi-col<strong>on</strong>ial states as <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the corner-st<strong>on</strong>es <strong>of</strong> its internati<strong>on</strong>alpolicy. Our Party c<strong>on</strong>siders it its internati<strong>on</strong>al duty<strong>to</strong> help the peoples who have taken the road <strong>of</strong> winning andc<strong>on</strong>solidating nati<strong>on</strong>al independence, all the peoples fightingfor the complete aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ial system. The SovietUni<strong>on</strong> has always supported the sacred wars <strong>of</strong> the peoples forfreedom, and given every kind <strong>of</strong> moral, ec<strong>on</strong>omic, militaryand political support <strong>to</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement.The Soviet people gave great support <strong>to</strong> the Algerian peoplewhen they fought against the French col<strong>on</strong>ialists. When theYemeni people rose up in revolt against slavery in theircountry, we were the first <strong>to</strong> <strong>of</strong>fer them a helping hand. Werendered various kinds <strong>of</strong> aid <strong>to</strong> the Ind<strong>on</strong>esian people in theirstruggle for the liberati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> West Irian, against the Dutchimperialists who got their support from the U.S. imperialists.We hail the struggle <strong>of</strong> the Ind<strong>on</strong>esian people for the liberati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Northern Kalimantan.Col<strong>on</strong>ialists, both old and new, are busy weaving intriguesand plots against the liberati<strong>on</strong> movement <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong>Southeast Asia. Our sympathies and support are invariablywith those who fight for nati<strong>on</strong>al freedom and independence.We are deeply c<strong>on</strong>vinced that, in spite <strong>of</strong> all the efforts <strong>of</strong>the American imperialists and their puppets, the peoples <strong>of</strong>513
South Vietnam and South Korea will be vic<strong>to</strong>rious in theirstruggle and will achieve the reunificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> their nativelands.While being against the export <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>, our Partyhas always d<strong>on</strong>e everything <strong>to</strong> prevent the export <strong>of</strong> counterrevoluti<strong>on</strong>.We are firmly c<strong>on</strong>vinced that the interc<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>and unity <strong>of</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the three great revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary forces <strong>of</strong>our time — the peoples building socialism and communism,the internati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary working-class movement, andthe nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement — are the foundati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thepeoples’ struggle against imperialism, and a guarantee <strong>of</strong> theirvic<strong>to</strong>ry.The entire course <strong>of</strong> world development in recent years hasfully c<strong>on</strong>firmed the correctness <strong>of</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> the communistmovement, which has yielded remarkable practical results.Thanks <strong>to</strong> the realizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this policy, the forces fightingagainst imperialism, for peace, nati<strong>on</strong>al independence andsocialism, have scored new successes. The CPSU c<strong>on</strong>siders itits duty c<strong>on</strong>sistently and steadfastly <strong>to</strong> carry out this policy.We are firmly c<strong>on</strong>vinced that there are no grounds for arevisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this policy.Besides this, the CPSU Central Committee is <strong>of</strong> the opini<strong>on</strong>that it would be beneficial during the preparati<strong>on</strong>s for themeeting, as well as at the meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> Communistand Workers’ Parties, <strong>to</strong> exchange opini<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the newaspects with which life has in recent years enriched the policy<strong>of</strong> the world communist movement as laid down in theDeclarati<strong>on</strong> and Statement.In your letter, dear comrades, you justly note that theguarantee <strong>of</strong> all our achievements is the strengthening <strong>of</strong> theunity <strong>of</strong> the communist movement and the solidarity <strong>of</strong> thesocialist countries. In recent time the CPSU has at itsc<strong>on</strong>gresses and at internati<strong>on</strong>al Communist meetings time andagain expressed its c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the principles c<strong>on</strong>cerning therelati<strong>on</strong>s between <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties. We emphasized,for the whole world <strong>to</strong> see, that in the communist movement,514
just as in the socialist community, all Communist and Workers’Parties, <strong>of</strong> all socialist countries have always been completelyequal. In the communist movement there are no “superior” and“subordinate” Parties. And it could not be so. The dominati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> any party, or the manifestati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> any hegem<strong>on</strong>y whatsoever,does not benefit the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist andworkers’ movement; <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary, it can <strong>on</strong>ly do it harm.All Communist Parties are independent and equal. All bearresp<strong>on</strong>sibility for the destiny <strong>of</strong> the communist movement,for its vic<strong>to</strong>ries and setbacks, all must build their relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong>the basis <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism and mutual assistance.We also proceed from the basis that proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismplaces equal demands <strong>on</strong> all Parties, big andsmall, but makes no excepti<strong>on</strong>s for any<strong>on</strong>e. All fraternalParties must show equal c<strong>on</strong>cern that their activities be based<strong>on</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist principles, in accordance with the interests<strong>of</strong> strengthening the unity <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries and <strong>of</strong>the entire world communist and workers’ movement.The formati<strong>on</strong> and development <strong>of</strong> the world socialist systemgive special significance <strong>to</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> correct relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties. Communist and Workers’Parties in the countries <strong>of</strong> socialism are ruling parties. Theybear resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for the destiny <strong>of</strong> the states, for the destiny<strong>of</strong> their peoples. Under these c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s the violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist principles in the relati<strong>on</strong>s between Partiescan affect not <strong>on</strong>ly Party interests but the interests <strong>of</strong> thewide masses <strong>of</strong> the people.Guided by the supreme interests <strong>of</strong> our cause, the CPSUhas eliminated the c<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>of</strong> the Stalin pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult,and d<strong>on</strong>e everything <strong>to</strong> res<strong>to</strong>re in full the Leninist principles<strong>of</strong> equality in the relati<strong>on</strong>s between the fraternal Parties andrespect for the sovereignty <strong>of</strong> socialist countries. This hasplayed a large and positive role in strengthening the unity<strong>of</strong> the entire socialist community. A favourable situati<strong>on</strong> hasbeen created for the strengthening <strong>of</strong> our friendship <strong>on</strong> thebasis <strong>of</strong> equality, respect for the sovereignty <strong>of</strong> each state,515
mutual assistance and comradely co-operati<strong>on</strong>, voluntary fulfilment<strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al duty by each country. At the sametime, we should like <strong>to</strong> emphasize that socialist equality not<strong>on</strong>ly means having equal rights <strong>to</strong> take part in workingout collectively the comm<strong>on</strong> policy but also entails equalresp<strong>on</strong>sibilities for the fraternal Parties <strong>of</strong> socialist countriesfor the destinies <strong>of</strong> the entire community.The Statement <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Meeting <strong>of</strong> the FraternalParties stressed the need for the closest alliance betweencountries breaking away from capitalism, for the pooling <strong>of</strong>their efforts in the building <strong>of</strong> socialism and communism.Nati<strong>on</strong>al interests and the interests <strong>of</strong> the socialist system asa whole combine harm<strong>on</strong>iously. Life has proved c<strong>on</strong>vincinglythat every country can best solve its nati<strong>on</strong>al tasks <strong>on</strong>lythrough the closest co-operati<strong>on</strong> with the other socialistcountries <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> genuine equality and mutual aid.Our unity, our well-c<strong>on</strong>certed acti<strong>on</strong>s, do not arisesp<strong>on</strong>taneously. They are dictated by objective necessity, theyare the result <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>scious activities, <strong>of</strong> the purposeful internati<strong>on</strong>alistpolicy <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties and theirtireless c<strong>on</strong>cern for the uniting <strong>of</strong> our ranks.We do not close our eyes <strong>to</strong> the fact that different interpretati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> certain questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> internal c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> and theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, different interpretati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the forms and methods <strong>of</strong> our co-operati<strong>on</strong> may occur inthe relati<strong>on</strong>s between socialist countries. This is possible,for the countries making up the world socialist system are atdifferent stages in the c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a new society, and theirexperience in developing relati<strong>on</strong>s with the outside world isnot the same in all respects. One should not exclude thepossibility, either, that differences may result from differentapproaches <strong>to</strong> the soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> some questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism in individual fraternal Parties. To exaggerate therole <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al, specific features may lead <strong>to</strong> a departurefrom <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. To ignore nati<strong>on</strong>al features may516
lead <strong>to</strong> a breaking away from life and from the masses, anddo harm <strong>to</strong> the cause <strong>of</strong> socialism.All this necessitates c<strong>on</strong>stant efforts <strong>to</strong> find ways and means<strong>to</strong> enable us <strong>to</strong> settle the differences arising, from positi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> principle and with the least damage <strong>to</strong> our comm<strong>on</strong> cause.We Communists can argue between ourselves. But in allcircumstances our sacred duty remains the educati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thepeoples <strong>of</strong> our countries in the spirit <strong>of</strong> deep solidarity withall the peoples <strong>of</strong> the socialist community. Communists mustinculcate in the peoples not <strong>on</strong>ly love for their own country,but also love for the whole <strong>of</strong> the socialist community, for allpeoples; they must foster in each man and woman living inany socialist country an understanding <strong>of</strong> their fraternal duty<strong>to</strong>wards the working people <strong>of</strong> the world. Failure <strong>to</strong> do thismeans failure <strong>to</strong> follow the first rule <strong>of</strong> Communists, whichrequires the uniting <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties and thepeoples building socialism, the cherishing <strong>of</strong> our unity aboveall else.Ideological and tactical differences must in no circumstancesbe used <strong>to</strong> incite nati<strong>on</strong>alist feelings and prejudices, mistrustand dissensi<strong>on</strong> between the socialist peoples. We declare withfull resp<strong>on</strong>sibility that the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> has never taken and will never take a single step thatcould sow hostility am<strong>on</strong>g the peoples <strong>of</strong> our country <strong>to</strong>wardsthe fraternal Chinese people or other peoples. On the c<strong>on</strong>trary,in all circumstances our Party has steadily and c<strong>on</strong>sistentlypropagated the ideas <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alism and warm friendshipwith the peoples <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries, and with all peoples<strong>of</strong> the world. We c<strong>on</strong>sider it important <strong>to</strong> stress this, and wehope that the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>China shares this view.In the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist, working-class and liberati<strong>on</strong>movements it is necessary <strong>to</strong> unite all efforts, mobilizing thepeoples for struggle against imperialism. The militant call“Workers <strong>of</strong> all countries, unite!” formulated by <strong>Marx</strong> andEngels means that at the basis <strong>of</strong> this unity lies anti-imperialist517
class solidarity, and not any principle <strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>ality, colouror geographical locati<strong>on</strong>. The uniting <strong>of</strong> the masses in thestruggle against imperialism solely <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> their bel<strong>on</strong>ging<strong>to</strong> a particular c<strong>on</strong>tinent — whether Africa, Asia, LatinAmerica or Europe — can be detrimental <strong>to</strong> the fightingpeoples. This would be not uniting but in fact splitting theforces <strong>of</strong> the united anti-imperialist fr<strong>on</strong>t.The strength <strong>of</strong> the world communist movement lies in itsfaithfulness <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and <strong>to</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> hasfought and will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> fight any departure from <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and any opportunism. We firmly adhere <strong>to</strong> theprinciples <strong>of</strong> the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960 indicating the necessityfor a struggle <strong>on</strong> two fr<strong>on</strong>ts — against Right and “Left”opportunism. The Statement rightly says that the main dangerin the world communist movement is revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, and at thesame time points out the necessity for a resolute struggleagainst sectarianism and dogmatism, which can become themain danger at any stage in the development <strong>of</strong> separateParties if not c<strong>on</strong>sistently combated.Motivated by the desire <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidate the unity <strong>of</strong> theworld communist movement <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, our Party will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> fight resolutelyagainst both right-wing and left-wing opportunism, which are<strong>to</strong>day no less dangerous than revisi<strong>on</strong>ism. But while beingimplacable as regards fundamental questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle inthe theory and tactics <strong>of</strong> the communist movement, whilestruggling against revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and sectarianism, we shall spareno effort <strong>to</strong> elucidate, by painstaking comradely discussi<strong>on</strong>,questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> which there are different interpretati<strong>on</strong>s, so as<strong>to</strong> clear away all extraneous obstacles interfering with ourunity. In so doing, we proceed from the premise that whencriticizing any mistake relating <strong>to</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the principles<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, the fraternal Parties, and also internati<strong>on</strong>alc<strong>on</strong>ferences <strong>of</strong> the communist movement, should setthemselves the objective <strong>of</strong> pointing out the danger <strong>of</strong> such518
mistakes and <strong>of</strong> helping <strong>to</strong> remedy them, and not <strong>of</strong> harping<strong>on</strong> these mistakes for all time. We are striving <strong>to</strong> facilitatethe complete uniting <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary forces, and not theirdisintegrati<strong>on</strong> or the amputati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e or another secti<strong>on</strong> inour movement. Naturally, Communists cannot allow c<strong>on</strong>cessi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>on</strong> points <strong>of</strong> principle in <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist theory.As an internati<strong>on</strong>alist Party, the CPSU carefully studiesthe experience accumulated in the struggles <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist Parties in all countries. We greatly prize the strugglebeing waged by the working class and its revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary vanguard<strong>of</strong> Communist Parties in France, Italy, the U.S.A.,Britain, the other capitalist countries, as well as the heroicstruggle which the Communist Parties <strong>of</strong> Asian, African andLatin American countries are carrying <strong>on</strong> for nati<strong>on</strong>al andsocial emancipati<strong>on</strong> from the dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the imperialistm<strong>on</strong>opolies, col<strong>on</strong>ialism and neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism.The Communist Parties have developed in<strong>to</strong> influentialnati<strong>on</strong>al forces, in<strong>to</strong> advanced detachments <strong>of</strong> fighters for thehappiness <strong>of</strong> their peoples. No w<strong>on</strong>der the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries arestriking blow after blow at the Communists in their efforts<strong>to</strong> break their will. In their fight against the communistmovement the reacti<strong>on</strong>aries bring out the shop-soiled lie aboutthe “hand <strong>of</strong> Moscow,” claiming that the Communist Partiesare not a nati<strong>on</strong>al force but a vehicle for the policy <strong>of</strong> anothercountry, the <strong>to</strong>ol <strong>of</strong> another country. The imperialists aredoing this with evil intent, in order <strong>to</strong> counter the mountinginfluence <strong>of</strong> the Communist Parties, in order <strong>to</strong> make themasses suspect them, in order <strong>to</strong> justify police persecuti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the Communists.However, all h<strong>on</strong>est-minded men and women know thatthe Communist Parties are the true upholders and champi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>al interests, that they are staunch patriots who combinelove for their country and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismin their struggle for the happiness <strong>of</strong> the people. The CPSUc<strong>on</strong>siders it its obligati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> give every support <strong>to</strong> its brothers519
in the heroic struggle they are waging in the capitalistcountries, <strong>to</strong> strengthen internati<strong>on</strong>al solidarity with them.These, in general outline, are some <strong>of</strong> our ideas <strong>on</strong> importantc<strong>on</strong>temporary questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle, <strong>on</strong> the strategy andtactics <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, which wethought it necessary <strong>to</strong> <strong>to</strong>uch up<strong>on</strong> in this letter.Being firmly c<strong>on</strong>vinced that the present policy <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, which found its expressi<strong>on</strong> inthe Declarati<strong>on</strong> and Statement <strong>of</strong> the fraternal Parties, is the<strong>on</strong>ly correct <strong>on</strong>e, we believe that at the forthcoming meetingbetween the representatives <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and CPC it wouldbe expedient <strong>to</strong> discuss the following most urgent problems:a. Questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>cerning the struggle for the furtherstrengthening <strong>of</strong> the might <strong>of</strong> the world socialist system andits transformati<strong>on</strong> in<strong>to</strong> the decisive fac<strong>to</strong>r in the development<strong>of</strong> human society, which is the main distinguishing feature<strong>of</strong> our era. We could jointly discuss how faster and better <strong>to</strong>secure a vic<strong>to</strong>ry for the socialist countries in peaceful ec<strong>on</strong>omiccompetiti<strong>on</strong> with capitalism;b. Questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>cerning the struggle for peace and peacefulcoexistence. The need <strong>to</strong> pool the efforts <strong>of</strong> all peacelovingforces for the struggle <strong>to</strong> prevent a world therm<strong>on</strong>uclearwar. The creati<strong>on</strong> and the strengthening <strong>of</strong> thebroadest united fr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> peace supporters. The exposure <strong>of</strong>the reacti<strong>on</strong>ary essence <strong>of</strong> imperialism, the heightening <strong>of</strong>vigilance and the mobilizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the broad masses <strong>to</strong> fightagainst the preparati<strong>on</strong>s being made by the imperialists for anew world war, frustrate their aggressive schemes and isolatethe forces <strong>of</strong> reacti<strong>on</strong> and war. Asserti<strong>on</strong> in internati<strong>on</strong>alrelati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Leninist principle <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence betweenstates with different social systems. The struggle forgeneral and complete disarmament and for the eliminati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the traces <strong>of</strong> the Sec<strong>on</strong>d World War;c. Questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>cerning the struggle against imperialismheaded by the U.S. The use, in the interests <strong>of</strong> our cause, <strong>of</strong>the weakening positi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> capitalism and the growing520
instability <strong>of</strong> the entire capitalist system <strong>of</strong> world ec<strong>on</strong>omy,the aggravati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> capitalism, and above allc<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s between labour and capital, and the severecrisis in bourgeois ideology and politics. Support <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryand class struggle <strong>of</strong> the working people in capitalistcountries against the m<strong>on</strong>opolies, for their socialliberati<strong>on</strong>, for the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> man by man,for the extensi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the democratic rights and freedoms <strong>of</strong> thepeoples;d. Questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>cerning the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement.The support and utmost development <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong>movement <strong>of</strong> the peoples. The struggle for the complete andfinal ending <strong>of</strong> col<strong>on</strong>ialism and neo-col<strong>on</strong>ialism in all its forms.The rendering <strong>of</strong> support <strong>to</strong> peoples fighting against col<strong>on</strong>ialism,and also <strong>to</strong> countries which have achieved theirnati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>. The development <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic and culturalco-operati<strong>on</strong> with these countries;e. Questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>cerning the c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the unity andcohesi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the socialist community and <strong>of</strong> the ranks <strong>of</strong> thecommunist movement. The need for c<strong>on</strong>solidating in everyway the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, the most influentialpolitical force <strong>of</strong> our times, particularly in c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>swhere the imperialist reacti<strong>on</strong>aries have joined forces in thefight against communism. The preventi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> any acti<strong>on</strong>swhich could undermine this unity, the firm adherence by eachfraternal Party <strong>to</strong> the assessments and c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s worked outjointly. The c<strong>on</strong>tinuati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the struggle against revisi<strong>on</strong>ismand dogmatism, as an indispensable c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> for the defense<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism in its pure form, and <strong>of</strong> its creativedevelopment, and for the further successes <strong>of</strong> the communistmovement. The development <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g the fraternalParties <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand mutual aid and support. The working out <strong>of</strong>joint measures <strong>to</strong> intensify the ideological and political struggleagainst imperialism and reacti<strong>on</strong>.521
During the talks it will be possible <strong>to</strong> discuss all the questi<strong>on</strong>smenti<strong>on</strong>ed in your letter, questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> comm<strong>on</strong> intereststemming from the tasks in the struggle <strong>to</strong> implement thedecisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Meetings. An important role couldbe played by the discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>nected withthe c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> unity between the USSR and the People’sRepublic <strong>of</strong> China.In your letter you raise the Albanian and Yugoslav questi<strong>on</strong>s.We have already written <strong>to</strong> you that these questi<strong>on</strong>s,though <strong>of</strong> a basic nature, cannot and should not eclipse themain problems <strong>of</strong> our times which call for discussi<strong>on</strong> at ourmeeting.Our Party, having c<strong>on</strong>demned the splitting activities <strong>of</strong> theAlbanian leaders, has at the same time taken a number <strong>of</strong> steps<strong>to</strong>wards normalizing the relati<strong>on</strong>s between the Albanian Party<strong>of</strong> Labour and the CPSU and other fraternal Parties. Inspite <strong>of</strong> the fact that the leaders <strong>of</strong> the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong>Labour have recently been coming out with slanderous attacks<strong>on</strong> our Party and the Soviet people, we, being guided bysupreme interests, do not relinquish the hope that the relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween the CPSU and the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labourmay be improved. At the end <strong>of</strong> February this year the CPSUCentral Committee <strong>on</strong>ce again <strong>to</strong>ok the initiative and suggested<strong>to</strong> the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labourthat a bilateral meeting be held between representatives <strong>of</strong>our two Parties. However, this comradely step <strong>on</strong> our partdid not meet with due resp<strong>on</strong>se <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the Albanianleadership. The leaders <strong>of</strong> the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labour didnot even deem it necessary <strong>to</strong> acknowledge our letter c<strong>on</strong>tainingthe CPSU Central Committee’s proposal about thebilateral meetings. Having obviously later come <strong>to</strong> theirsenses, the Albanian leaders sent us a letter in which, aftersome reservati<strong>on</strong>s and stipulati<strong>on</strong>s, they speak <strong>of</strong> such a meeting.If real desire is in fact shown, we are ready <strong>to</strong> have ameeting.522
As far as Yugoslavia is c<strong>on</strong>cerned, we maintain, proceedingfrom an analysis and assessment <strong>of</strong> the objective ec<strong>on</strong>omicand political c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in that country, that it is a socialistcountry, and in our relati<strong>on</strong>s with it we strive <strong>to</strong> establishcloser relati<strong>on</strong>s between the Federative People’s Republic <strong>of</strong>Yugoslavia and the socialist comm<strong>on</strong>wealth, in accordance withthe policy pursued by the fraternal Parties for the cementing<strong>to</strong>gether <strong>of</strong> all the anti-imperialist forces <strong>of</strong> the world. Wealso take in<strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> the definite positive tendenciesshown <strong>of</strong> late in Yugoslavia’s ec<strong>on</strong>omic and socio-politicallife. Meanwhile the CPSU is aware <strong>of</strong> the serious differencesthat exist with the League <strong>of</strong> Communists <strong>of</strong> Yugoslavia <strong>on</strong>several ideological questi<strong>on</strong>s and c<strong>on</strong>siders it necessary <strong>to</strong> tellthe Yugoslav comrades so frankly, criticizing those views <strong>of</strong>theirs which it finds wr<strong>on</strong>g.In its letter <strong>of</strong> March 9, 1963, the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCommunist Party <strong>of</strong> China agrees with us in saying that <strong>to</strong>daythe world communist movement faces a crucial time. Itdepends <strong>on</strong> us, <strong>on</strong> our Parties, <strong>on</strong> the correctness <strong>of</strong> our policy,whether we c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> advance <strong>to</strong>gether in <strong>on</strong>e rank or allowourselves <strong>to</strong> be involved in a struggle harmful <strong>to</strong> the workingclass, <strong>to</strong> our peoples and <strong>to</strong> all working people, a struggle thatcan <strong>on</strong>ly result in mutual estrangement, weaken the forces<strong>of</strong> socialism, and undermine the unity <strong>of</strong> the world communistmovement.Naturally, being large, str<strong>on</strong>g Parties, the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China wouldemerge from this situati<strong>on</strong> with smaller losses; but as far asthe other fraternal Parties, especially those working in complexc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, are c<strong>on</strong>cerned, they would be faced with greatand moreover unnecessary complicati<strong>on</strong>s, which, <strong>of</strong> course, isnot our aim.Everything depends <strong>on</strong> how we act in this serious and complexsituati<strong>on</strong>. Are we <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinue engaging in polemics,<strong>to</strong> fall prey <strong>to</strong> our passi<strong>on</strong>s, and <strong>to</strong> turn arguments in<strong>to</strong>recriminati<strong>on</strong>s and unproved accusati<strong>on</strong>s and sallies against523
the fraternal Parties? Or are we, aware <strong>of</strong> the great resp<strong>on</strong>sibilitythat we bear for the destinies <strong>of</strong> our great cause, <strong>to</strong>direct developments al<strong>on</strong>g a different channel, and showenough courage <strong>to</strong> rise above all that divides us <strong>to</strong>day, ceaseuncomradely polemics, and c<strong>on</strong>centrate <strong>on</strong> a search for ways<strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidating militant Soviet-Chinese co-operati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidatingthe friendship <strong>of</strong> all the fraternal Parties?We realize that any movement, including the communistmovement, is unthinkable without c<strong>on</strong>troversy. However, nodifferences, no displeasure at the behaviour <strong>of</strong> a particularParty, can justify methods <strong>of</strong> struggle detrimental <strong>to</strong> the interests<strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement. The deeperand broader our understanding <strong>of</strong> the aims and tasks <strong>of</strong> theinternati<strong>on</strong>al working class, the greater the vigour with whichwe should strive <strong>to</strong> analyse our differences, however seriousthey may seem <strong>to</strong>day, quietly and relevantly, and preventthem from interfering with our positive work, from disorganizingthe revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary activities <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al workingclass.Let us struggle <strong>to</strong>gether for c<strong>on</strong>sistent adherence <strong>to</strong> the<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist course in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement,against revisi<strong>on</strong>ism and dogmatism, for closer unity inthe ranks <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, for respectfor collectively worked out policies, and against any violati<strong>on</strong>sor arbitrary interpretati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> these.Our Party does not succumb <strong>to</strong> the heat <strong>of</strong> the polemicstruggle but, aware <strong>of</strong> our comm<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>sibility <strong>to</strong> the worldcommunist movement, wishes <strong>to</strong> s<strong>to</strong>p the dangerous process<strong>of</strong> sliding in<strong>to</strong> a new series <strong>of</strong> discussi<strong>on</strong>s. It is obvious <strong>to</strong>every<strong>on</strong>e that we could have found much <strong>to</strong> say in defence<strong>of</strong> the Leninist policy <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, in defence <strong>of</strong> the comm<strong>on</strong>line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement, in reply<strong>to</strong> groundless attacks made in articles recently carried by theChinese press. And if we are not doing it now it is <strong>on</strong>lybecause we do not want <strong>to</strong> gladden the foes <strong>of</strong> the communistmovement. We hope that the harm caused by the sharpen-524
ing polemics will be realized, and the interests <strong>of</strong> the unity<strong>of</strong> the socialist system and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementwill be placed above all else. Therefore we suggest ameeting <strong>to</strong> you, not in order <strong>to</strong> aggravate the dispute but inorder <strong>to</strong> reach a mutual understanding <strong>on</strong> major problems thathave arisen in the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.We know that such meeting is being looked forward <strong>to</strong> byour friends in all the countries <strong>of</strong> the world, and that theypin great hopes <strong>on</strong> it. It depends <strong>on</strong> us, <strong>on</strong> our will andreas<strong>on</strong>, whether results gladdening <strong>to</strong> our friends and upsetting<strong>to</strong> the enemies <strong>of</strong> communism will be achieved at the meeting.This will be our comm<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the cause <strong>of</strong> thestruggle for the liberati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all oppressed people, for thevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> peace and socialism <strong>on</strong> earth, for the triumph <strong>of</strong>the great revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary doctrine <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.With communist greetings,The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> theCommunist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>
OPEN LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THECOMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNIONTO ALL PARTY ORGANIZATIONS, TO ALL COMMUNISTSOF THE SOVIET UNIONDear Comrades,(July 14, 1963)The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU deems it necessary <strong>to</strong>address this open letter <strong>to</strong> you in order <strong>to</strong> set out its positi<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong> the fundamental questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement in c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> with the letter <strong>of</strong> the Central Commmittee<strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China <strong>of</strong> June 14, 1963.Soviet people are well aware that our party and government,expressing the will <strong>of</strong> the entire Soviet people, spareno efforts <strong>to</strong> strengthen fraternal friendship with the peoples<strong>of</strong> all the socialist countries, with the Chinese people. Weare united by comm<strong>on</strong> struggle for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> communism,we share the same aim, the same aspirati<strong>on</strong>s and hopes.For many years relati<strong>on</strong>s between our parties were good.But some time ago there came <strong>to</strong> light serious differencesbetween the CPC <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand, and the CPSU and theother fraternal parties, <strong>on</strong> the other. At the present time, thestatements and acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China, which are undermining the cohesi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ourparties and the friendship <strong>of</strong> our peoples, are causing increasingc<strong>on</strong>cern <strong>to</strong> the CPSU Central Committee.For its part, the CPSU Central Committee has been doingeverything possible <strong>to</strong> overcome the differences that haveThe bold-type emphases in this letter are Renmin Ribao’s — Ed.526
arisen, and in January this year proposed the cessati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>open polemics in the communist movement, so that the issuesbe discussed calmly and in a businesslike manner, and solved<strong>on</strong> a principled <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist basis. This proposal <strong>of</strong> theCPSU met with the warm support <strong>of</strong> all the fraternal parties.Agreement was subsequently reached <strong>on</strong> a meeting betweenrepresentatives <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and the CPC, which is now takingplace in Moscow.The CPSU Central Committee hoped that the Chinesecomrades would, like ourselves, display good will and wouldfacilitate the success <strong>of</strong> the meeting in the interests <strong>of</strong> ourpeoples, in the interests <strong>of</strong> strengthening the unity <strong>of</strong> thecommunist movement. To our regret, when agreement wasreached <strong>on</strong> the Moscow meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> theCPSU and CPC, when the delegati<strong>on</strong>s were appointed andthe date <strong>of</strong> the meeting set, the Chinese comrades, instead<strong>of</strong> submitting the divergencies for discussi<strong>on</strong> at this meeting,unexpectedly found it possible not <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> state the old differencesopenly, before the entire world, but also <strong>to</strong> advancenew charges against the CPSU and other Communist parties.This found expressi<strong>on</strong> in the publicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the June 14 letter<strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committee, which gives an arbitrary interpretati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and Statement <strong>of</strong> the Moscowmeetings <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> the Communist and Workers’parties, and dis<strong>to</strong>rts the basic principles <strong>of</strong> these his<strong>to</strong>ric documents.The CPC Central Committee letter c<strong>on</strong>tains groundless,slanderous attacks <strong>on</strong> our party and <strong>on</strong> other Communistparties, <strong>on</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the 20th, 21st, and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses<strong>of</strong> the CPSU and <strong>on</strong> the CPSU Programme.As you know from the statement <strong>of</strong> the CPSU Central Committeepublished in Pravda <strong>on</strong> June 19, the Presidium <strong>of</strong> theCPSU Central Committee, having studied the June 14 letter<strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committee, arrived at the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> thatits publicati<strong>on</strong> in the Soviet press at that time would havebeen inadvisable. Publicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the letter would, naturally,have required a public reply <strong>on</strong> our part; this would have527
further aggravated the c<strong>on</strong>troversy and inflamed passi<strong>on</strong>s,and would have thereby worsened relati<strong>on</strong>s between ourparties. Publicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the letter <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committeewould have been the more untimely since a meetingwas <strong>to</strong> be held between representatives <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and CPCwith the purpose, in our opini<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tributing, throughcomradely examinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> existing differences, <strong>to</strong> bettermutual understanding between our two parties <strong>on</strong> the vitalquesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> present-day world development, and <strong>of</strong> creatinga favourable atmosphere for the preparati<strong>on</strong> and holding <strong>of</strong>a meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> all Communist and Workers’parties.At the same time, the Presidium <strong>of</strong> the CPSU Central Committeec<strong>on</strong>sidered it necessary <strong>to</strong> acquaint the members <strong>of</strong>the CPSU Central Committee and all the participants in itsPlenary Meeting with the letter <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committee,and inform them <strong>of</strong> the substance <strong>of</strong> the differencesbetween the CPC leadership and the CPSU and the other<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties.In its unanimously adopted decisi<strong>on</strong> the Central CommitteePlenum fully endorsed the political activity <strong>of</strong> the CPSUCentral Committee Presidium and <strong>of</strong> First Secretary <strong>of</strong>the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman <strong>of</strong> the Council <strong>of</strong>Ministers <strong>of</strong> the U.S.S.R. N. S. Khrushchov aimed at furtheruniting the forces <strong>of</strong> the world communist movement, and allthe steps taken by the CPSU Central Committee Presidium inits relati<strong>on</strong>s with the Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China.The CPSU Central Committee Plenum instructed the Presidium<strong>of</strong> the Central Committee unswervingly <strong>to</strong> follow theline <strong>of</strong> the 20th, 21st and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> our party at themeeting with representatives <strong>of</strong> the CPC, a line approved atthe meetings <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> the Communist parties andembodied in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and Statement, a line that hasbeen fully c<strong>on</strong>firmed by life, by the course <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>aldevelopments. The Central Committee Plenum emphatically528
ejected as groundless and slanderous the attacks <strong>of</strong> theCentral Committee <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China <strong>on</strong> ourparty and other Communist parties, <strong>on</strong> the decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the20th, 21st and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses, <strong>on</strong> the Programme <strong>of</strong> theCPSU. Expressing the will <strong>of</strong> the entire party, it declared itsreadiness and determinati<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sistently <strong>to</strong> pursue a course<strong>to</strong> unite our fraternal parties and overcome existing differences.The Plenum declared that our party would c<strong>on</strong>tinue itsefforts <strong>to</strong> strengthen unity <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong><strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and socialist internati<strong>on</strong>alism, fraternalfriendship between the CPSU and the CPC in the interests <strong>of</strong>the struggle for our comm<strong>on</strong> cause.Unfortunately, recent events have shown that the Chinesecomrades interpret our restraint in their own way. Theydepict our sincere striving <strong>to</strong> avoid a sharpening <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>troversyin the communist movement as little short <strong>of</strong> an intenti<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> hide the views <strong>of</strong> the Chinese leaders from theSoviet Communists and people. Mistaking our restraint forweakness, the Chinese comrades, c<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> the standards<strong>of</strong> friendly relati<strong>on</strong>s between fraternal socialist countries,began, with increasing importunity and persistence, unlawfully<strong>to</strong> circulate in Moscow and other Soviet cities the June14 letter <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committee, <strong>of</strong> which a largenumber <strong>of</strong> copies were printed in Russian. Not c<strong>on</strong>tent withthis, the Chinese comrades began sedulously <strong>to</strong> popularize andspread throughout the world this letter and other documentsdirected against our party, not scrupling <strong>to</strong> use imperialistpublishing houses and agencies for their distributi<strong>on</strong>.The positi<strong>on</strong> has been aggravated by the fact that whenthe U.S.S.R. Ministry <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs drew the attenti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the Chinese Ambassador in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the impermissibility<strong>of</strong> such acti<strong>on</strong>s, which c<strong>on</strong>stitute a gross violati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> our country’s sovereignty, the Chinese representatives, farfrom s<strong>to</strong>pping them, declared in a dem<strong>on</strong>strative way thatthey regarded it as their right <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> circulate theletter in the U.S.S.R.529
On July 7, when the Moscow meeting had already begun,a mass rally was held in Peking at which the Chinese expelledfrom the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> for the unlawful distributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>materials c<strong>on</strong>taining attacks <strong>on</strong> our party and the Sovietgovernment were hailed as heroes by Chinese <strong>of</strong>ficials.Seeking <strong>to</strong> instigate am<strong>on</strong>g the fraternal Chinese people sentimentsand feelings unfriendly <strong>to</strong> the U.S.S.R., the Chinese<strong>of</strong>ficials tried, at this rally, <strong>to</strong> prove their right <strong>to</strong> violate thesovereignty <strong>of</strong> our state and the standards <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>alrelati<strong>on</strong>s. On July 10, the CPC Central Committee issuedanother statement, in which it justifies these acti<strong>on</strong>s and,in effect, tries <strong>to</strong> arrogate <strong>to</strong> itself the right <strong>to</strong> interfere inthe internal affairs <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, which the Sovietgovernment, naturally, will never allow. Such acti<strong>on</strong>s can<strong>on</strong>ly aggravate relati<strong>on</strong>s and can do nothing but harm.In its leading article <strong>on</strong> July 13, the Peking People’s Dailyagain attacked our party and gave a dis<strong>to</strong>rted interpretati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the fact that the Soviet press did not publish the June 14letter <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committee.The frankly unfriendly acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the CPC leaders, theirpersistent striving <strong>to</strong> aggravate the c<strong>on</strong>troversy in the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist movement, the deliberate dis<strong>to</strong>rti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> ourparty’s positi<strong>on</strong>, the misinterpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> our motives intemporarily refraining from publishing the letter, impel us <strong>to</strong>publish the letter <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committee <strong>of</strong> June 14,1963, and <strong>to</strong> give our appraisal <strong>of</strong> it.Every<strong>on</strong>e who reads the letter <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committeewill see behind the fine phrases about unity andcohesi<strong>on</strong> unfriendly, slanderous attacks <strong>on</strong> our party and theSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, a striving <strong>to</strong> play down the his<strong>to</strong>ric significance<strong>of</strong> our people’s struggle for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> communism in theU.S.S.R., for the triumph <strong>of</strong> peace and socialism throughoutthe world. The document c<strong>on</strong>tains every manner <strong>of</strong> charge,direct and veiled, against the CPSU and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.Its authors permit themselves fabricati<strong>on</strong>s, unseemly andinsulting <strong>to</strong> Communists, about “betrayal <strong>of</strong> the interests <strong>of</strong>530
the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat and all the peoples <strong>of</strong> the world,”“departure from <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism,”hint at “cowardice in face <strong>of</strong> the imperialists,”“a step back in the course <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ric development,” and evenat “organizati<strong>on</strong>al and moral disarming <strong>of</strong> the proletariat andall the working people” tantamount <strong>to</strong> “c<strong>on</strong>tributing <strong>to</strong> theres<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism” in our country. How can they saythese things about the party <strong>of</strong> the great Lenin, about themotherland <strong>of</strong> socialism, about the people who were the firstin the world <strong>to</strong> accomplish a socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>, upheld itsgreat gains in fierce battles against internati<strong>on</strong>al imperialismand domestic counter-revoluti<strong>on</strong>, are displaying miracles <strong>of</strong>heroism and dedicati<strong>on</strong> in the effort <strong>to</strong> build communism, arefaithfully fulfilling their internati<strong>on</strong>alist duty <strong>to</strong> the workingpeople <strong>of</strong> the world.IFor nearly half a century the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, under theleadership <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party, has been fighting for thetriumph <strong>of</strong> the ideas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, for the freedomand happiness <strong>of</strong> the working people throughout the world.<strong>From</strong> the very first days <strong>of</strong> the Soviet state, when the greatLenin s<strong>to</strong>od at its helm, and right up <strong>to</strong> the present day, ourpeople have rendered and are rendering tremendous anddisinterested assistance <strong>to</strong> all the peoples fighting for liberati<strong>on</strong>from the yoke <strong>of</strong> imperialism and col<strong>on</strong>ialism, for thebuilding <strong>of</strong> a new life.World his<strong>to</strong>ry furnishes no example <strong>of</strong> a country renderingaid <strong>to</strong> other countries <strong>on</strong> such a scale in the development <strong>of</strong>their ec<strong>on</strong>omy, science and technology.The working people <strong>of</strong> China and the Chinese Communistsfelt in full measure the fraternal solidarity <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people,<strong>of</strong> our party, both in the period <strong>of</strong> their revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggle for the liberati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> their country and in the years531
<strong>of</strong> socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>. Immediately after the formati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China, the Soviet governmentsigned with the government <strong>of</strong> People’s China a Treaty <strong>of</strong>Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, which is a powerfulweap<strong>on</strong> against imperialist encroachments, a fac<strong>to</strong>r forc<strong>on</strong>solidating peace in the Far East and the whole world.The Soviet people generously shared with their Chinesebrothers their experience in socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, accumulatedover many years, their achievements in the fields <strong>of</strong> scienceand technology. Our country has rendered and is renderingsubstantial aid <strong>to</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omic development <strong>of</strong> People’sChina. With the active assistance <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, People’sChina built 198 fac<strong>to</strong>ries, fac<strong>to</strong>ry departments and otherindustrial units equipped with up-<strong>to</strong>-date machinery. Withthe assistance <strong>of</strong> our country, China started such new industriesas au<strong>to</strong>mobiles, trac<strong>to</strong>rs, aircraft and others. TheSoviet Uni<strong>on</strong> handed over <strong>to</strong> the P.R.C. more than 21,000sets <strong>of</strong> scientific and technical documentati<strong>on</strong>, including morethan 1,400 major projects. We have invariably helped Chinastrengthen her defence capacity and create a modern defenceindustry. Thousands <strong>of</strong> Chinese specialists and workers havebeen trained in Soviet higher schools and in our industries.Now, <strong>to</strong>o, the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tinues its technical assistance<strong>to</strong> the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China in the c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> 88industrial enterprises and projects. We menti<strong>on</strong> all this notby way <strong>of</strong> boasting, but <strong>on</strong>ly because <strong>of</strong> late the CPC leadershave sought <strong>to</strong> belittle the significance <strong>of</strong> Soviet aid; nor dowe forget that the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, in its turn, received neededgoods from the P.R.C.It is not so l<strong>on</strong>g ago that the Chinese leaders spoke justlyand eloquently about the friendship <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> Chinaand the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, about the unity <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and theCPC, giving a high appraisal <strong>of</strong> Soviet aid and urging thepeople <strong>to</strong> learn from the experience <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung said in 1957: “In their strugglefor nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>, the Chinese people had the fraternal532
sympathy and support <strong>of</strong> the Soviet people. After the vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> the Chinese revoluti<strong>on</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> has likewise beenrendering all-round and immense assistance in the c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> socialism in China. The Chinese people will neverforget all this.”One can <strong>on</strong>ly regret that the Chinese leaders have begun<strong>to</strong> forget this.Our party, all Soviet people, rejoiced at, and <strong>to</strong>ok pride in,the successes <strong>of</strong> the great Chinese people in building the newlife. Speaking at a recepti<strong>on</strong> in Peking <strong>on</strong> the tenth anniversary<strong>of</strong> the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China, Comrade N. S.Khrushchov said: “The heroic and industrious people <strong>of</strong> Chinadem<strong>on</strong>strated, under the leadership <strong>of</strong> their glorious CommunistParty, what a people is capable <strong>of</strong> when it takes powerin<strong>to</strong> its own hands. . . . Now everybody admits the successes<strong>of</strong> the Chinese people and the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China.The peoples <strong>of</strong> Asia and Africa see al<strong>on</strong>g which path, underwhich system, the talents, the creative forces <strong>of</strong> the peoplecan be fully developed, so that a nati<strong>on</strong> can dem<strong>on</strong>strate thebreadth and depth <strong>of</strong> its mighty creative strength.”That is how things s<strong>to</strong>od until the Chinese leaders began<strong>to</strong> deflect from the general course <strong>of</strong> the world communistmovement.In April 1960 the Chinese comrades openly revealed theirdisagreements with the world communist movement by publishingthe collecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> articles “L<strong>on</strong>g Live Leninism!” Thiscollecti<strong>on</strong>, made up, in the main, <strong>of</strong> dis<strong>to</strong>rted, truncated andincorrectly interpreted passages from well-known works <strong>of</strong>Lenin, c<strong>on</strong>tained propositi<strong>on</strong>s directed, in substance, againstthe fundamentals <strong>of</strong> the Declarati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Moscow Meeting<strong>of</strong> 1957, which was signed <strong>on</strong> behalf <strong>of</strong> the CPC by Comrade<strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung, against the Leninist policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistence<strong>of</strong> states with different social systems, against thepossibility <strong>of</strong> preventing world war in the present era, againstrecogniti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the peaceful as well as n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful road <strong>of</strong>development <strong>of</strong> socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>. The CPC leaders tried533
<strong>to</strong> impose their views <strong>on</strong> all the fraternal parties. In June1960, during the Peking sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>General</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> theWorld Federati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Trade Uni<strong>on</strong>s, the Chinese leaders, withoutthe knowledge <strong>of</strong> the leadership <strong>of</strong> fraternal parties,arranged a meeting <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> several parties thenin Peking and launched open criticism <strong>of</strong> the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> theCPSU and the other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties and the Declarati<strong>on</strong>adopted by the Moscow Meeting in 1957. Furthermore,the Chinese comrades aired their differences with the CPSUand the other fraternal parties from the open tribune <strong>of</strong> an<strong>on</strong>-party organizati<strong>on</strong>.Such steps by the CPC leadership aroused anxiety in thefraternal parties. In view <strong>of</strong> this, an attempt was made atthe Bucharest Meeting <strong>of</strong> Communist Parties in 1960 <strong>to</strong>discuss the differences that had arisen with the leaders <strong>of</strong>the CPC. Representatives <strong>of</strong> 50 Communist and Workers’parties subjected the views and acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Chinese leaders<strong>to</strong> comradely criticism and urged them <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> the path<strong>of</strong> unity and co-operati<strong>on</strong> with the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, in c<strong>on</strong>formity with the principles <strong>of</strong> the MoscowDeclarati<strong>on</strong>. Unfortunately, the CPC leadership disregardedthis comradely assistance and c<strong>on</strong>tinued <strong>to</strong> pursue its err<strong>on</strong>eouscourse and deepen its differences with the fraternalparties.Anxious <strong>to</strong> prevent such a development <strong>of</strong> events, the CPSUCentral Committee suggested talks with the Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China. These <strong>to</strong>ok placein Moscow in September 1960. But then, <strong>to</strong>o, it was impossible<strong>to</strong> resolve the differences due <strong>to</strong> the stubborn unwillingness<strong>of</strong> the CPC delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> heed the opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> afraternal party. At the Meeting <strong>of</strong> Representatives <strong>of</strong> 81Communist and Workers’ Parties in November 1960, theabsolute majority <strong>of</strong> the fraternal parties rejected the incorrectviews and c<strong>on</strong>cepts <strong>of</strong> the CPC leadership. The Chinese delegati<strong>on</strong>at this meeting stubbornly upheld its own particular534
views and signed the Statement <strong>on</strong>ly when the danger <strong>of</strong> itscomplete isolati<strong>on</strong> became clear.It is now perfectly clear that in appending their signatures<strong>to</strong> the 1960 Statement, the CPC leaders were <strong>on</strong>ly manoeuvring.Shortly after the meeting they resumed the propaganda<strong>of</strong> their policy, using as their mouthpiece the leadership <strong>of</strong>the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labour. Behind the back <strong>of</strong> our partythey launched a campaign against the CPSU Central Committeeand the Soviet government.In Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 1961 the CPSU Central Committee made freshefforts <strong>to</strong> normalize relati<strong>on</strong>s with the CPC. Comrades N. S.Khrushchov, F. R. Kozlov and A. I. Mikoyan had talks withComrades Chou En-lai, Peng Chen and other leading CPC<strong>of</strong>ficials attending the 22nd CPSU C<strong>on</strong>gress. Comrade N. S.Khrushchov explained in detail <strong>to</strong> the Chinese delegati<strong>on</strong> thepositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPSU Central Committee <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>principle discussed at the 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gress and stressed ourinvariable desire <strong>to</strong> strengthen friendship and co-operati<strong>on</strong>with the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China.In its letters <strong>of</strong> February 22 and May 31, 1962, the CPSUCentral Committee drew the attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC CentralCommittee <strong>to</strong> the dangerous c<strong>on</strong>sequences for our comm<strong>on</strong>cause that might follow from the weakening <strong>of</strong> the unity <strong>of</strong>the communist movement. We then suggested <strong>to</strong> the Chinesecomrades that steps be taken <strong>to</strong> deprive the imperialists <strong>of</strong> theopportunity <strong>to</strong> use in their interests the difficulties which hadarisen in Soviet-Chinese relati<strong>on</strong>s. The CPSU Central Committeealso suggested more effective measures <strong>on</strong> such questi<strong>on</strong>sas exchange <strong>of</strong> internal political informati<strong>on</strong>, co-ordinati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the positi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> our fraternal parties in internati<strong>on</strong>aldemocratic organizati<strong>on</strong>s and in other matters.However, these letters and the other practical steps aimedat improving relati<strong>on</strong>s with the CPC and the P.R.C. in allfields, did not meet with a resp<strong>on</strong>se in Peking.In the autumn <strong>of</strong> last year, the Presidium <strong>of</strong> the CPSUCentral Committee had a l<strong>on</strong>g talk with Comrade Liu Hsiao,535
the then P.R.C. Ambassador <strong>to</strong> the U.S.S.R., before his departurefrom Moscow. In the course <strong>of</strong> this c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>, themembers <strong>of</strong> the Central Committee Presidium again <strong>to</strong>ok theinitiative in strengthening Chinese-Soviet friendship. ComradeN. S. Khrushchov asked Comrade Liu Hsiao <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>vey <strong>to</strong>Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tse-tung our proposal: “To set aside all disputesand differences, not <strong>to</strong> try <strong>to</strong> establish who is right and whois wr<strong>on</strong>g, not <strong>to</strong> stir up the past, but <strong>to</strong> start our relati<strong>on</strong>sfrom a clean slate.” But we did not even receive an answer<strong>to</strong> this sincere appeal.Deepening their ideological differences with the fraternalparties, the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPC began <strong>to</strong> carry them over <strong>to</strong>governmental relati<strong>on</strong>s. Chinese government agencies begancurtailing ec<strong>on</strong>omic and trade relati<strong>on</strong>s with the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>and other socialist countries. On the initiative <strong>of</strong> the P.R.C.government, the volume <strong>of</strong> China’s trade with the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> was cut <strong>to</strong> nearly <strong>on</strong>e-third in the past three years;delivery <strong>of</strong> complete sets <strong>of</strong> industrial plant dropped <strong>to</strong> <strong>on</strong>efortieth<strong>of</strong> the former volume. This was d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> the initiative<strong>of</strong> the Chinese leaders. We regret that the P.R.C. leadershiphas embarked <strong>on</strong> such a policy. Now as always, we believeit is necessary <strong>to</strong> go <strong>on</strong> developing Soviet-Chinese relati<strong>on</strong>sand extend co-operati<strong>on</strong>. This would be mutually beneficial,above all <strong>to</strong> People’s China, which has received great assistancefrom the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and other socialist countries. In thepast, the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> developed extensive relati<strong>on</strong>s withChina, and <strong>to</strong>day, <strong>to</strong>o, it wants their expansi<strong>on</strong>, not curtailment.One would expect the CPC leadership <strong>to</strong> be the first<strong>to</strong> display c<strong>on</strong>cern for the development <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic relati<strong>on</strong>swith the socialist countries. However, it has been acting inthe opposite directi<strong>on</strong>, disregarding the damage such acti<strong>on</strong>scause the P.R.C. ec<strong>on</strong>omy.The Chinese leaders did not tell their people the truthabout who is resp<strong>on</strong>sible for curtailing these relati<strong>on</strong>s. Extensivepropaganda aimed at discrediting the foreign anddomestic Policy <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, at stirring up anti-Soviet senti-536
ment, was started am<strong>on</strong>g the Chinese Communists and evenam<strong>on</strong>g the populati<strong>on</strong>.The CPSU Central Committee drew the Chinese comrades’attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> these incorrect acti<strong>on</strong>s. We <strong>to</strong>ld the Chinesecomrades that the people should not be prompted <strong>to</strong> praiseor anathematize this or that party depending <strong>on</strong> the emergence<strong>of</strong> disputes and differences. It is clear <strong>to</strong> every Communistthat disagreements am<strong>on</strong>g fraternal parties are but temporaryepisodes, whereas relati<strong>on</strong>s between the peoples <strong>of</strong> thesocialist countries are now being shaped for all time.Every time, however, the Chinese leaders ignored the comradelywarnings <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and further strained Chinese-Soviet relati<strong>on</strong>s.Beginning with the close <strong>of</strong> 1961, Chinese representativesin internati<strong>on</strong>al democratic organizati<strong>on</strong>s have been openlyimposing their err<strong>on</strong>eous views. In December 1961, at theS<strong>to</strong>ckholm sessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the World Peace Council, the Chinesedelegati<strong>on</strong> opposed the c<strong>on</strong>vocati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the World C<strong>on</strong>gress forPeace and Disarmament. In the course <strong>of</strong> 1962 the work <strong>of</strong>the World Federati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Trade Uni<strong>on</strong>s, the World Peace Movement,the Afro-Asian Solidarity Movement, the World Federati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> Democratic Youth, the Women’s Internati<strong>on</strong>al DemocraticFederati<strong>on</strong>, and many other organizati<strong>on</strong>s, was placedin jeopardy by the divisive activities <strong>of</strong> the Chinese representatives.They opposed participati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong>the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committees <strong>of</strong> the European socialistcountries in the third Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity C<strong>on</strong>ferencein Moshi. The leader <strong>of</strong> the Chinese delegati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong>ldthe Soviet representatives that “whites have no business here.”At the journalists’ c<strong>on</strong>ference in Djakarta, the Chinese representativesfollowed a line designed <strong>to</strong> deny Soviet journalistsfull-fledged delegate status <strong>on</strong> the plea that the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> . . . is not an Asian country.That the Chinese comrades should have accused the overwhelmingmajority <strong>of</strong> the recent World C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> Women <strong>of</strong>splitting activities and <strong>of</strong> following a wr<strong>on</strong>g political line,537
is strange and surprising, c<strong>on</strong>sidering that out <strong>of</strong> the 110 countriesrepresented, <strong>on</strong>ly two — China and Albania — votedagainst the Appeal <strong>to</strong> Women <strong>of</strong> All C<strong>on</strong>tinents. Is it a case<strong>of</strong> the entire multi-milli<strong>on</strong> army <strong>of</strong> freedom-loving womenbeing out <strong>of</strong> step, and <strong>on</strong>ly two marching in step, keepingthe ranks?Such, in brief, is the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the differences betweenthe Chinese leadership and the CPSU and the other fraternalparties. It shows that the CPC leaders counterpose theirown special line <strong>to</strong> the general line <strong>of</strong> the communist movement,trying <strong>to</strong> impose <strong>on</strong> it their own dictate, their deeplyerr<strong>on</strong>eous views <strong>on</strong> the key problems <strong>of</strong> our time.IIWhat is the substance <strong>of</strong> the differences between the CPC,<strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand, and the CPSU and the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement, <strong>on</strong> the other? That questi<strong>on</strong> will undoubtedlybe asked by every<strong>on</strong>e who reads the CPC Central Committeeletter <strong>of</strong> June 14.At first glance, many <strong>of</strong> its propositi<strong>on</strong>s may set <strong>on</strong>ew<strong>on</strong>dering: whom are the Chinese comrades actually arguingwith? Are there Communists who object, for instance, <strong>to</strong>socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>, or who do not regard it their duty t<strong>of</strong>ight imperialism, or support the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement?Why is the CPC leadership so insistent in advancingsuch propositi<strong>on</strong>s?The questi<strong>on</strong> may also arise: why is it impossible <strong>to</strong> agreewith the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Chinese comrades, formulated in theirletter, <strong>on</strong> many important problems? Take, for instance, sucha cardinal problem as war and peace. The CPC Central Committeeletter speaks <strong>of</strong> peace and peaceful co-existence.The essence <strong>of</strong> the matter is that, having started an <strong>of</strong>fensiveagainst the views <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties <strong>on</strong> thecardinal problems <strong>of</strong> the times, the Chinese comrades, firstly,538
ascribe <strong>to</strong> the CPSU and other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties viewswhich they have never expressed and which are alien <strong>to</strong> them;sec<strong>on</strong>dly, they try, by verbal acceptance <strong>of</strong> formulas andprinciples taken from the documents <strong>of</strong> the communist movement,<strong>to</strong> mask their err<strong>on</strong>eous views and incorrect positi<strong>on</strong>s.To come out openly against the peoples’ struggle for peace,against peaceful co-existence <strong>of</strong> states with different socialsystems, against disarmament, etc., would expose their policyin the eyes <strong>of</strong> the Communists and peace-loving peoples <strong>of</strong>the whole world and would alienate them. The further thepolemics develop, the clearer the weakness <strong>of</strong> the CPC leadership’spositi<strong>on</strong> becomes, the more zealously they resort <strong>to</strong>such camouflage. If this method <strong>of</strong> the Chinese comrades isnot taken in<strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>, it might appear <strong>to</strong> the outsiderthat the c<strong>on</strong>troversy has acquired a scholastic nature, that itc<strong>on</strong>cerns individual formulas, far removed from vital issues.In point <strong>of</strong> fact, however, the c<strong>on</strong>troversy centres <strong>on</strong> issuesaffecting the vital interests <strong>of</strong> the peoples.They are the issue <strong>of</strong> war and peace, the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> therole and development <strong>of</strong> the world socialist system, they arequesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the struggle against the ideology and practice<strong>of</strong> the “pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult,” they are questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the strategyand tactics <strong>of</strong> the world labour movement and the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>struggle.These questi<strong>on</strong>s are posed by life itself, by the deep-goingchanges that have taken place in the socialist countries andthroughout the world, the changes in recent years in thebalance <strong>of</strong> strength between socialism and imperialism, thenew possibilities for our movement. The communist movementhad <strong>to</strong>, and did, provide the answers <strong>to</strong> these questi<strong>on</strong>sand worked out a general line in adaptati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sand requirements <strong>of</strong> the present stage <strong>of</strong> world development.In the unanimous opini<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Communist parties, an immensepart in this was played by the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, which ushered in a new stage in the development <strong>of</strong>the entire communist movement. This appraisal was recorded539
in the 1957 Declarati<strong>on</strong> and in the 1960 Statement, the documents<strong>of</strong> the Communist parties worked out collectively andformulating the general political course <strong>of</strong> the communistmovement in the present era.But the CPC leaders have now advanced, as a counterweight,a different course; their positi<strong>on</strong>s are diverting more andmore from the general line <strong>of</strong> the communist movement <strong>on</strong>basic issues.This applies, above all, <strong>to</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> war and peace.In the appraisal <strong>of</strong> the problems <strong>of</strong> war and peace, in theapproach <strong>to</strong> their soluti<strong>on</strong>, there can be no vagueness or reservati<strong>on</strong>s,for this is an issue in which the destinies <strong>of</strong> peoples,the future <strong>of</strong> all mankind, are involved.The CPSU Central Committee c<strong>on</strong>siders it its duty <strong>to</strong> tellthe party and the people with all frankness that <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> war and peace the CPC leadership has cardinal, fundamentaldifferences with us, with the world communist movement.Their essence lies in the diametrically opposite approach<strong>to</strong> such vital problems as the possibility <strong>of</strong> averting a worldtherm<strong>on</strong>uclear war, peaceful co-existence <strong>of</strong> states with differentsocial systems, the interc<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> between the strugglefor peace and the development <strong>of</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymovement.Our party, in the decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> its 20th and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses,and the world communist movement in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> andStatement, set before Communists, as a vital and urgent task,the struggle for peace, the struggle <strong>to</strong> avert a world therm<strong>on</strong>uclearcatastrophe. We realistically appraise the balance<strong>of</strong> strength in the world and draw the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> that, thoughthe nature <strong>of</strong> imperialism has not changed, and the danger <strong>of</strong>war breaking out has not been averted, in modern c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sthe forces <strong>of</strong> peace, <strong>of</strong> which the mighty community <strong>of</strong> socialiststates is the main bulwark, can, through their joint efforts,prevent a new world war.We also soberly appraise the radical, qualitative change <strong>of</strong>the means <strong>of</strong> waging war and, accordingly, its possible c<strong>on</strong>-540
sequences. The nuclear and rocket weap<strong>on</strong>s created in themiddle <strong>of</strong> this century have changed former c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong>war. These weap<strong>on</strong>s possess unprecedented destructive power.Suffice it <strong>to</strong> say that the explosi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e powerfultherm<strong>on</strong>uclear bomb surpasses the explosive force <strong>of</strong> all theammuniti<strong>on</strong> used during all previous wars, including the firstand the sec<strong>on</strong>d world wars. And many thousands <strong>of</strong> suchbombs have been accumulated.Have Communists the right <strong>to</strong> ignore this danger? Mustwe tell the people the whole truth about the c<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>of</strong>a therm<strong>on</strong>uclear war? We believe that undoubtedly we must.This cannot have a “paralyzing” effect <strong>on</strong> the masses, as theChinese comrades assert. On the c<strong>on</strong>trary, the truth aboutmodern war mobilizes the will and energy <strong>of</strong> the masses forthe struggle for peace, against imperialism — the source <strong>of</strong>the war danger.The his<strong>to</strong>ric task <strong>of</strong> the Communists is <strong>to</strong> organize and headthe struggle <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>to</strong> prevent a world therm<strong>on</strong>uclearwar.Preventi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> a new world war is a fully real and feasibletask. The 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> our party arrived at a c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the utmost importance — that in our times there is no fatalinevitability <strong>of</strong> war between states. That c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> is basednot merely <strong>on</strong> good intenti<strong>on</strong>s; it is the result <strong>of</strong> a realistic,strictly scientific analysis <strong>of</strong> the balance <strong>of</strong> class forces in theworld arena; it is based <strong>on</strong> the vast might <strong>of</strong> world socialism.Our views <strong>on</strong> this questi<strong>on</strong> are shared by the entire worldcommunist movement. “World war can be averted”; “a realpossibility will have arisen <strong>to</strong> exclude world war from thelife <strong>of</strong> society even before socialism achieves complete vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>on</strong> earth, with capitalism still existing in a part <strong>of</strong> the world,”the Statement stresses.That Statement bears the signatures also <strong>of</strong> the Chinesecomrades.But what is the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC leadership? What canbe the meaning <strong>of</strong> the propositi<strong>on</strong>s they advocate, viz., that541
we cannot put an end <strong>to</strong> war as l<strong>on</strong>g as imperialism exists;that peaceful co-existence is an illusi<strong>on</strong>, it is not the generalforeign-policy principle <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries; that thestruggle for peace hinders revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle?These propositi<strong>on</strong>s mean that the Chinese comrades areacting c<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> the general policy <strong>of</strong> the world communistmovement <strong>on</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> war and peace. They do not believein the possibility <strong>of</strong> preventing a new world war, they underestimatethe forces <strong>of</strong> peace and socialism and overestimatethe forces <strong>of</strong> imperialism, and virtually ignore the mobilizati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the masses <strong>to</strong> fight the war danger.It turns out that the Chinese comrades do not believe inthe ability <strong>of</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries, the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking class, and all the democratic and peacelovingforces <strong>to</strong> foil the plans <strong>of</strong> the warm<strong>on</strong>gers and achievepeace for our and future generati<strong>on</strong>s. What is behind theloud revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary phrases <strong>of</strong> the Chinese comrades? Disbeliefin the strength <strong>of</strong> the working class and its revoluti<strong>on</strong>arycapabilities, disbelief both in the possibility <strong>of</strong> peaceful coexistenceand in the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in the classstruggle. The struggle <strong>to</strong> prevent war unites all peace-lovingforces. They differ in class compositi<strong>on</strong> and class interests.But they can be united by the struggle for peace, for avertingwar, because the a<strong>to</strong>mic bomb does not draw class distincti<strong>on</strong>s— it destroys everybody within the range <strong>of</strong> its destructiveacti<strong>on</strong>.To follow the road proposed by the Chinese comrades wouldbe <strong>to</strong> alienate the masses from the Communist parties, whichhave w<strong>on</strong> the sympathies <strong>of</strong> the peoples by their perseveringand courageous struggle for peace.In the minds <strong>of</strong> the broad masses; socialism and peace arenow inseparable!The Chinese comrades obviously underestimate all thedanger a therm<strong>on</strong>uclear war would present. “The a<strong>to</strong>mic bombis a paper tiger,” it “is not at all terrible,” they c<strong>on</strong>tend. Themain thing, they say, is <strong>to</strong> put an end <strong>to</strong> imperialism as quick-542
ly as possible, but how and with what losses this will beachieved appears <strong>to</strong> be a sec<strong>on</strong>dary questi<strong>on</strong>. Sec<strong>on</strong>dary forwhom, it may be asked — for the hundreds <strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peoplewho would be doomed <strong>to</strong> death if a therm<strong>on</strong>uclear warwere unleashed? For the countries that would be wiped <strong>of</strong>fthe face <strong>of</strong> the earth in the very first hours <strong>of</strong> such a war?No <strong>on</strong>e, not even a big state, has the right <strong>to</strong> play with thedestinies <strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> people. Those who do not want <strong>to</strong>exert themselves <strong>to</strong> banish world war from the life <strong>of</strong> thepeoples, <strong>to</strong> avert mass annihilati<strong>on</strong> and destructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> thevalues <strong>of</strong> human civilizati<strong>on</strong>, deserve c<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong>.The CPC Central Committee letter <strong>of</strong> June 14 has much<strong>to</strong> say about “inevitable sacrifices,” allegedly in the name<strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Some resp<strong>on</strong>sible Chinese leaders havealso declared that it is possible <strong>to</strong> sacrifice hundreds <strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> people in a war. There is this asserti<strong>on</strong> in the collecti<strong>on</strong>“L<strong>on</strong>g Live Leninism!” which was approved by the CPCCentral Committee: “The vic<strong>to</strong>rious peoples will create withtremendous speed <strong>on</strong> the ruins <strong>of</strong> destroyed imperialism acivilizati<strong>on</strong> a thousand times higher than under the capitalistsystem, and will build a really beautiful future.”It is permissible <strong>to</strong> ask the Chinese comrades: do they realizewhat sort <strong>of</strong> “ruins” a world nuclear and rocket warwould leave behind?The CPSU Central Committee — and we are c<strong>on</strong>vinced thatthe entire party and the Soviet people unanimously supportus in this — cannot share the views <strong>of</strong> the Chinese leadershipabout the creati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> “a thousand times higher civilizati<strong>on</strong>”<strong>on</strong> the corpses <strong>of</strong> hundreds <strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> people. Such viewsare fundamentally c<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> the ideas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.It is permissible <strong>to</strong> ask the Chinese comrades: what meansdo they propose for the destructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> imperialism? We fullyfavour the destructi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> imperialism and capitalism. Not<strong>on</strong>ly do we believe in the inevitable demise <strong>of</strong> capitalism, butwe are doing everything <strong>to</strong> achieve this through the classstruggle, and as so<strong>on</strong> as possible. Who must decide this his-543
<strong>to</strong>ric questi<strong>on</strong>? First <strong>of</strong> all, the working class, guided by itsvanguard — the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist party, the working people<strong>of</strong> each country.The Chinese comrades propose something different. Theyfrankly say: “On the ruins <strong>of</strong> destroyed imperialism,” in otherwords, as a result <strong>of</strong> the unleashing <strong>of</strong> war, “a beautiful futurewill be built.” If we are <strong>to</strong> accept that then, indeed, there isno need for the principle <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence, for thestruggle <strong>to</strong> strengthen peace. We cannot take such an adventuristicpath: it c<strong>on</strong>tradicts the essence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.Every<strong>on</strong>e knows that under present c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s a world warwould be a therm<strong>on</strong>uclear war. The imperialists will neveragree <strong>to</strong> quit the scene voluntarily, <strong>to</strong> put themselves in<strong>to</strong> thec<strong>of</strong>fin <strong>of</strong> their own free will, without having resorted <strong>to</strong> theextreme methods at their disposal.Apparently those who describe the therm<strong>on</strong>uclear weap<strong>on</strong>as a “paper tiger” are not fully aware <strong>of</strong> its destructive power.We soberly take this in<strong>to</strong> account. We ourselves producetherm<strong>on</strong>uclear weap<strong>on</strong>s and have manufactured them in sufficientquantities. We know their destructive power full well.And if imperialism starts a war against us, we shall not hesitate<strong>to</strong> use this formidable weap<strong>on</strong> against the aggressor. Butif we are not attacked, we shall not be the first <strong>to</strong> use it.<strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninists strive <strong>to</strong> ensure durable peace not bysupplicati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>to</strong> imperialism, but by rallying the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties, by rallying the working class <strong>of</strong> allcountries, by rallying the peoples fighting for their freedomand nati<strong>on</strong>al independence, by relying <strong>on</strong> the ec<strong>on</strong>omic anddefence might <strong>of</strong> the socialist states.We might ask the Chinese comrades, who <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>to</strong> build abeautiful future <strong>on</strong> the ruins <strong>of</strong> the old world destroyed bytherm<strong>on</strong>uclear war: did they c<strong>on</strong>sult, <strong>on</strong> this issue, the workingclass <strong>of</strong> countries where imperialism is in power? Theworking class <strong>of</strong> the capitalist countries would be sure <strong>to</strong> tellthem: are we asking you <strong>to</strong> unleash war and destroy ourcountries in the process <strong>of</strong> destroying the imperialists. After544
all, the m<strong>on</strong>opolists, the imperialists, are <strong>on</strong>ly a comparativelysmall group, while the bulk <strong>of</strong> the populati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the capitalistcountries c<strong>on</strong>sists <strong>of</strong> the working class, the working peasantry,working intelligentsia. The a<strong>to</strong>mic bomb does not distinguishbetween imperialists and working people, it strikesat areas, so that milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> workers would be killed for everym<strong>on</strong>opolist destroyed. The working class, the working people,will ask such “revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries”: What right have you <strong>to</strong>decide for us questi<strong>on</strong>s involving our very existence and ourclass struggle — we <strong>to</strong>o want socialism, but we want <strong>to</strong> winit through the class struggle, not by unleashing a worldtherm<strong>on</strong>uclear war.The way the Chinese comrades present the questi<strong>on</strong> canarouse legitimate suspici<strong>on</strong> that this is no l<strong>on</strong>ger a class approach<strong>to</strong> the struggle for the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism, but thatthere are entirely different aims. If both the exploiters andthe exploited are buried under the ruins <strong>of</strong> the old world, whowill build the “beautiful future”?The fact cannot pass unnoticed, in this c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>, that instead<strong>of</strong> the class, internati<strong>on</strong>alist approach expressed in theslogan “Workers <strong>of</strong> all countries, united the Chinese comradesstubbornly propagate a slogan deprived <strong>of</strong> all classmeaning: “The wind from the East prevails over the windfrom the West.”On questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> our party firmlyadheres <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist class positi<strong>on</strong>s, believing that ineach country the revoluti<strong>on</strong> is carried out by the workingclass, the working people, without outside military interference.It stands <strong>to</strong> reas<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong> course, that if the imperialist madmenunleash a war, the peoples will sweep away capitalism andbury it. But the Communists, representatives <strong>of</strong> the peoples,true champi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> socialist humanism, must do everythingthey can <strong>to</strong> prevent another world war, in which hundreds<strong>of</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s would perish.545
No party that has the interests <strong>of</strong> the people at heart canfail <strong>to</strong> appreciate its resp<strong>on</strong>sibility in the struggle <strong>to</strong> avertanother world war and endure peaceful co-existence <strong>of</strong> stateswith different social systems.Expressing the policy <strong>of</strong> our party, Comrade N. S. Khrushchovsaid: “There will be liberative wars as l<strong>on</strong>g as imperialismexists, as l<strong>on</strong>g as col<strong>on</strong>ialism exists. These are revoluti<strong>on</strong>arywars. Such wars are not <strong>on</strong>ly permissible but evenunavoidable, since the col<strong>on</strong>ialists do not grant independence<strong>to</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>s voluntarily. Therefore it is <strong>on</strong>ly through struggle,including armed struggle, that the peoples can win freedomand independence.” The Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> is rendering thebroadest support <strong>to</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement. Everybodyis familiar with the practical assistance our country hasgiven the peoples <strong>of</strong> Viet-Nam, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, Yemen,Cuba and other countries.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> has proclaimedthe Leninist principle <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence the general line<strong>of</strong> Soviet foreign policy and is unswervingly following thatline. Since 1953, and particularly after the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong>the CPSU, the effect <strong>of</strong> our peace policy and its influence <strong>on</strong>the course <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>s in the interests <strong>of</strong> themasses have sharply increased.The Chinese comrades allege that in our understanding,the c<strong>on</strong>cept “peaceful co-existence” exhausts all the principles<strong>of</strong> our relati<strong>on</strong>s not <strong>on</strong>ly with imperialist countries, but alsowith the socialist countries and the countries that have recentlybroken out <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ial yoke. They know perfectly wellthat this is not the case, that we were the first <strong>to</strong> proclaim theprinciple <strong>of</strong> friendship and comradely mutual assistance asthe most important principle in relati<strong>on</strong>s between the countries<strong>of</strong> socialism and adhere <strong>to</strong> it firmly and c<strong>on</strong>sistently,that we render all-round and manifold assistance <strong>to</strong> liberatednati<strong>on</strong>s. And yet, for some reas<strong>on</strong>, they find it <strong>to</strong> their advantage<strong>to</strong> present all this in an entirely dis<strong>to</strong>rted light.546
The Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>’s persevering struggle for peace and internati<strong>on</strong>alsecurity, general and complete disarmament, eliminati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the vestiges <strong>of</strong> World War II, negotiated settlement<strong>of</strong> all internati<strong>on</strong>al issues, has yielded its results. Ourcountry’s prestige throughout the world stands higher thanever. Our internati<strong>on</strong>al positi<strong>on</strong> is str<strong>on</strong>ger than ever. Weowe this <strong>to</strong> the steadily growing ec<strong>on</strong>omic and military might<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the other socialist countries, <strong>to</strong> theirpeaceful foreign policy.The CPSU Central Committee declares that we have beenfollowing; are now following, and will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> follow theLenin policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence <strong>of</strong> states with differentsocial systems. In this our party sees its duty both <strong>to</strong> theSoviet people and the peoples <strong>of</strong> all other countries. Toensure peace means <strong>to</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tribute most effectively <strong>to</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>solidati<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the socialist system, and, c<strong>on</strong>sequently, <strong>to</strong> thegrowth <strong>of</strong> its influence <strong>on</strong> the entire course <strong>of</strong> the liberati<strong>on</strong>struggle, <strong>on</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary process.The deep difference in the views <strong>on</strong> war, peace and peacefulco-existence held by the CPSU and other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistparties, <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e hand, and the CPC leaders, <strong>on</strong> the other,was manifested with particular clarity during the 1962 Caribbeancrisis. It was a sharp internati<strong>on</strong>al crisis: never beforehad mankind come so close <strong>to</strong> the brink <strong>of</strong> therm<strong>on</strong>uclear waras it did last Oc<strong>to</strong>ber.The Chinese comrades claim that in the period <strong>of</strong> the Caribbeancrisis we made an “adventuristic” mistake by supplyingrockets <strong>to</strong> Cuba and then “capitulated” <strong>to</strong> American imperialismwhen we withdrew the rockets from Cuba.*Such asserti<strong>on</strong>s utterly c<strong>on</strong>tradict the facts.How did things actually stand? The CPSU Central Committeeand the Soviet government had reliable informati<strong>on</strong>that United States imperialism was about <strong>to</strong> launch armed* Such allegati<strong>on</strong>s were made in the leading article in the People’sDaily <strong>of</strong> March 8, 1963, “On the Statement <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong>the U.S.A.” [Note in the original.]547
aggressi<strong>on</strong> against Cuba. It was amply clear <strong>to</strong> us that <strong>to</strong>rebuff aggressi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong> defend the Cuban revoluti<strong>on</strong> effectively,would require the most resolute measures. Imprecati<strong>on</strong>s andwarnings — even if they are called “serious warnings” andare repeated 250 times — have no effect <strong>on</strong> the imperialists.Proceeding from the need <strong>to</strong> defend the Cuban revoluti<strong>on</strong>,the Soviet government and the government <strong>of</strong> Cuba reachedagreement <strong>on</strong> the stati<strong>on</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> missiles <strong>on</strong> Cuba, since thiswas the <strong>on</strong>ly realistic means <strong>of</strong> preventing American imperialistaggressi<strong>on</strong>. The delivery <strong>of</strong> missiles <strong>to</strong> Cuba signifiedthat an attack <strong>on</strong> her would meet with a resolute rebuff, withthe employment <strong>of</strong> rocket weap<strong>on</strong>s against the organizers <strong>of</strong>the aggressi<strong>on</strong>. This resolute step <strong>on</strong> the part <strong>of</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> and Cuba came as a shock <strong>to</strong> the American imperialists— for the first time in his<strong>to</strong>ry they were made <strong>to</strong> feel that anarmed attack <strong>on</strong> Cuba would be answered by a smashing blowat their own terri<strong>to</strong>ry.Inasmuch as it was not merely a c<strong>on</strong>flict between the UnitedStates and Cuba, but a clash between the two major nuclearpowers, the Caribbean crisis would have developed in<strong>to</strong> aworld crisis. There was a real danger <strong>of</strong> world therm<strong>on</strong>uclearwar.There were two possibilities in the prevailing situati<strong>on</strong>:either <strong>to</strong> fall in with the “wildmen” (the appellati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> themost aggressive and reacti<strong>on</strong>ary representatives <strong>of</strong> Americanimperialism) and follow a path that would unleash a worldtherm<strong>on</strong>uclear war, or, using the opportunities <strong>of</strong>fered by thedelivery <strong>of</strong> missiles, <strong>to</strong> take all measures <strong>to</strong> reach agreement<strong>on</strong> peaceful settlement <strong>of</strong> the crisis and prevent aggressi<strong>on</strong>against the Cuban Republic.We chose, as is known, the sec<strong>on</strong>d path and we are c<strong>on</strong>vincedthat we acted rightly. We are c<strong>on</strong>fident that this is theunanimous view <strong>of</strong> our people. The Soviet people have <strong>on</strong>more than <strong>on</strong>e occasi<strong>on</strong> dem<strong>on</strong>strated their ability <strong>to</strong> standup for themselves, defend the cause <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>, thecause <strong>of</strong> socialism. And no <strong>on</strong>e knows better than they how548
much grief and suffering war brings, what hardships andsacrifices it costs the peoples.Agreement <strong>on</strong> the removal <strong>of</strong> the missile weap<strong>on</strong>s in reply<strong>to</strong> the United States government’s commitment not <strong>to</strong> invadeCuba and keep its allies from doing so, the heroic struggle <strong>of</strong>the Cuban people, the support given them by the peace-lovingnati<strong>on</strong>s, made it possible <strong>to</strong> thwart the plans <strong>of</strong> the extremeadventuristic circles <strong>of</strong> American imperialism, which wereready <strong>to</strong> go the whole hog. As a result it was possible <strong>to</strong> defendrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Cuba and save peace.The Chinese comrades regard as an “embellishment <strong>of</strong> imperialism”our statement that the Kennedy government, <strong>to</strong>o,displayed a certain reas<strong>on</strong>ableness, a realistic approach in thecourse <strong>of</strong> the crisis around Cuba. Do they really think thatall bourgeois governments, in all their doings, lack reas<strong>on</strong>?Thanks <strong>to</strong> the courageous and farsighted policy <strong>of</strong> theU.S.S.R., the staunchness and restraint <strong>of</strong> the heroic Cubanpeople and their government, the forces <strong>of</strong> socialism and peaceproved their ability <strong>to</strong> curb the aggressive forces <strong>of</strong> imperialismand impose peace <strong>on</strong> the war advocates. This was a majorvic<strong>to</strong>ry for the policy <strong>of</strong> reas<strong>on</strong>, for the forces <strong>of</strong> peace andsocialism; this was a defeat for the forces <strong>of</strong> imperialism, forthe policy <strong>of</strong> war gambles.As a result, revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Cuba is living in peace and isbuilding socialism under the leadership <strong>of</strong> her United Party<strong>of</strong> the Socialist Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the leader <strong>of</strong> the Cuban people,Comrade Fidel Castro Ruz.When agreement was reached with the President <strong>of</strong> theUnited States, and a start thus made <strong>on</strong> liquidating the Caribbeancrisis, the Chinese comrades were particularly inventivein insulting and abusing the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, arguing that therewas no believing the imperialists’ word.We are living in an age when there are two worlds, twosystems: socialism and imperialism. It would be absurd <strong>to</strong>think that all the issues inevitably arising in relati<strong>on</strong>s betweenthe countries <strong>of</strong> these two systems must be resolved <strong>on</strong>ly by549
force <strong>of</strong> arms, ruling out talks and agreements. If that wereso, there would never be an end <strong>to</strong> war. We reject such anapproach.The Chinese comrades argue that the imperialists cannotbe believed in anything, that they are bound <strong>to</strong> deceive. Itis not a matter <strong>of</strong> believing, but <strong>of</strong> sober calculati<strong>on</strong>. Eightm<strong>on</strong>ths have passed since liquidati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the crisis in the Caribbean,and the United States government is keeping its word— there has been no invasi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Cuba. We, <strong>to</strong>o, have fulfilledour obligati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> remove the missiles from Cuba.But it should also be remembered that we have undertakenan obligati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the Cuban people <strong>to</strong>o: if the United Statesimperialists do not keep their promise and invade Cuba, weshall come <strong>to</strong> the assistance <strong>of</strong> the Cuban people. Everysensible pers<strong>on</strong> realizes that in the event <strong>of</strong> an American imperialistinvasi<strong>on</strong>, we shall come <strong>to</strong> the assistance <strong>of</strong> the Cubanpeople from Soviet terri<strong>to</strong>ry, just as we would have helpedthem from Cuban terri<strong>to</strong>ry. True, in that case the rocketswould be in flight slightly l<strong>on</strong>ger, but their precisi<strong>on</strong> wouldnot be impaired.Why, then, do the Chinese comrades obstinately ignore theassessment the leaders <strong>of</strong> the Cuban revoluti<strong>on</strong> themselveshave given the Soviet government’s policy as a policy <strong>of</strong>fraternal solidarity and genuine internati<strong>on</strong>alism? What arethe Chinese leaders dissatisfied with? The fact, perhaps, thatit was possible <strong>to</strong> prevent the invasi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Cuba and the unleashing<strong>of</strong> world war?And what line <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct did the CPC leadership take duringthe Caribbean crisis? At that critical moment the Chinesecomrades opposed <strong>to</strong> the realistic and firm stand <strong>of</strong> the Sovietgovernment their own positi<strong>on</strong>. Guided by some particularc<strong>on</strong>cepts <strong>of</strong> their own, they c<strong>on</strong>centrated the fire <strong>of</strong> theircriticism not so much <strong>on</strong> U.S. aggressive imperialism as <strong>on</strong>the CPSU and the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.The CPC leadership, which had been arguing that imperialismmight at any time unleash a world war, at this crucial550
juncture assumed the role <strong>of</strong> critic, not <strong>of</strong> fighting ally andcomrade. In those days no <strong>on</strong>e heard statements from theChinese leaders about their practical acti<strong>on</strong>s in defence <strong>of</strong> theCuban revoluti<strong>on</strong>. Instead, the Chinese leaders were clearlyworking <strong>to</strong> aggravate the already critical situati<strong>on</strong> in theCaribbean area, and added fuel <strong>to</strong> the smouldering coals <strong>of</strong>the c<strong>on</strong>flict.The true positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the CPC leadership <strong>on</strong> the issue <strong>of</strong> warand peace, its gross underestimati<strong>on</strong> — more, its deliberateignoring — <strong>of</strong> the struggle for disarmament, has been brough<strong>to</strong>ut with full clarity. The Chinese comrades object <strong>to</strong> Communistseven raising this questi<strong>on</strong>, going <strong>to</strong> the length <strong>of</strong>pleading adherence <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, and trying <strong>to</strong>prove in every way the “infeasibility” <strong>of</strong> disarmament, <strong>on</strong> the<strong>on</strong>e hand, and its needlessness <strong>on</strong> the other. Juggling withquotati<strong>on</strong>s, they try <strong>to</strong> prove that general disarmament ispossible <strong>on</strong>ly with socialism triumphant the world over.Must <strong>Marx</strong>ists sit and wait for the world vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialismat a time when the world is in the suffocating clutches<strong>of</strong> the arms race, when the imperialists are s<strong>to</strong>ckpiling nucleararms and threaten <strong>to</strong> plunge mankind in<strong>to</strong> the abyss <strong>of</strong>a world war?No, that would be criminal inacti<strong>on</strong> in face <strong>of</strong> the imperativeneeds <strong>of</strong> the times.This truth has l<strong>on</strong>g been known <strong>to</strong> all genuine <strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninists, who are aware <strong>of</strong> their resp<strong>on</strong>sibility <strong>to</strong> the peoplesand who for several years have been waging — and will go <strong>on</strong>waging — a hard and persistent struggle for general and completedisarmament, for prohibiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> nuclear weap<strong>on</strong>s andtheir testing.In fighting for peace, in advancing the slogan <strong>of</strong> general disarmament,we proceed from the vital interests <strong>of</strong> the peoples,take account <strong>of</strong> the actual situati<strong>on</strong> and do not shut our eyes<strong>to</strong> the difficulties. The imperialists are naturally doingeverything <strong>to</strong> delay and wreck agreement <strong>on</strong> disarmament —they stand <strong>to</strong> gain by this. They use the arms race <strong>to</strong> enrich551
themselves and <strong>to</strong> hold the people in capitalist countries ina state <strong>of</strong> fear. But must we swim with the stream, must wefollow in the wake <strong>of</strong> imperialism and refuse <strong>to</strong> mobilize allthe forces <strong>to</strong> fight for peace and disarmament?No. That would mean surrendering <strong>to</strong> the aggressive forces,<strong>to</strong> the militarists and imperialists. We believe that theworking class, the working people <strong>of</strong> all countries, can forcethe imperialist governments <strong>to</strong> accept disarmament, can preventwar. For this they must above all become c<strong>on</strong>scious <strong>of</strong>their strength and unite.There must be opposed <strong>to</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> imperialism and warthe organized might <strong>of</strong> the world working class. It now hasthe advantage <strong>of</strong> being able <strong>to</strong> rely <strong>on</strong> the material power andthe defence might <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries, which stand opposed<strong>to</strong> imperialism. The time when imperialism held completesway has g<strong>on</strong>e for ever. The situati<strong>on</strong> has also changedsharply compared with the first decades after the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong>, when our country was al<strong>on</strong>e and much weakerthan <strong>to</strong>day. In our day there is an entirely different balance<strong>of</strong> strength in the world arena. That is why <strong>to</strong> maintain thatwar is inevitable is <strong>to</strong> display lack <strong>of</strong> faith in the forces <strong>of</strong>socialism, <strong>to</strong> succumb <strong>to</strong> moods <strong>of</strong> hopelessness and defeatism.One can repeat endlessly that war is inevitable, passing <strong>of</strong>fthis view as pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s “revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary spirit.” In actualfact, this approach merely indicates disbelief in <strong>on</strong>es strength,fear <strong>of</strong> imperialism.There are still powerful forces in the imperialist camp opposed<strong>to</strong> disarmament. But it is precisely <strong>to</strong> compel theseforces <strong>to</strong> retreat that we must rouse the peoples’ wrath againstthem, force them <strong>to</strong> comply with the will <strong>of</strong> the peoples.The peoples want disarmament and believe that the Communistsare the vanguard and organizers <strong>of</strong> the struggle <strong>to</strong>achieve it.Our struggle for disarmament is not a tactical expedient.We sincerely want disarmament. And here we stand foursquare<strong>on</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism. Way back at the close <strong>of</strong> the552
last century, Frederick Engels pointed out that disarmamentwas possible, describing it as the “guarantee <strong>of</strong> peace.” In ourtime, the disarmament slogan was first advanced as a practicalaim by V. I. Lenin, and the first Soviet proposals <strong>on</strong> completeor partial disarmament were submitted as early as 1922, atthe Genoa C<strong>on</strong>ference. This was in Lenin’s lifetime, andhe formulated the disarmament proposals.The struggle for disarmament is a cardinal fac<strong>to</strong>r in avertingwar. It is an effective struggle against imperialism. Inthis struggle the socialist camp has <strong>on</strong> its side the absolutemajority <strong>of</strong> mankind.The Chinese comrades put out the slogan “spearpoint againstspearpoint” as a counter-blast <strong>to</strong> the policy <strong>of</strong> the other socialistcountries aimed at improving the internati<strong>on</strong>al situati<strong>on</strong>and ending the cold war. This slogan, in effect, brings grist<strong>to</strong> the mill <strong>of</strong> imperialist brinkmanship policy and helps thearms race supporters. One gets the impressi<strong>on</strong> that the CPCleaders c<strong>on</strong>sider it <strong>to</strong> their advantage <strong>to</strong> preserve and aggravateinternati<strong>on</strong>al tensi<strong>on</strong>, especially in relati<strong>on</strong>s between theU.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. They apparently believe that the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> should reply <strong>to</strong> provocati<strong>on</strong> by provocati<strong>on</strong>, shouldfall in<strong>to</strong> the traps set by the imperialist “wildmen,” shouldaccept the imperialist challenge <strong>to</strong> competiti<strong>on</strong> in adventurismand aggressiveness, that is, <strong>to</strong> competiti<strong>on</strong> in unleashing war,not in assuring peace.To take that road would be <strong>to</strong> jeopardize the peace andsecurity <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>s. The Communists, who cherish the interests<strong>of</strong> the peoples, will never follow that road.The struggle for peace, for implementati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the principle<strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence <strong>of</strong> countries with different socialsystems, is <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the most important forms <strong>of</strong> the peoples’struggle against imperialism, against the new wars it is preparing,against aggressive imperialist acti<strong>on</strong>s in col<strong>on</strong>ial countries,against imperialist military bases <strong>on</strong> foreign terri<strong>to</strong>ry,against the arms race, etc. This struggle is in the interests <strong>of</strong>553
the working class, <strong>of</strong> all the working people, and in that senseit is a class struggle.Our party, all fraternal parties, remember, and are guidedby, the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> drawn in the Statement that the struggleagainst the danger <strong>of</strong> a new world war has <strong>to</strong> be developedwithout waiting for the a<strong>to</strong>mic and hydrogen bombs <strong>to</strong> bedropped. The struggle must be waged now, and intensifiedfrom day <strong>to</strong> day. The main thing is <strong>to</strong> curb the aggressorsa in good time, prevent war, not allow it <strong>to</strong> break out. Fightingfor peace <strong>to</strong>day implies maintaining supreme vigilance, tirelesslyexposing imperialist policy, keeping close watch <strong>on</strong> thewar instiga<strong>to</strong>rs’ manoeuvres and machinati<strong>on</strong>s, rousing thewrath <strong>of</strong> the peoples against those whose policy is war, enhancingthe organizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the peace forces, c<strong>on</strong>stantly intensifyingmass activity for peace, strengthening co-operati<strong>on</strong> withall states not interested in new wars.The struggle for peace and peaceful co-existence weakensthe fr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>of</strong> imperialism, isolates its most aggressive circlesfrom the people and helps advance the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle<strong>of</strong> the working class and the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> struggle <strong>of</strong>the peoples.The struggle for peace and peaceful co-existence is organicallylinked with the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle against imperialism.“In c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence,” the Statement<strong>of</strong> the 81 Communist parties says, “favourable opportunitiesare provided for the development <strong>of</strong> the class struggle in thecapitalist countries and the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement <strong>of</strong>the peoples <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ial and dependent countries. In theirturn, the successes <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary class and nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>struggle promote peaceful co-existence.”In c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence, new important vic<strong>to</strong>rieshave been scored in recent years in the class struggle <strong>of</strong>the proletariat and in the struggle <strong>of</strong> the peoples for nati<strong>on</strong>alfreedom. The world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary process is developingsuccessfully.554
For this reas<strong>on</strong>, <strong>to</strong> separate the fight for peaceful co-existence<strong>of</strong> countries with different social systems from the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryfight against imperialism and col<strong>on</strong>ialism, forindependence and socialism — <strong>to</strong> counterpose them, as theChinese comrades do — is <strong>to</strong> reduce the principle <strong>of</strong> peacefulco-existence <strong>to</strong> a hollow phrase, <strong>to</strong> deprive it <strong>of</strong> all real meaning,<strong>to</strong> ignore, in effect, the need for resolute struggle againstimperialism, for peace and peaceful co-existence. But thatwould be <strong>to</strong> the benefit <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>of</strong> the imperialists.In its June 14 letter, the CPC Central Committee accusesthe Communist parties <strong>of</strong> extending peaceful co-existence <strong>of</strong>countries with different social systems <strong>to</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s betweenthe exploiters and the exploited, between the oppressed andoppressor classes, between the working people and the imperialists.This is a m<strong>on</strong>strous fabricati<strong>on</strong> and slander <strong>of</strong> thefraternal parties, which are leading the proletariat in its classbattles with capital and which always support the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggle and the just liberati<strong>on</strong> wars against imperialism.The arguments the CPC leaders advance in their struggleagainst the CPSU and the other fraternal parties are so feeblethat they have <strong>to</strong> resort <strong>to</strong> all manner <strong>of</strong> subterfuge. Theybegin by ascribing <strong>to</strong> us absolutely groundless propositi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> their own inventi<strong>on</strong> and then proceed <strong>to</strong> accuse us, <strong>to</strong> fightus and expose these propositi<strong>on</strong>s. That applies <strong>to</strong> their absurdallegati<strong>on</strong> that the CPSU and the other fraternal parties haverenounced revoluti<strong>on</strong> and have substituted peaceful coexistencefor the class struggle. Even political-study-groupstudents know that peaceful co-existence applies <strong>to</strong> governmentalrelati<strong>on</strong>s between socialist and capitalist states. Theprinciple <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence, naturally, can in no way beextended <strong>to</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>s between antag<strong>on</strong>istic classes in capitaliststates. Nor is it permissible <strong>to</strong> extend it <strong>to</strong> the workingclassstruggle against the bourgeoisie for its class interests,or <strong>to</strong> the struggle <strong>of</strong> oppressed peoples against the col<strong>on</strong>ialists.The CPSU is resolutely opposed <strong>to</strong> peaceful co-existence in555
ideology. This is a truism which all who regard themselvesas <strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninists should have mastered.IIIThere are serious differences between the CPC and theCPSU and the other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> combating the c<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>of</strong> the Stalin pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult.The CPC leaders have taken up<strong>on</strong> themselves the role <strong>of</strong>defenders <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult and peddlers <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s err<strong>on</strong>eousideas. They are trying <strong>to</strong> impose up<strong>on</strong> other partiesthe order <strong>of</strong> things, the ideology and morals, the forms andmethods <strong>of</strong> leadership that flourished in the period <strong>of</strong> thepers<strong>on</strong>ality cult. Let it be frankly said that this is an unenviablerole, and <strong>on</strong>e that will bring them neither h<strong>on</strong>our norglory. No <strong>on</strong>e will succeed in persuading <strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninists,or progressives in general, <strong>to</strong> take up the defence <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult.The Soviet people and the world communist movement highlyappreciate the courage, boldness, the truly Leninist firmness<strong>of</strong> principle displayed by our party and its Central Committeeheaded by N. S. Khrushchov in eliminating the c<strong>on</strong>sequences<strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult.Every<strong>on</strong>e knows that our party did this in order <strong>to</strong> removethe heavy burden that fettered the powerful forces <strong>of</strong> the peopleand thereby accelerate the development <strong>of</strong> Soviet society.Our party did this in order <strong>to</strong> keep pure the ideals <strong>of</strong> socialismbequested <strong>to</strong> us by the great Lenin and purge them <strong>of</strong> thestigma <strong>of</strong> abuse <strong>of</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>al power and arbitrariness. It didthis in order <strong>to</strong> prevent a recurrence <strong>of</strong> the tragic events thatwere a c<strong>on</strong>comitant <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult, <strong>to</strong> help all fightersfor socialism draw less<strong>on</strong>s from our experience.The entire communist movement correctly unders<strong>to</strong>od andsupported the struggle against the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult, which isalien <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism, against its harmful c<strong>on</strong>sequences.556
The Chinese leaders, <strong>to</strong>o, approved. They spoke <strong>of</strong> thetremendous internati<strong>on</strong>al significance <strong>of</strong> the 20th CPSUC<strong>on</strong>gress.In his opening address at the Eighth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> China, in September 1956, Comrade <strong>Mao</strong> Tsetungsaid:“The Soviet comrades, the Soviet people, have acted in accordancewith Lenin’s instructi<strong>on</strong>s. They have achieved brilliantsuccesses in a brief space <strong>of</strong> time. The recent 20thC<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU likewise worked out many correctpolitical propositi<strong>on</strong>s and c<strong>on</strong>demned shortcomings in thework <strong>of</strong> the party. It can be said with c<strong>on</strong>fidence that infuture their work will develop <strong>on</strong> an excepti<strong>on</strong>ally great scale.”In the political report <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committee, deliveredat the C<strong>on</strong>gress by Comrade Liu Shao-chi, this appraisalwas further amplified:“The 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong>, held in February this year, is a most important politicalevent <strong>of</strong> world-wide significance. It not <strong>on</strong>ly outlined themagnificent sixth five-year plan and a number <strong>of</strong> most importantpolitical directives aimed at furthering the cause <strong>of</strong>socialism and c<strong>on</strong>demned the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult, which had led<strong>to</strong> serious c<strong>on</strong>sequences in the party, but it also advancedproposals for the further promoti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existenceand internati<strong>on</strong>al co-operati<strong>on</strong> and made an outstanding c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the relaxati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al tensi<strong>on</strong>.”Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping, in his report <strong>on</strong> changes in theParty Rules at the same Eighth C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPC, said:“Leninism requires that party decisi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> all importantquesti<strong>on</strong>s be taken by an appropriate collective, and not individually.The 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the CPSU c<strong>on</strong>vincinglydem<strong>on</strong>strated the great importance <strong>of</strong> unswerving observance<strong>of</strong> the principle <strong>of</strong> collective leadership and <strong>of</strong> the struggleagainst the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult. This has had a tremendous influencenot <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the CPSU, but also <strong>on</strong> Communist partiesin all countries <strong>of</strong> the world.”557
In the well-known edi<strong>to</strong>rial in the People’s Daily newspaper,“Once More <strong>on</strong> the His<strong>to</strong>rical Experience <strong>of</strong> the Dicta<strong>to</strong>rship<strong>of</strong> the Proletariat” (December 1956), the Chinese comradeswrote:“The 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the SovietUni<strong>on</strong> displayed tremendous determinati<strong>on</strong> and courage ineliminating the Stalin cult, in exposing Stalin’s grave errorsand in eliminating the c<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>of</strong> Stalin’s errors.Throughout the world <strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninists and those whosympathize with the cause <strong>of</strong> communism support the efforts<strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> correct theerrors and wish the Soviet comrades complete success in theirefforts.”And that is how things really s<strong>to</strong>od.Any unbiased pers<strong>on</strong> who compares these pr<strong>on</strong>ouncements<strong>of</strong> the Chinese leaders with the CPC Central Committee letter<strong>of</strong> June 14 will see that they have made a 180-degree turnin their evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the 20th C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>of</strong> our party.But are vacillati<strong>on</strong> and inc<strong>on</strong>sistency permissible <strong>on</strong> suchquesti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle? Of course, they are not. Either theChinese leaders had no differences with the CPSU CentralCommittee <strong>on</strong> these questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> principle before, or all thesestatements were false.It is well known that practice is the best criteri<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> truth.And practice has c<strong>on</strong>vincingly proved that realizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the line <strong>of</strong> the 20th, 21st and 22nd C<strong>on</strong>gresses <strong>of</strong> the CPSU hasproduced splendid results in the life <strong>of</strong> our country. In theten years since the time when our party made a sharp turn<strong>to</strong>wards res<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Leninist principles and norms inparty life, Soviet society achieved truly majestic results inec<strong>on</strong>omic, scientific and cultural development, in raising prosperitystandards, in c<strong>on</strong>solidating its defence potential, in thesuccessful pursuance <strong>of</strong> its foreign policy.The atmosphere <strong>of</strong> fear, suspici<strong>on</strong> and uncertainty whichpois<strong>on</strong>ed the life <strong>of</strong> the people in the period <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult became a thing <strong>of</strong> the past. No <strong>on</strong>e can deny that the558
Soviet people began <strong>to</strong> live better and enjoy the benefits <strong>of</strong>socialism. Ask the worker (and there are milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> them!)who moved in<strong>to</strong> a new apartment, ask the pensi<strong>on</strong>er who iswell provided for in his old age, the collective farmer who isnow well-<strong>to</strong>-do, ask the thousands up<strong>on</strong> thousands <strong>of</strong> peoplewho suffered unjust repressi<strong>on</strong>s in the period <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult and <strong>to</strong> whom freedom and their good name wereres<strong>to</strong>red, and you will know what practical meaning the vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> the Leninist course <strong>of</strong> the 20th CPSU C<strong>on</strong>gress has hadfor the Soviet people.Ask those whose fathers and mothers were victims <strong>of</strong> repressi<strong>on</strong>in the period <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult what it meant<strong>to</strong> have their fathers, mothers and brothers accepted as h<strong>on</strong>estpeople, and <strong>to</strong> know that they themselves are not outcasts<strong>of</strong> our society, but worthy and full-fledged s<strong>on</strong>s and daughters<strong>of</strong> the Soviet fatherland.Industry, agriculture, culture, science, art — no matter wherewe turn, we witness rapid progress. Our spaceships are furrowingthe expanses <strong>of</strong> the Universe, and this, <strong>to</strong>o, providesbrilliant c<strong>on</strong>firmati<strong>on</strong> that the course al<strong>on</strong>g which our partyleads the Soviet people is a correct <strong>on</strong>e.Of course, we do not maintain that we have d<strong>on</strong>e everythingfor Soviet man, for improving his life. The Soviet peopleunderstand that the achievement <strong>of</strong> this principle depends not<strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> our wish. We have <strong>to</strong> build communist society andcreate an abundance <strong>of</strong> material benefits. That is why ourpeople are working with such devoti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> accelerate the producti<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> material and cultural values and bring closer thevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> communism. Every<strong>on</strong>e can see that we are followinga correct course, that we clearly see the prospects <strong>of</strong> ourdevelopment.The CPSU Programme maps out a c<strong>on</strong>crete plan <strong>of</strong> thec<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> communism. Its implementati<strong>on</strong> will ensurethe Soviet people the highest living standards and will be thestart <strong>of</strong> our gradual transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the inspiring communist559
principle: “<strong>From</strong> each according <strong>to</strong> his ability, <strong>to</strong> each according<strong>to</strong> his needs.”The Soviet people find it strange and fantastic that the Chinesecomrades should seek <strong>to</strong> discredit the Programme <strong>of</strong> theCPSU, that majestic plan <strong>of</strong> building communist society.The CPC leaders hint that, since our party has made itsaim a better life for the people, Soviet society is being “bourgeoisified,”is “degenerating.” According <strong>to</strong> their logic, if peoplewear bast sandals and eat thin soup from a comm<strong>on</strong> bowl— that is communism, and if a working man lives well andwants <strong>to</strong> live better still <strong>to</strong>morrow — that is very nearly theres<strong>to</strong>rati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> capitalism.And this philosophy they want <strong>to</strong> present <strong>to</strong> us as the latestrevelati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism! This fully exposes theauthors <strong>of</strong> such “theories” as men who have no faith in thestrength and capabilities <strong>of</strong> a working class that has takenpower in<strong>to</strong> its own hands and created its own, socialist state.If we turn <strong>to</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> our country, <strong>to</strong> the CPSU Programme,we will readily see where we began when, under theleadership <strong>of</strong> Lenin, we <strong>to</strong>ok power in<strong>to</strong> our hands, and whatsummits the Soviet people have reached. Our country hasbeen transformed in<strong>to</strong> a great socialist power. In volume <strong>of</strong>industrial producti<strong>on</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> is first in Europe andsec<strong>on</strong>d in the world. It will so<strong>on</strong> surpass the United Statesand advance <strong>to</strong> first place. The Soviet working class, theSoviet collective-farm peasantry, the Soviet intelligentsia, arethe crea<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> all our vic<strong>to</strong>ries.We are c<strong>on</strong>vinced that not <strong>on</strong>ly the Soviet people, but thepeoples <strong>of</strong> other socialist countries, <strong>to</strong>o, are capable <strong>of</strong> greatachievements <strong>on</strong> the labour fr<strong>on</strong>t -- all that is necessary iscorrect guidance <strong>of</strong> the working class and peasantry, and thatthose resp<strong>on</strong>sible for such guidance think realistically and takedecisi<strong>on</strong>s that direct the people’s strength and energies al<strong>on</strong>gthe correct path.In an attempt <strong>to</strong> justify the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult, the Chineseleaders have overloaded their letter with allegati<strong>on</strong>s about a560
class struggle in the U.S.S.R.., and allege that the CPSU Programmepropositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> a state <strong>of</strong> the entire people and a party<strong>of</strong> the entire people is wr<strong>on</strong>g. These allegati<strong>on</strong>s are far removedfrom <strong>Marx</strong>ism.We do not intend <strong>to</strong> analyze all their arguments in detailin this letter. Any<strong>on</strong>e who reads the CPC Central Committeeletter <strong>of</strong> June 14 will undoubtedly notice that its argumentsare utterly helpless and betray complete isolati<strong>on</strong> from Sovietlife. We are being taught that hostile classes still remain inSoviet society and the need therefore remains, we are <strong>to</strong>ld,for the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. What classes? <strong>From</strong>the CPC letter <strong>on</strong>e c<strong>on</strong>cludes that they are “bourgeois hangers<strong>on</strong>,parasites, blackmarketeers, thieves, idlers, hooligans andembezzlers.”The Chinese comrades certainly have a unique noti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>classes and class struggle. Since when have these parasiticelements been c<strong>on</strong>sidered a class? And what class? A class<strong>of</strong> idlers or a class <strong>of</strong> hooligans, a class <strong>of</strong> embezzlers, or aclass <strong>of</strong> parasites? In no society do criminals c<strong>on</strong>stitute aclass. Even schoolboys know that. And, <strong>of</strong> course, theseelements do not c<strong>on</strong>stitute a class in socialist society. Theseare manifestati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the survivals <strong>of</strong> capitalism.You do not need proletarian dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>to</strong> combat suchelements. The state <strong>of</strong> the entire people can fully cope, andis coping, with this task. We know from our own experiencethat the better the educati<strong>on</strong>al work <strong>of</strong> party, trade uni<strong>on</strong> andother public organizati<strong>on</strong>s, the higher the role <strong>of</strong> the public,the better the work <strong>of</strong> the Soviet militia, the more effectiveis the struggle against crime.There is no refuting the fact that Soviet society is now madeup <strong>of</strong> two main classes — the workers and the peasants, alsothe intelligentsia, that no class <strong>of</strong> Soviet society occupies apositi<strong>on</strong> enabling it <strong>to</strong> exploit other classes. Dicta<strong>to</strong>rship isa class c<strong>on</strong>cept; over whom do the Chinese comrades propose<strong>to</strong> exercise dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat in the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>:over the collective-farm peasantry or the people’s intelligent-561
sia? One must reck<strong>on</strong> with the fact that in socialist societythe class <strong>of</strong> workers and the class <strong>of</strong> peasants have changedsubstantially, that the differences and distincti<strong>on</strong>s betweenthem are being steadily obliterated.After the complete and final vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism, the workingclass effects its guiding role not through dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> theproletariat. It still remains the fr<strong>on</strong>t-rank class <strong>of</strong> societyin c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> full-scale c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> communism. Itsfr<strong>on</strong>t-rank role is determined by its ec<strong>on</strong>omic positi<strong>on</strong>, by thefact that it is directly c<strong>on</strong>nected with the highest form <strong>of</strong> socialistproperty, and by the fact that it is more steeled bydecades <strong>of</strong> class struggle and revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary experience.The Chinese comrades refer <strong>to</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>’s propositi<strong>on</strong> that thec<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong> period from capitalism <strong>to</strong> communismcan be <strong>on</strong>ly dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. But <strong>Marx</strong>had in mind communism as a whole, as an integral socioec<strong>on</strong>omicformati<strong>on</strong> (<strong>of</strong> which socialism is the first stage),the transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> which is impossible without socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>and dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat. There are a number<strong>of</strong> pr<strong>on</strong>ouncements <strong>of</strong> V. I. Lenin, emphasizing with absoluteclarity that the dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat is needed precisely<strong>to</strong> overcome resistance <strong>of</strong> the exploiting classes, organizesocialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, ensure the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism —the first phase <strong>of</strong> communism. It is clear from this that theneed for dicta<strong>to</strong>rship <strong>of</strong> the proletariat disappears after thevic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism, when <strong>on</strong>ly working people, friendlyclasses, the nature <strong>of</strong> which has changed radically, remainin society and there is no <strong>on</strong>e <strong>to</strong> suppress.If we were <strong>to</strong> extract the substance <strong>of</strong> the mass <strong>of</strong> pseudotheoreticaldisquisiti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> these questi<strong>on</strong>s in the CPC CentralCommittee letter, it would boil down <strong>to</strong> the following: theChinese comrades are opposed <strong>to</strong> the CPSU policy <strong>of</strong> developingsocialist democracy, so forcefully formulated in the decisi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the 20th, 21st and 22nd Party C<strong>on</strong>gresses and theCPSU Programme. It is no mere accident that their lengthy562
letter does not even menti<strong>on</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> democracy inc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> socialism, in c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> building communism.It is hard fully <strong>to</strong> ascertain the Chinese comrades’ motivati<strong>on</strong>in upholding the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult. In effect, this is thefirst time in the his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementthat we meet with open ex<strong>to</strong>llati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>alitycult. It should be observed that even at the height <strong>of</strong> thepers<strong>on</strong>ality cult in our country, Stalin himself was forced, atleast in words, <strong>to</strong> reject this petty-bourgeois theory, sayingthat it stemmed from the Socialist-Revoluti<strong>on</strong>aries.The attempt <strong>to</strong> plead the authority <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Lenin indefence <strong>of</strong> the ideology <strong>of</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult can <strong>on</strong>ly evokesurprise. Are the Chinese comrades really unaware <strong>of</strong> thefact that in the very early days <strong>of</strong> our party Lenin c<strong>on</strong>ducteda vigorous struggle against the Narodniks’ theories <strong>of</strong> the heroand the mob, that genuine collective methods <strong>of</strong> leadership inthe Central Committee <strong>of</strong> our party and the Soviet statewere implemented under Lenin, that Lenin was an extraordinarilymodest pers<strong>on</strong> and mercilessly castigated the slightestmanifestati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>to</strong>adyism and servility?Of course, the struggle against the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult hasnever been regarded by our party or the other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties as negati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the authority <strong>of</strong> party andgovernment leaders. Time and again, at the 20th and 22ndC<strong>on</strong>gresses and <strong>on</strong> other occasi<strong>on</strong>s, the CPSU has stressed thatthe party values the authority <strong>of</strong> its leadership, that, whilerejecting the pers<strong>on</strong>ality cult and combating its c<strong>on</strong>sequences,the party has a high regard for leaders who really expressthe interests <strong>of</strong> the people and devote all their strength <strong>to</strong> thestruggle for communism, and for this reas<strong>on</strong> enjoy deservedprestige.IVThe next important issue <strong>of</strong> difference c<strong>on</strong>cerns the waysand methods <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle <strong>of</strong> the working class563
in capitalist countries, <strong>of</strong> the struggle for nati<strong>on</strong>al liberati<strong>on</strong>,and the ways <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all mankind <strong>to</strong> socialism.This is how the Chinese comrades depict our differences <strong>on</strong>this issue: <strong>on</strong>e side — they themselves — stands for world revoluti<strong>on</strong>;the other side — the CPSU and the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistparties — has forgotten the revoluti<strong>on</strong>, even “fears” it and,instead <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary struggle, is c<strong>on</strong>cerned with such things“unworthy” <strong>of</strong> a genuine revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary as peace, ec<strong>on</strong>omicdevelopment <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries and improvement <strong>of</strong>their peoples’ living standards, the struggle for the democraticrights and vital interests <strong>of</strong> the working people in capitalistcountries.In reality, however, the line <strong>of</strong> divisi<strong>on</strong> between the views<strong>of</strong> the CPC and those <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communist movementlies <strong>on</strong> an entirely different plane: the CPC leaders speak<strong>of</strong> world revoluti<strong>on</strong> where necessary and where not, andflaunt “revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary” phrases <strong>on</strong> every occasi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>of</strong>ten withou<strong>to</strong>ccasi<strong>on</strong>, whereas the other side — those whom the Chinesecomrades criticize — approach the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>seriously and, instead <strong>of</strong> highfalutin phrases, are perseveringlyworking <strong>to</strong> find the most correct paths for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism,paths that accord with the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the era, andare devotedly fighting for nati<strong>on</strong>al independence, democracyand socialism.Let us examine the principal views <strong>of</strong> the Chinese comrades<strong>on</strong> the problems <strong>of</strong> the present-day revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement.Will it help the countries and peoples <strong>to</strong> pass over <strong>to</strong> socialismif, in the name <strong>of</strong> “world revoluti<strong>on</strong>,” they aband<strong>on</strong> thestruggle for peace, the policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence andpeaceful ec<strong>on</strong>omic competiti<strong>on</strong>, the struggle for the vital interests<strong>of</strong> the working people and for democratic reforms incapitalist countries? Is it true that in advocating peace andpursuing a policy <strong>of</strong> peaceful co-existence, the Communists <strong>of</strong>the socialist countries are c<strong>on</strong>cerned <strong>on</strong>ly for themselves andare oblivious <strong>to</strong> their class brothers in the capitalist countries?564
Every<strong>on</strong>e who p<strong>on</strong>ders <strong>on</strong> the meaning <strong>of</strong> the present strugglefor peace and against therm<strong>on</strong>uclear war will realize thatthe Soviet Communists and the fraternal parties in other socialistcountries are, by their peace policy, rendering invaluableassistance <strong>to</strong> the working class and working people generally<strong>of</strong> the capitalist countries. Nor is it merely a matter <strong>of</strong> avertingnuclear war in order <strong>to</strong> save from destructi<strong>on</strong> the workingclass and the people <strong>of</strong> whole countries, even c<strong>on</strong>tinents,though this is in itself ample justificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> our policy.There is another c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong> — this policy is the best way<strong>of</strong> helping the internati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary labour movementachieve its basic class aims. Is it not an immense c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong><strong>to</strong> the working-class struggle that the lands <strong>of</strong> socialism, inthe c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the peace they themselves w<strong>on</strong>, are scoringremarkable achievements in ec<strong>on</strong>omic development, advancingfrom vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>to</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the scientific and technical fields,steadily improving the living and working c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> thepeople and developing and perfecting socialist democracy?In face <strong>of</strong> these successes and vic<strong>to</strong>ries every worker inevery capitalist country will say: “Socialism has proved inpractice its superiority over capitalism. It is a system worthfighting for.” Socialism is now winning men’s hearts andminds, not <strong>on</strong>ly through books, but primarily by its deeds, bythe living example it has set.The 1960 Statement regards as the chief distinctive feature<strong>of</strong> our time the fact that the socialist world system is becomingthe decisive fac<strong>to</strong>r in the development <strong>of</strong> human society. Allthe Communist parties represented at the meeting arrived atthe c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> that the internati<strong>on</strong>al working class and itscreati<strong>on</strong>, the socialist world system, is the central fac<strong>to</strong>r <strong>of</strong>our era.The soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all the other problems c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting the revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymovement depends in very great measure <strong>on</strong>strengthening the socialist world system. That is why theCommunist and Workers’ parties have assumed the obligati<strong>on</strong>“indefatigably <strong>to</strong> strengthen the great socialist community <strong>of</strong>565
nati<strong>on</strong>s, whose internati<strong>on</strong>al role arid influence <strong>on</strong> the course<strong>of</strong> world events are growing from year <strong>to</strong> year.” And it is inthe accomplishment <strong>of</strong> this all-important task that our partysees its supreme internati<strong>on</strong>al duty.V. I. Lenin taught us that “we exert our main influence <strong>on</strong>the internati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong> by our ec<strong>on</strong>omic policy. . . . Inthis field the struggle is being waged <strong>on</strong> an internati<strong>on</strong>al scale.When we solve this task, we shall have w<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> an internati<strong>on</strong>alscale, finally and for certain.” (Works, Vol. 32, p. 413.)That behest <strong>of</strong> the great Lenin has been firmly assimilatedby the Soviet Communists; it is being followed by Communistsin other lands <strong>of</strong> socialism. But, it appears, somecomrades have decided that Lenin was wr<strong>on</strong>g.What is this, disbelief in the ability <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries<strong>to</strong> win the ec<strong>on</strong>omic race with capitalism? Or is it theattitude <strong>of</strong> men who, c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted with the difficulties <strong>of</strong> socialistc<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, are disappointed and do not see the possibility<strong>of</strong> exerting our main influence <strong>on</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>arymovement by our ec<strong>on</strong>omic achievements, by theexample <strong>of</strong> successful socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> in our countries?They want <strong>to</strong> achieve the revoluti<strong>on</strong> quicker, by followingpaths which, in their opini<strong>on</strong>, are a short cut. But thevic<strong>to</strong>rious revoluti<strong>on</strong> can c<strong>on</strong>solidate and extend its achievementsand prove socialism’s superiority over capitalism <strong>on</strong>lyby labour, <strong>on</strong>ly by the labour effort <strong>of</strong> the people. True,this is not easy, especially in the case <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>s performedin countries inheriting underdeveloped ec<strong>on</strong>omies. But the example<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and <strong>of</strong> many other socialist countriesc<strong>on</strong>vincingly shows that, even under these c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s,immense progress can be made and the superiority <strong>of</strong> socialismover capitalism dem<strong>on</strong>strated <strong>to</strong> the world, providingthere is correct leadership.Further: what is more favourable for the working-class revoluti<strong>on</strong>arystruggle in capitalist countries — an atmosphere <strong>of</strong>peace and peaceful co-existence, or an atmosphere <strong>of</strong> unrelaxinginternati<strong>on</strong>al strain and cold war?566
There can be no doubt about the answer. For every<strong>on</strong>e knowsthat the ruling element in the imperialist powers is exploitingthe cold-war atmosphere <strong>to</strong> instigate chauvinism, war hysteriaand rabid anti-communism in order <strong>to</strong> place in power the mostarrant reacti<strong>on</strong>aries and pro-fascists, abolish democracy, makeshort shrift <strong>of</strong> the political parties, trade uni<strong>on</strong>s and other massorganizati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the working class.The Communists’ fight for peace tremendously strengthenstheir ties with the masses, their authority and influence and,c<strong>on</strong>sequently, helps <strong>to</strong> create what is known as the politicalarmy <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>.Far from hampering and postp<strong>on</strong>ing the struggle for theultimate aims <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al working class, the fightfor peace and peaceful co-existence <strong>of</strong> states with differentsocial systems makes it possible <strong>to</strong> give that struggle full scope.It is hard <strong>to</strong> believe that the Chinese comrades, men <strong>of</strong> experiencewho have themselves performed a revoluti<strong>on</strong>, fail<strong>to</strong> appreciate the chief c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>, namely, that <strong>to</strong>day theworld revoluti<strong>on</strong> develops through the strengthening <strong>of</strong> thesocialist world system, through the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary class struggles<strong>of</strong> the workers in the capitalist countries, through thenati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement, the strengthening <strong>of</strong> the politicaland ec<strong>on</strong>omic independence <strong>of</strong> the newly liberated Afro-Asian countries, through the struggle for peace, againstaggressive war, and through the anti-m<strong>on</strong>opoly struggle <strong>of</strong>the masses. It develops al<strong>on</strong>g these and many other paths,which should not be counterposed <strong>to</strong> each other, but unitedand directed <strong>to</strong>wards the single goal <strong>of</strong> overthrowing imperialistdominati<strong>on</strong>.The Chinese comrades haughtily and insultingly accuse theCommunist parties <strong>of</strong> France, Italy, the U.S.A., and othercountries <strong>of</strong> nothing less than opportunism and reformism, <strong>of</strong>“parliamentary-cretinism,” even <strong>of</strong> sliding in<strong>to</strong> “bourgeois socialism.”On what grounds? On the grounds that these Communistparties do not advance the slogan <strong>of</strong> immediate proletarianrevoluti<strong>on</strong>, though the Chinese leaders, <strong>to</strong>o, should re-567
alize that this cannot be d<strong>on</strong>e in the absence <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>arysituati<strong>on</strong>.Every knowledgeable <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist knows that it is premature<strong>to</strong> advance the slogan <strong>of</strong> armed uprising in the absence<strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong>, that this would doom the workingclass <strong>to</strong> certain defeat. We know with what great care andseriousness V. I. Lenin regarded this problem, and with whatpolitical foresight and knowledge <strong>of</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>crete situati<strong>on</strong> heapproached the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> selecting the time for a revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryrising. On the very eve <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> Leninpointed out that it would be <strong>to</strong>o early <strong>to</strong> come out <strong>on</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber24, and <strong>to</strong>o late <strong>on</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 26 — everything might then belost. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, the seizure <strong>of</strong> power had <strong>to</strong> be undertaken<strong>on</strong> Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 25. Who can determine the degree <strong>of</strong> tensi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> class c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s, the existence <strong>of</strong> a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary situati<strong>on</strong>,the exact moment for acting? That can <strong>on</strong>ly be d<strong>on</strong>eby the working class <strong>of</strong> each country, by its vanguard, the<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist party.The his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al labour movement shows thatit is a bad party which, while calling itself a workers’ party,devotes itself solely <strong>to</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic matters, does not educatethe working class in a revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary spirit, does not prepareit for political struggle, for the seizure <strong>of</strong> power. Such aparty is bound <strong>to</strong> slide in<strong>to</strong> reformism. But it is a bad party,<strong>to</strong>o, that approaches political struggle out <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>text with thestruggle for improving the ec<strong>on</strong>omic positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the workingclass, the peasantry, the working people generally. Such aparty is bound <strong>to</strong> become isolated from the masses. Onlycorrect utilizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> all the forms <strong>of</strong> class struggle in skilfulcombinati<strong>on</strong> enables a party <strong>to</strong> become a genuinely revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary,<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist party, the leader <strong>of</strong> the masses, aparty capable <strong>of</strong> directing the working class in the <strong>on</strong>slaught<strong>on</strong> capitalism, in the achievement <strong>of</strong> power.The mortal sin <strong>of</strong> many Communist parties in developedcapitalist countries, the Chinese comrades think, is that theyc<strong>on</strong>sider their immediate task <strong>to</strong> be the struggle for the568
ec<strong>on</strong>omic and social interests <strong>of</strong> the working people, for democraticreforms that are feasible under capitalism and improvethe c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the working class, peasantry, the petty bourgeoisstrata, facilitating the establishment <strong>of</strong> a broad antim<strong>on</strong>opolyfr<strong>on</strong>t as the basis for further struggle for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry<strong>of</strong> the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> — in other words, that they are doingall the things set out in the Moscow Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960.In arguing against all the things the Communist parties indeveloped capitalist countries are now doing, the Chinesecomrades fail <strong>to</strong> display even an elementary feeling <strong>of</strong> solidaritywith the Communists who are fighting capital <strong>on</strong> the fr<strong>on</strong>tline<strong>of</strong> the class struggle; they fail <strong>to</strong> display an understanding<strong>of</strong> the specific c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in these countries, <strong>of</strong> the specificpaths followed by the working-class revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement.In effect, they reject, “in the name <strong>of</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>,” thevery paths that lead <strong>to</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>, and are endeavouring <strong>to</strong>impose a policy that would isolate the Communist parties fromthe masses, deprive the working class <strong>of</strong> its allies in the fightagainst m<strong>on</strong>opoly rule and capitalism.The Chinese comrades differ with the world communistmovement also <strong>on</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the forms <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>various countries <strong>to</strong> socialism.It is generally known that the CPSU and the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties — and this is clearly stated in the Moscowc<strong>on</strong>ference documents and the CPSU Programme — believethat both peaceful and n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> socialism ispossible. Yet the Chinese comrades obstinately affirm tha<strong>to</strong>ur and other fraternal parties accept <strong>on</strong>ly the peaceful path.The Central Committee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU restated its positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>this issue in its letter <strong>of</strong> March 30, 1963:“The working class and its vanguard, the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistparties, endeavour <strong>to</strong> accomplish the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> bypeaceful means, without civil war. Realizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this possibilitywould accord with the interests <strong>of</strong> the working class andthe entire people, with the general nati<strong>on</strong>al interest <strong>of</strong> thecountry. But, at the same time, the choice <strong>of</strong> the revolu-569
ti<strong>on</strong>’s path <strong>of</strong> development depends not <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the workingclass. If the exploiting classes resort <strong>to</strong> violence against thepeople, the working class will be forced <strong>to</strong> take the n<strong>on</strong>peacefulpath <strong>of</strong> capturing power. Everything depends <strong>on</strong> thec<strong>on</strong>crete c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>on</strong> the line-up <strong>of</strong> class forces within thecountry and internati<strong>on</strong>ally.“Needless <strong>to</strong> say, whatever the form <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism<strong>to</strong> socialism, it is possible <strong>on</strong>ly through socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>and proletarian dicta<strong>to</strong>rship in its various forms. TheCPSU highly regards the self-sacrificing struggle <strong>of</strong> theworking class, led by the Communists, in all capitalist countriesand c<strong>on</strong>siders it its duty <strong>to</strong> give it every possible assistanceand support.”We have time and again explained our point <strong>of</strong> view, andthere is no need <strong>to</strong> set it out in more detail here.But what is the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Chinese comrades <strong>on</strong> thisquesti<strong>on</strong>? It is fully apparent in all their pr<strong>on</strong>ouncements andin the CPC Central Committee letter <strong>of</strong> June 14.The Chinese comrades c<strong>on</strong>sider recogniti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> armed uprising,always, everywhere and in everything, <strong>to</strong> be the chiefcriteri<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> devoti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the revoluti<strong>on</strong>. They thereby virtuallynegate the possibility <strong>of</strong> utilizing peaceful forms <strong>of</strong> struggle forthe vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>, whereas <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism teaches us that the Communists must master allforms <strong>of</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary class struggle, both violent and n<strong>on</strong>violent.Still another important issue is the relati<strong>on</strong> between theinternati<strong>on</strong>al working-class struggle and the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong>movement <strong>of</strong> the Asian, African and Latin-American peoples.The internati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary labour movement — whichnow includes also the socialist world system and the Communistparties <strong>of</strong> the capitalist countries — and the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>movement <strong>of</strong> the Asian, African and Latin-Americanpeoples — these are the great forces <strong>of</strong> our age, and a correctrelati<strong>on</strong>ship between them is we cardinal c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> for vic<strong>to</strong>ryover imperialism.570
How do the Chinese comrades solve this problem? Theirsoluti<strong>on</strong> is evident from their new “theory,” according <strong>to</strong>which the chief c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> our time is not, we are <strong>to</strong>ld,between socialism and imperialism, but between the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>movement and imperialism. In the Chinese comrades’opini<strong>on</strong>, the decisive force in the battle against imperialismis not the socialist world system, and not theinternati<strong>on</strong>al working-class struggle but, again we are <strong>to</strong>ld,the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement.The Chinese comrades evidently want <strong>to</strong> use this as theeasiest way <strong>of</strong> winning popularity am<strong>on</strong>g the peoples <strong>of</strong> Asia,Africa and Latin America. But let no <strong>on</strong>e be taken in by that“theory.” Its real purpose, irrespective <strong>of</strong> the wishes <strong>of</strong> theChinese theoreticians, is <strong>to</strong> isolate the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong>movement from the internati<strong>on</strong>al working class and its creati<strong>on</strong>,the socialist world system. But that would <strong>of</strong>fer an immensedanger <strong>to</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement itself.For indeed, could many Asian peoples, notwithstanding alltheir heroism and self-sacrifice, win through <strong>to</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry if theOc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong> and, later, the emergence <strong>of</strong> the socialistworld system, had not shaken imperialism <strong>to</strong> its very foundati<strong>on</strong>sand had not undermined col<strong>on</strong>ialist strength?And <strong>to</strong>day, <strong>to</strong>o, when the liberated nati<strong>on</strong>s have entered anew stage in their struggle and are c<strong>on</strong>centrating their efforts<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>solidating their political gains and ec<strong>on</strong>omic independence— do they not realize that it would be immeasurablyharder, if not al<strong>to</strong>gether impossible, <strong>to</strong> accomplish these taskswithout assistance from the socialist countries?<strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninists always emphasize the epochal importanceand great future <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement. Butthey believe that <strong>on</strong>e <strong>of</strong> the chief c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for its c<strong>on</strong>tinuedadvance is firm alliance and co-operati<strong>on</strong> with the countries<strong>of</strong> the socialist world system, the main force in the battleagainst imperialism, and with the labour movement <strong>of</strong> thecapitalist countries. That attitude was formulated in the 1960Statement. It is based <strong>on</strong> Lenin’s idea <strong>of</strong> working-class571
leadership (hegem<strong>on</strong>y) as a requisite for vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the antiimperialiststruggle. Only given such hegem<strong>on</strong>y, can themovement, in the final analysis, acquire a genuine socialistcharacter, culminating in its transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the path <strong>of</strong> socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>.That idea <strong>of</strong> Lenin, verified by the experience <strong>of</strong> the Oc<strong>to</strong>berRevoluti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>of</strong> other countries, has never aroused doubt inany<strong>on</strong>e. It appears, however, that the Chinese comrades want<strong>to</strong> “correct” Lenin and prove that hegem<strong>on</strong>y in the worldstruggle against imperialism should go not <strong>to</strong> the workingclass, but <strong>to</strong> the petty bourgeoisie or the nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisie,even <strong>to</strong> “certain patriotically-minded kings, princes and aris<strong>to</strong>crats.”And after that the CPC leadership sets out <strong>to</strong> teachthe world communist movement that never, under no circumstances,must we aband<strong>on</strong> our proletarian, class approach!The earnest <strong>of</strong> future vic<strong>to</strong>ries, both <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking class and the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement, lies intheir firm alliance and co-operati<strong>on</strong>, in joint struggle, dictatedby their comm<strong>on</strong> interests, against imperialism. In this struggle,the working class, by its selfless dedicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the interests<strong>of</strong> all the peoples, wins acceptance <strong>of</strong> its leading part andc<strong>on</strong>vinces its allies that its leadership is a reliable guarantee<strong>of</strong> vic<strong>to</strong>ry for itself and for them.Our Leninist party regards the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movementas a comp<strong>on</strong>ent part <strong>of</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary process, as amighty force combating imperialism. The great slogan“Workers <strong>of</strong> All Countries, United”, given us by <strong>Marx</strong> andEngels, the founders <strong>of</strong> scientific communism, became thebattle banner <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al proletariat. In the newc<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry created by the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the GreatOc<strong>to</strong>ber Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who c<strong>on</strong>tinued thework <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong> and Engels, especially emphasized the unbreakablelink between the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> and the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>movement.“Workers <strong>of</strong> All Countries, Unite!” was and remains thechief slogan in the struggle for the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the world revolu-572
ti<strong>on</strong>. It has acquired wider meaning in the new c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s.We know that Lenin approved the slogan: “Workers <strong>of</strong> AllCountries and Oppressed Peoples, Unite!” Emphasized in thisslogan is the leading role <strong>of</strong> the proletariat and the enhancedsignificance <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement. Our partystrictly abides by this <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist internati<strong>on</strong>alist principlein all its activities.It might be asked: what is the explanati<strong>on</strong> for the err<strong>on</strong>eouspropositi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the CPC leadership <strong>on</strong> the crucial issues <strong>of</strong>our age? The Chinese comrades are either completely divorcedfrom reality and approach the problems <strong>of</strong> war, peace andrevoluti<strong>on</strong> in a dogmatic, bookish way, failing <strong>to</strong> understandthe c<strong>on</strong>crete c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> our era, or behind their clamourabout “world revoluti<strong>on</strong>” are other aims, aims that havenothing in comm<strong>on</strong> with revoluti<strong>on</strong>.All this shows that the policy the CPC leadership is seeking<strong>to</strong> impose <strong>on</strong> the world communist movement is an err<strong>on</strong>eousand fatal <strong>on</strong>e. For what the Chinese comrades proposeunder the guise <strong>of</strong> a “general line” is but an enumerati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the most general tasks <strong>of</strong> the working class, an enumerati<strong>on</strong>,moreover, that does not take in<strong>to</strong> account the times we areliving in, the real inter-relati<strong>on</strong>ship <strong>of</strong> class forces, and thepeculiarities <strong>of</strong> the present stage <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry. The Chinesecomrades fail <strong>to</strong> notice, or do not want <strong>to</strong> notice, how thetasks <strong>of</strong> our movement are changing in accordance with thec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the present era. By reducing the general line<strong>to</strong> general tasks that apply <strong>to</strong> every stage <strong>of</strong> the transiti<strong>on</strong>from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism, they deprive it <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>creteness,purposefulness and efficacy.In working out their present policy, the fraternal partiesc<strong>on</strong>cretely analyzed the line-up <strong>of</strong> class forces in individualcountries and <strong>on</strong> a world scale, the distinguishing features inthe development <strong>of</strong> the two mutually-opposed systems, andthe present stage in the development <strong>of</strong> the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong>movement.573
A precise analysis <strong>of</strong> changes in the world situati<strong>on</strong> enabledthe fraternal parties <strong>of</strong> the whole world <strong>to</strong> work out a <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist definiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> our era: “Our time, whose main c<strong>on</strong>tentis the transiti<strong>on</strong> from capitalism <strong>to</strong> socialism, initiated by theGreat Oc<strong>to</strong>ber Socialist Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, is a time <strong>of</strong> struggle betweenthe two opposing social systems, a time <strong>of</strong> socialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>s and nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, a time <strong>of</strong> thebreakdown <strong>of</strong> imperialism, <strong>of</strong> the aboliti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the col<strong>on</strong>ialsystem, a time <strong>of</strong> transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> more peoples <strong>to</strong> the socialistpath, <strong>of</strong> the triumph <strong>of</strong> socialism and communism <strong>on</strong> a worldwidescale.”This definiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> our era was the basis for a correct approachin working out the strategy and tactics <strong>of</strong> the worldcommunist movement.The <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties have defined their generalline, the basic propositi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> which are as follows:— the nature and c<strong>on</strong>tent <strong>of</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary processin our time are determined by the merger in<strong>to</strong> a singlestream <strong>of</strong> the struggle against imperialism waged by the peoplesbuilding socialism and communism, the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryworking-class movement in capitalist countries, the nati<strong>on</strong>alliberati<strong>on</strong>movement <strong>of</strong> oppressed peoples, and general democraticmovements; the decisive role in the alliance <strong>of</strong> antiimperialistrevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary forces bel<strong>on</strong>gs <strong>to</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alworking class and its chief creati<strong>on</strong> — the socialist worldsystem, which exerts its main influence <strong>on</strong> the development<strong>of</strong> the world socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> by the power <strong>of</strong> its example,by its ec<strong>on</strong>omic progress;— due <strong>to</strong> the prevailing objective c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> his<strong>to</strong>ry(extreme sharpening <strong>of</strong> imperialist aggressiveness, emergence<strong>of</strong> weap<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> vast destructive power, etc.) central am<strong>on</strong>g allthe tasks c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting the anti-imperialist forces in the presentera is the struggle <strong>to</strong> prevent therm<strong>on</strong>uclear war. Unitingall the peace forces <strong>to</strong> defend peace and save mankind fromnuclear disaster is the primary task <strong>of</strong> the Communist parties;574
— the socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong> is performed as a result <strong>of</strong> theinternal development <strong>of</strong> the class struggle in each country,its forms and paths are determined by the c<strong>on</strong>crete c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> each country. A law comm<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> all countries is the revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryoverthrow <strong>of</strong> capitalist power and establishment, in<strong>on</strong>e or another form, <strong>of</strong> proletarian dicta<strong>to</strong>rship. The task <strong>of</strong>the working class and the Communist parties is <strong>to</strong> make maximumuse <strong>of</strong> possibilities now available for a peaceful path <strong>of</strong>socialist revoluti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong>e not c<strong>on</strong>nected with civil war, and, atthe same time, be prepared for a n<strong>on</strong>-peaceful path, for armedsuppressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the resistance <strong>of</strong> the bourgeoisie; the generaldemocratic struggle is a necessary comp<strong>on</strong>ent <strong>of</strong> the strugglefor socialism;— the aim <strong>of</strong> the working class and the Communist partiesin the nati<strong>on</strong>al-liberati<strong>on</strong> movement is <strong>to</strong> carry <strong>to</strong> completi<strong>on</strong>the tasks <strong>of</strong> the anti-imperialist democratic revoluti<strong>on</strong>, developand c<strong>on</strong>solidate the nati<strong>on</strong>al fr<strong>on</strong>t based <strong>on</strong> alliance with thepeasantry and the patriotically-minded nati<strong>on</strong>al bourgeoisie;prepare the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s for forming nati<strong>on</strong>al-democratic statesand for transiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the n<strong>on</strong>-capitalist path <strong>of</strong> development;— relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> co-operati<strong>on</strong> and mutual assistance betweensocialist countries, solidarity and unity <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>alcommunist and labour movement, faithful observance <strong>of</strong> jointlyworked out positi<strong>on</strong>s and appraisals, fidelity <strong>to</strong> the Leninistprinciples <strong>of</strong> party life and relati<strong>on</strong>s between parties — theseare necessary requisites for the successful soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the his<strong>to</strong>rictasks c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting the Communists.Such, in the present era, are the basic development paths<strong>of</strong> the world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary process; such are the basic propositi<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement in the present stage. The battle for peace, democracy,nati<strong>on</strong>al independence and socialism — that, briefly, isthe substance <strong>of</strong> this general line. Its c<strong>on</strong>sistent operati<strong>on</strong> isthe world communist movement’s guarantee <strong>of</strong> success.All these key principles <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement in present-day c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s, collectively worked out575
y the fraternal Communist and Workers’ parties and formulatedin the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and Statement, have found expressi<strong>on</strong>in the new CPSU Programme, which is based entirely <strong>on</strong> a<strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist generalizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> our and internati<strong>on</strong>al revoluti<strong>on</strong>aryexperience.VThe err<strong>on</strong>eous views <strong>of</strong> the CPC leaders <strong>on</strong> the cardinalpolitical and theoretical issues <strong>of</strong> our time are inseverablylinked with their practical activity, which is directed <strong>to</strong>wardsundermining the unity <strong>of</strong> the world socialist camp and theinternati<strong>on</strong>al communist movement.In words, the Chinese comrades acknowledge that the unity<strong>of</strong> the U.S.S.R. and the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong> China is themainstay <strong>of</strong> the entire socialist community, but in deed theyare undermining relati<strong>on</strong>s with our party, with our countryin all fields.The CPC leadership <strong>of</strong>ten speaks <strong>of</strong> its loyalty <strong>to</strong> the community<strong>of</strong> the socialist nati<strong>on</strong>s. But the attitude <strong>of</strong> the Chinesecomrades <strong>to</strong> this community refutes their high-soundingdeclarati<strong>on</strong>s.The figures show that in the past three years the People’sRepublic <strong>of</strong> China has cut the volume <strong>of</strong> its trade with theother socialist countries by more than 50 per cent. For somesocialist countries the results <strong>of</strong> this policy <strong>of</strong> the Chinesecomrades have been especially painful.The acti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the Chinese leadership stand in glaring c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>not <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>to</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> mutual relati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>gsocialist countries but, in a number <strong>of</strong> cases, <strong>to</strong> the acceptedrules and norms all states should abide by.Violati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> existing agreements caused serious damage <strong>to</strong>the nati<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omy <strong>of</strong> some socialist states. And, understandably,China’s own ec<strong>on</strong>omy is also suffering no littledamage from this curtailment <strong>of</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic c<strong>on</strong>tacts.576
In an effort <strong>to</strong> justify its acti<strong>on</strong>s in the eyes <strong>of</strong> the people,the CPC leadership recently put forward the theory <strong>of</strong> “relying<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s own forces.” In general, for each country <strong>to</strong> buildsocialism, relying primarily <strong>on</strong> the efforts <strong>of</strong> its people andmaking the best use <strong>of</strong> its own resources is the correct way<strong>of</strong> laying the material and technical basis <strong>of</strong> socialism. Thec<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> socialism is, in each country, primarily thec<strong>on</strong>cern <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> that country, <strong>of</strong> its working class andits Communist party.The Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>, which was the first socialist country,was obliged <strong>to</strong> build socialism relying <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> its own forcesand utilizing its internal resources. And although there isnow a system <strong>of</strong> socialist countries, this by no means signifiesthat the people <strong>of</strong> any country can sit back with folded armsand rely exclusively <strong>on</strong> the assistance <strong>of</strong> other socialist countries.The Communist party <strong>of</strong> each socialist country regardsit as its duty <strong>to</strong> mobilize all internal reserves for successfulec<strong>on</strong>omic development. In its direct sense, therefore, thestatement <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committee <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> socialism mainly by <strong>on</strong>e’s own forces would raise no objecti<strong>on</strong>s.However, as the entire text <strong>of</strong> the CPC Central Committeeletter and numerous statements in the Chinese press show,this propositi<strong>on</strong> is in effect given an interpretati<strong>on</strong> that iswholly unacceptable.The “building <strong>of</strong> socialism chiefly by <strong>on</strong>e’s own forces”formula cloaks the c<strong>on</strong>cept <strong>of</strong> building up self-sufficient nati<strong>on</strong>alec<strong>on</strong>omies with ec<strong>on</strong>omic relati<strong>on</strong>s with other countriesrestricted <strong>to</strong> trade al<strong>on</strong>e. And this approach the Chinese comradesare trying <strong>to</strong> impose <strong>on</strong> other socialist countries.Proclamati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the “relying <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’s own forces” line wasapparently needed by the CPC leadership in order <strong>to</strong> weakenthe b<strong>on</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> close friendship am<strong>on</strong>g the socialist countries.This policy, it goes without saying, has nothing in comm<strong>on</strong>with the principles <strong>of</strong> socialist internati<strong>on</strong>alism. It cannot be577
egarded otherwise than as an attempt <strong>to</strong> undermine the unity<strong>of</strong> the socialist community.Parallel with the line <strong>of</strong> curtailing ec<strong>on</strong>omic ties, the CPCleadership adopted a number <strong>of</strong> measures calculated <strong>to</strong> aggravaterelati<strong>on</strong>s with the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.The Chinese leaders are undermining the unity not <strong>on</strong>ly<strong>of</strong> the socialist camp but <strong>of</strong> the entire world communist movement,trampling <strong>on</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alismand grossly violating accepted standards <strong>of</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>sbetween fraternal parties.The CPC leadership organizes and supports various antipartybreakaway groups, which oppose the Communist parties<strong>of</strong> the United States, Brazil, Italy, Belgium, Australia andIndia. For instance, in Belgium the CPC leadership is supportingthe Grippe group, which was expelled from the party atthe last c<strong>on</strong>gress. In the United States support is given <strong>to</strong>the subversive activities <strong>of</strong> the Left opportunist grouping“Hammer and Steel,” which has made battle against the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the United States its main aim. In Brazil,the Chinese comrades support the facti<strong>on</strong>al groups expelledfrom the Communist Party (as for instance, the Amaz<strong>on</strong>as-Grabois group).In Australia, the CPC Central Committee tried <strong>to</strong> organizesplitting activities against the Communist party and its leadershipwith the help <strong>of</strong> a former member <strong>of</strong> the leadership,E. Hill. Hill, who visited the P.R.C. at <strong>on</strong>e time, came outpublicly against the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> Australia and tried<strong>to</strong> line up a group <strong>of</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> his mind. When the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> Australia expelled Hill from its Central Committeehe dem<strong>on</strong>stratively removed himself <strong>to</strong> Peking.In Italy, Chinese representatives are encouraging the activity<strong>of</strong> the group formed by former functi<strong>on</strong>aries <strong>of</strong> the Paduafederati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Communist party, who issued leaflets provocati<strong>on</strong>allycalling for a “revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary” uprising.578
Comrades from the CPC are making particular efforts <strong>to</strong>c<strong>on</strong>duct subversive activities in the Communist and Workers’parties <strong>of</strong> the Asian, African, and Latin-American countries.Lauding the renegades and defec<strong>to</strong>rs from the ranks <strong>of</strong> thecommunist movement, the Chinese leaders reprint in theirnewspapers and magazines slanderous articles from thepublicati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> these renegade groups directed against thepolicy <strong>of</strong> the CPSU, against the course <strong>of</strong> the entire worldcommunist movement.In Ceyl<strong>on</strong>, Chinese representatives maintain close c<strong>on</strong>tactwith the grouping <strong>of</strong> E. Samarakkody, which is a <strong>to</strong>ol <strong>of</strong> theTrotskyist “Fourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al.”The Trotskyists from the “Fourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al” are trying<strong>to</strong> utilize the positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Chinese comrades for their ownends; they even addressed an open letter <strong>to</strong> the CPC CentralCommittee in which they openly declare: “The Fourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al,which from the day <strong>of</strong> its foundati<strong>on</strong> has beenwaging . . . a struggle against the ideas you oppose <strong>to</strong>day,stands <strong>on</strong> your side. . . . The internati<strong>on</strong>al secretariat <strong>of</strong> theFourth Internati<strong>on</strong>al welcomes this discussi<strong>on</strong> you have startedwithin the entire communist movement. It urges you <strong>to</strong>develop it.”The Chinese leaders level sharp attacks <strong>on</strong> the fraternalCommunist parties and their leaders, who do not want <strong>to</strong>depart from the general line <strong>of</strong> the internati<strong>on</strong>al communistmovement. They have published and circulated in manylanguages articles discrediting the activity <strong>of</strong> the CommunistParty <strong>of</strong> the United States, and the French, Italian and IndianCommunist parties.. There is no term <strong>of</strong> abuse their authorsfail <strong>to</strong> hurl at well-known leaders <strong>of</strong> these fraternal parties.“Double-dealing” and “Right opportunism,” “revisi<strong>on</strong>ism”and “incompatibility with the standards <strong>of</strong> communist ethics,”“social-democratic degenerati<strong>on</strong>” and “faint-heartedness,”“irresp<strong>on</strong>sibility” and “parroting,” “supercilious and disdainfulattitude <strong>to</strong>wards the revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary peoples <strong>of</strong> the Asian,African and Latin-American countries” — they are all there.579
The Chinese leaders accuse the Communist parties <strong>of</strong> theUnited States and Western Europe <strong>of</strong> being “at <strong>on</strong>e with themost adventuristic American imperialists.” The leadership <strong>of</strong>the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> India is invariably termed a “clique.”Levelled against the leaders <strong>of</strong> the Communist parties <strong>of</strong>France, Italy, India and the United States is the m<strong>on</strong>strousaccusati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> being “c<strong>on</strong>cerned for the fate <strong>of</strong> imperialism andall reacti<strong>on</strong>aries.” And in its letter <strong>of</strong> June 14 the CPC leadershipsinks so low as <strong>to</strong> insinuate that the CPSU <strong>to</strong>o “acts inthe role <strong>of</strong> an accomplice <strong>of</strong> imperialism.” So obvious is theabsurdity <strong>of</strong> this that no <strong>on</strong>e but the Trotskyists has until nowever ventured <strong>to</strong> make such a slanderous charge against thegreat party <strong>of</strong> Lenin.Is it any w<strong>on</strong>der that imperialist propaganda rejoices at suchacti<strong>on</strong>s by the Chinese comrades? It is not by accident thatthe bourgeois press keeps shouting about a “crisis” in theworld communist movement and urges the imperialist governments<strong>to</strong> exploit in their own interests the differences causedby the stand taken by the CPC Central Committee.The representatives <strong>of</strong> the CPC resigned from the edi<strong>to</strong>rialboard <strong>of</strong> the World <strong>Marx</strong>ist Review, the collective theoreticaland informati<strong>on</strong> magazine <strong>of</strong> the Communist and Workers’parties, and s<strong>to</strong>pped its publicati<strong>on</strong> in the Chinese language,seeking in this way <strong>to</strong> deprive Chinese Communists <strong>of</strong> anobjective source <strong>of</strong> informati<strong>on</strong> about the activities <strong>of</strong> theworld communist movement.The splitting activities <strong>of</strong> the Chinese leadership in the ranks<strong>of</strong> the world Communist movement evoke rightful indignati<strong>on</strong>and oppositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the fraternal <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties.The CPC Central Committee letter says that in any <strong>on</strong>eparty’s relati<strong>on</strong>s with fraternal Communist parties it is “impermissiblefor it <strong>to</strong> place itself above the other fraternal parties,impermissible for it <strong>to</strong> interfere in the internal affairs<strong>of</strong> fraternal parties. . . .” This is quite a good statement. Butit is precisely the Chinese comrades who resort <strong>to</strong> such impermissibleacti<strong>on</strong>s. Flouting the interests <strong>of</strong> the world com-580
munist movement, they ignore the standards and principlesset out in the Declarati<strong>on</strong> and Statement, and try <strong>to</strong> bringother parties under their influence and c<strong>on</strong>trol.A graphic example <strong>of</strong> the CPC leadership’s special linewithin the socialist camp and the world communist movementis its positi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the Albanian questi<strong>on</strong>. As is known, in thesec<strong>on</strong>d half <strong>of</strong> 1960 the Albanian leaders openly came out witha Left opportunist platform <strong>on</strong> the main questi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> our time,and began <strong>to</strong> pursue a policy hostile <strong>to</strong> the CPSU and theother fraternal parties. The Albanian leadership started ananti-Soviet campaign in their country that led <strong>to</strong> a rupture <strong>of</strong>political, ec<strong>on</strong>omic and cultural relati<strong>on</strong>s with the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>.The overwhelming majority <strong>of</strong> Communist and Workers’parties emphatically c<strong>on</strong>demned this anti-Leninist activity <strong>of</strong>the Albanian leaders. The CPC leaders <strong>to</strong>ok a <strong>to</strong>tally differentpositi<strong>on</strong> and did everything they could <strong>to</strong> use the Albanianleaders as their own mouthpiece. It is known now that theChinese comrades plainly pushed them in<strong>to</strong> open struggleagainst the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the other socialist countries andfraternal parties.In their attacks <strong>on</strong> the CPSU and other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninistparties, the CPC leaders allot a special place <strong>to</strong> the Yugoslavquesti<strong>on</strong>. They try <strong>to</strong> make it appear that the difficulties inthe communist movement are caused by the improved relati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and other socialist countries with Yugoslavia.C<strong>on</strong>trary <strong>to</strong> the facts, they persist in asserting thatYugoslavia is not a socialist country.As is generally known, in 1955 the CPSU <strong>to</strong>gether withother fraternal parties <strong>to</strong>ok the initiative in normalizing relati<strong>on</strong>swith Yugoslavia so as <strong>to</strong> put an end <strong>to</strong> the prol<strong>on</strong>gedc<strong>on</strong>flict, for which the greater part <strong>of</strong> the blame lies withStalin. At that time the CPC leaders had no doubts as <strong>to</strong> thenature <strong>of</strong> the socialist system in Yugoslavia. The People’sDaily wrote then that “Yugoslavia has already achieved importantsuccesses in the building <strong>of</strong> socialism.”581
Objective analysis <strong>of</strong> the socio-ec<strong>on</strong>omic processes in Yugoslaviashows that since then socialism has grown str<strong>on</strong>gerthere. Whereas in 1958 the socialist sec<strong>to</strong>r in industryamounted <strong>to</strong> 100 per cent, in agriculture <strong>to</strong> 6 per cent, and intrade <strong>to</strong> 97 per cent, <strong>to</strong>day the socialist sec<strong>to</strong>r in industryamounts <strong>to</strong> 100 per cent, in agriculture <strong>to</strong> 15 per cent, and intrade <strong>to</strong> 100 per cent. In the period since normalizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>relati<strong>on</strong>s was initiated, Yugoslavia has drawn closer <strong>to</strong> thepositi<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and other socialist states <strong>on</strong>foreign policy issues.Why, then, have the Chinese leaders changed their positi<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong> the Yugoslav questi<strong>on</strong> so radically? It is hard <strong>to</strong> find anyother explanati<strong>on</strong> than that they viewed it as another goodexcuse <strong>to</strong> discredit the policy <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and other <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist parties.The Soviet Communists know that differences <strong>on</strong> a number<strong>of</strong> fundamental ideological questi<strong>on</strong>s still remain between theCPSU and the Yugoslav League <strong>of</strong> Communists. We have <strong>to</strong>ldthe Yugoslav leaders this openly, and c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> do so. Butit would be wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>to</strong> “excommunicate” Yugoslavia from socialism<strong>on</strong> these grounds, <strong>to</strong> cut her away from the socialist countriesand push her in<strong>to</strong> the camp <strong>of</strong> imperialism, as the CPCleaders are doing. The imperialists would like nothing better.There are now 14 socialist countries in the world. We aredeeply c<strong>on</strong>vinced that in the near future their number will bemuch greater. The range <strong>of</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting the fraternalparties standing at the helm <strong>of</strong> the ship <strong>of</strong> state is growingwider, and besides, each <strong>of</strong> the fraternal parties works indifferent c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s. It is not surprising that in these circumstancesthe fraternal parties may find different approaches <strong>to</strong>the soluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> this or that questi<strong>on</strong>. How should <strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninists act in such cases? Declare that this or that socialistcountry whose leaders differ with them is no l<strong>on</strong>ger socialist?That would be arbitrariness <strong>of</strong> the first water; such a methodhas nothing in comm<strong>on</strong> with <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.582
Were we <strong>to</strong> follow the example <strong>of</strong> the Chinese leaders, weshould, c<strong>on</strong>sidering our serious differences with the leaders<strong>of</strong> the Albanian Party <strong>of</strong> Labour, l<strong>on</strong>g since have declaredAlbania a n<strong>on</strong>-socialist country. But this would be an err<strong>on</strong>eous,subjective approach <strong>to</strong> the questi<strong>on</strong>. Despite theirdifferences with the Albanian leaders, the Soviet Communistsregard Albania as a socialist country and, for their part, aretaking steps <strong>to</strong> avert Albania’s detachment from the socialistcomm<strong>on</strong>wealth.It grieves us <strong>to</strong> see how the leaders <strong>of</strong> the CPC are underminingtraditi<strong>on</strong>al Soviet-Chinese friendship and weakeningthe unity <strong>of</strong> the socialist countries.The CPSU stands and will stand for the unity and cohesi<strong>on</strong><strong>of</strong> the socialist comm<strong>on</strong>wealth, <strong>of</strong> the entire world communistmovement.VILet us recapitulate:The time since the adopti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960 hasfully c<strong>on</strong>firmed the correctness <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Marx</strong>ist-Leninist programme<strong>of</strong> the world communist and working-class movement.The Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>’s successes in building communism, the successes<strong>of</strong> socialist c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> in other socialist countries exertan ever more revoluti<strong>on</strong>izing influence <strong>on</strong> the minds <strong>of</strong> peopleall over the world. Revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary Cuba has lit the beac<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>socialism in the Western Hemisphere. Crushing blows havebeen dealt the col<strong>on</strong>ial system, which is now nearing its end.New vic<strong>to</strong>ries have been scored by the working class <strong>of</strong> theimperialist countries. The world revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary movement issteadily advancing.This shows that the general line <strong>of</strong> the world communistmovement was set out correctly in the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960. Thetask now is <strong>to</strong> work and act in c<strong>on</strong>formity with this generalline, <strong>to</strong> develop and apply it in reference <strong>to</strong> the specific c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sin which each given Communist party functi<strong>on</strong>s. Any583
attempt <strong>to</strong> impose some new general line <strong>on</strong> the world communistand working-class movement, as in the CPC CentralCommittee letter <strong>of</strong> June 14, is therefore unsound and harmful.To accept any such “general line” would be <strong>to</strong> departfrom the Statement <strong>of</strong> 1960, <strong>to</strong> accept programmatic propositi<strong>on</strong>sat variance with this Statement which was adopted by81 parties. Our party will not take this course.Throughout its his<strong>to</strong>ry, our glorious Leninist party wagedan implacable struggle against Right and Left opportunism,Trotskyism and revisi<strong>on</strong>ism, dogmatism and sectarianism, nati<strong>on</strong>alismand chauvinism in all their forms both within ourcountry and in the internati<strong>on</strong>al arena. Our party steeleditself and grew str<strong>on</strong>g in this struggle for the purity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism;it does not fear any attacks by latter-day splittersand opportunists, whatever quarter they may come from.Life shows that, having become a political organizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong>the entire people, the CPSU strengthened its ties with themasses, and became str<strong>on</strong>ger and more highly disciplined thanever. With the vic<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> socialism, the ideology <strong>of</strong> the workingclass — <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism — became the ideology <strong>of</strong> theentire people, <strong>of</strong> its advanced part. The aim <strong>of</strong> the workingclass — the building <strong>of</strong> communism — has become the aim <strong>of</strong>the entire people. <strong>Marx</strong>ists-Leninists can <strong>on</strong>ly rejoice, <strong>of</strong>course, in this growth <strong>of</strong> the influence <strong>of</strong> communist ideology.Never since the death <strong>of</strong> V. I. Lenin, it may be said, has ourparty been so str<strong>on</strong>g, so capable <strong>of</strong> accomplishing the mostdaring tasks c<strong>on</strong>nected with the building <strong>of</strong> the new world.Now, when socialism has w<strong>on</strong> fully and c<strong>on</strong>clusively in ourcountry, when we are erecting, st<strong>on</strong>e by st<strong>on</strong>e, the beautifuledifice <strong>of</strong> communism, our party, the entire Soviet people, aremore c<strong>on</strong>vinced than ever that the great ideas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism will triumph throughout the world.Our c<strong>on</strong>fidence is shared by the peoples <strong>of</strong> the socialistcountries, by the working people <strong>of</strong> the whole world. Theyvalue highly the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>’s big c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> <strong>to</strong> the com-584
m<strong>on</strong> struggle for peace, democracy, nati<strong>on</strong>al freedom and independence,and socialism.The Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> has always s<strong>to</strong>odand now stands for close friendship with the Communist Party<strong>of</strong> China. There are serious differences between us and theleaders <strong>of</strong> the CPC, but we hope that relati<strong>on</strong>s between ourtwo parties, between our two peoples, should be based <strong>on</strong> thefact that we have that same aim, the building <strong>of</strong> a new communistsociety, and the same enemy — imperialism. The twogreat powers, the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> and the People’s Republic <strong>of</strong>China, can, by their joint efforts, do much for the triumph<strong>of</strong> communism. This both our friends and enemies know well.At present delegati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the CPSU and the CPC are meetingin Moscow. Unfortunately the representatives <strong>of</strong> the CPCc<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>to</strong> aggravate the situati<strong>on</strong> at this meeting. Despitethis, the CPSU delegati<strong>on</strong> is exercising the utmost patienceand restraint so that the talks may have a successful outcome.The near future will show whether the Chinese comrades arewilling <strong>to</strong> build our relati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> what unitesrather than divides us, <strong>on</strong> the basis <strong>of</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism.Our enemies are banking <strong>on</strong> aggravati<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> the differencesbetween the CPC and the CPSU. They are already lookingaround <strong>to</strong> see if then cannot make a good thing <strong>of</strong> it. Only theother day the U.S. Daily News urged setting Red Russia andRed China against each other so that they might tear eachother <strong>to</strong> pieces. We, Communists, must never let ourselvesforget these insidious schemes <strong>of</strong> the imperialists.Mindful <strong>of</strong> its resp<strong>on</strong>sibility <strong>to</strong> the world communist movement,<strong>to</strong> the peoples <strong>of</strong> the world, our party urges the Chinesecomrades <strong>to</strong> take the course <strong>of</strong> resolving the differences andstrengthening the genuine unite <strong>of</strong> our parties <strong>on</strong> the principles<strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>ism-Leninism and proletarian internati<strong>on</strong>alism.Together with all fraternal parties, our Leninist party hasworked and is working for the unity <strong>of</strong> the working class, <strong>of</strong>585
all the working people, in the struggle against imperialism,for peace, democracy, nati<strong>on</strong>al independence and socialism.Before the party and the entire Soviet people, the CentralCommittee <strong>of</strong> the CPSU declares with all resp<strong>on</strong>sibility thatwe have d<strong>on</strong>e and will do everything in our power <strong>to</strong> strengthenunity with the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> China, <strong>to</strong> cement theworld communist movement under the banner <strong>of</strong> Lenin, <strong>to</strong>cement the countries <strong>of</strong> the world socialist system, <strong>to</strong> rendereffective aid <strong>to</strong> all peoples fighting col<strong>on</strong>ialism, <strong>to</strong> strengthenthe cause <strong>of</strong> peace and win vic<strong>to</strong>ry for the great ideas <strong>of</strong> communismthe world over.All the working people <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong> will rally stillcloser around their Communist Party and its Leninist CentralCommittee, will devote all their energies <strong>to</strong> bringing <strong>to</strong> completi<strong>on</strong>the majestic programme <strong>of</strong> the building <strong>of</strong> communism.Central Committee<strong>of</strong> the Communist Party <strong>of</strong> the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>
3—E—578S3—E—578P00270 ( t )00240 ( u )WXJ12bYu34567u90*1965 hj1dkl: ( m ) 3050—1104abcdecd ( fg )
WXJ12bYu34567u90*abcdecd ( fg )1965 hj1dkl: ( m ) 3050—110400270 ( t )00240 ( u )3—E—578S3—E—578P