THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT From Marx to Mao ML © Digital Reprints 2006 THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1965 THE POLEMIC ON THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS Printed in the People¹s Republic of China C O N T E N T S A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 (June 14, 1963) THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CPSU AND OURSELVES Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (September 6, 1963) THE DIFFERENCES BEGAN WITH THE 20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE 20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU THE 1957 MOSCOW MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIES THE GROWTH OF THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIP THE SURPRISE ASSAULT ON THE CPC BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CPSU THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO LINES AT THE 1960 MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIES THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIP BECOMES SYSTEMATIZED AN ADVERSE CURRENT THAT IS OPPOSED TO MARXISM- LENINISM AND IS SPLITTING THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT WHAT HAVE THE FACTS OF THE PAST SEVEN YEARS DEMONSTRATED? Appendix I Outline of Views on the Question of Peaceful Transition (November 10, 1957) Appendix II Statement of the Delegation of the Communist Party of China at the Bucharest Meeting of Fraternal Parties (June 26, 1960) 1 55 59 67 70 75 79 83 89 93 99 105 109 Appendix III The Five Proposals for Settlement of the Differences and Attainment of Unity Contained in the Letter of the Central Committee of the CPC in Reply to the Letter of Information of the Central Committee of the CPSU (September 10, 1960) ON THE QUESTION OF STALIN Second Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (September 13, 1963) IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY? Third Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (September 26, 1963) THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE CAPITAL IN YUGOSLAV CITIES YUGOSLAV COUNTRYSIDE SWAMPED BY CAPITALISM THE DEGENERATION OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY OWNED BY THE WHOLE PEOPLE INTO CAPlTALIST ECONOMY A DEPENDENCY OF U.S. IMPERIALISM A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SPECIAL DETACHMENT OF U.S. IMPERIALISM THE DEGENERATION OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT INTO THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE THE PRINCIPLEED STAND OF THE CPC ON THE QUESTION OF YUGOSLAVIA HAS TITO ³REMOVED HIS ERRORS²? OR DOES KHRUSHCHOV REGARD TITO AS HIS TEACHER? BRIEF CONCLUSION APOLOGISTS OF NEO-COLONIALISM Fourth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (October 22, 1964) ABOLITION OF THE TASK OF COMBATING IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ABOLISHING THE REVOLUTION OF THE OPPRESSED NATIONS OPPOSITION TO WARS OF NATIONAL LIBERATION THE AREAS IN WHICH CONTEMPORARY WORLD CONTRADICTIONS ARE CONCENTRATED 113 115 139 145 147 154 161 166 171 175 177 181 185 188 193 197 200 DISTORTION OF THE LENINIST VIEW OF LEADERSHIP IN THE REVOLUTION THE PATH OF NATIONALISM AND DEGENERATION AN EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL-CHAUVINISM AGAINST THE ³THEORY OF RACISM² AND THE ³THEORY OF THE YELLOW PERIL² RESURRECTING THE OLD REVISIONISM IN A NEW GUISE TWO DIFFERENT LINES ON THE QUESTION OF WAR AND PEACE Fifth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (November 19, 1963) THE LESSONS OF HISTORY THE GREATEST FRAUD THE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF PREVENTING A NEW WORLD WAR NUCLEAR FETISHISM AND NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL ARE THE THEORETICAL BASIS AND GUIDING POLICY OF MODERN REVISIONISM FIGHT OR CAPITULATE? THE ROAD IN DEFENCE OF PEACE AND THE ROAD LEADING TO WAR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE ‹ TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED POLICIES Sixth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (December 12, 1963) LENIN AND STALIN¹S POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA UPHOLDS LENIN¹S POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE THE GENERAL LINE OF ³PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE² OF THE CPSU LEADERS THREE DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLE THE CPSU LEADERS¹ GENERAL LINE OF ³PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE² CATERS TO U.S. IMPERIALISM SOVIET-U S. COLLABORATION IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE CPSU LEADERS¹ GENERAL LINE OF ³PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE² A FEW WORDS OF ADVICE TO THE LEADERS OF THE CPSU 203 206 209 212 216 221 224 230 235 242 249 254 259 262 270 275 278 289 295 300 THE LEADERS OF THE CPSU ARE THE GREATEST SPLITTERS OF OUR TIMES Seventh Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (February 4, 1964) A REVIEW OF HISTORY EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS THE GREATEST SPLITTERS OF OUR TIMES REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF BEING ANTI-SOVIET REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF SEIZING THE LEADERSHIP REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF FRUSTRATING THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY AND VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL DISCIPLINE REFUTATION OF THE CHARGE OF SUPPORTING THE ANTI-PARTY GROUPS OF FRATERNAL PARTIES THE PRESENT PUBLIC DEBATE THE WAY TO DEFEND AND STRENGTHEN UNITY THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND KHRUSHCHOV¹S REVISIONISM Eighth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (March 31, 1964) A DISCIPLE OF BERNSTEIN AND KAUTSKY VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL LAW OF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION OUR STRUGGLE AGAINST KHRUSHCHOV¹S REVISIONISM SOPHISTRY CANNOT ALTER HISTORY LIES CANNOT COVER UP REALITY REFUTATION OF THE ³PARLIAMENTARY ROAD² REFUTATION OF ³OPPOSITION TO LEFT OPPORTUNISM² TWO DIFFERENT LINES. TWO DIFFERENT RESULTS FROM BROWDER AND TITO TO KHRUSHCHOV OUR HOPES ON KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM AND ITS HISTORICAL LESSONS FOR THE WORLD Ninth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU (July 14, 1964) SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 303 306 313 318 326 331 336 341 348 354 359 362 366 370 375 382 388 392 399 403 411 415 418 ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE EXIST IN THE SOVIET UNION THE SOVIET PRIVILEDGED STRATUM AND THE REVISIONIST KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED STATE OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE KHRUSHCHOV¹S PHONEY COMMUNISM HISTORICAL LESSONS OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT WHY KHRUSHCHOV FELL (November 21, 1964) APPENDICES THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC (March 30, 1963) OPEN LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION TO ALL PARTY ORGANISATIONS, TO ALL COMMUNISTS OF THE SOVIET UNION (July 14, 1963) 428 436 444 453 459 467 481 495 526 A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE GENERAL LINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963 (June 14, 1963) 3 June 14, 1963 The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Dear Comrades, The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has studied the letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963. All who have the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement at heart are deeply concerned about the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties and hope that our talks will help to eliminate differences, strengthen unity and create favourable conditions for convening a meeting of representatives of all the Communist and Workers¹ Parties. It is the common and sacred duty of the Communist and Workers¹ Parties of all countries to uphold and strengthen the unity of the international communist movement. The Chinese and Soviet Parties bear a heavier responsibility for the unity of the entire socialist camp and international communist movement and should of course make commensurately greater efforts. A number of major differences of principle now exist in the international communist movement. But however serious these differences, we should exercise sufficient patience and find ways to eliminate them so that we can unite our forces and strengthen the struggle against our common enemy. It is with this sincere desire that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China approaches the forthcoming talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties. In its letter of March 30, the Central Committee of the CPSU systematically presents its views on questions that need 4 to be discussed in the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties, and in particular raises the question of the general line of the international communist movement. In this letter we too would like to express our views, which constitute our proposal on the general line of the international communist movement and on some related questions of principle. We hope that this exposition of views will be conducive to mutual understanding by our two Parties and to a detailed, point-by-point discussion in the talks. We also hope that this will be conducive to the understanding of our views by the fraternal Parties and to a full exchange of ideas at an international meeting of fraternal Parties. 1. The general line of the international communist movement must take as its guiding principle the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory concerning the historical mission of the proletariat and must not depart from it. The Moscow Meetings of 1957 and 1960 adopted the Declaration and the Statement respectively after a full exchange of views and in accordance with the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation. The two documents point out the characteristics of our epoch and the common laws of socialist revolution and socialist construction, and lay down the common line of all the Communist and Workers¹ Parties. They are the common programme of the international communist movement. It is true that for several years there have been differences within the international communist movement in the understanding of, and the attitude towards, the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960. The central issue here is whether or not to accept the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement. In the last analysis, it is a question of whether or not to accept the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism, whether or not to recognize the universal significance of the road of the October Revolution, whether or not 5 to accept the fact that the people still living under the imperialist and capitalist system, who comprise two-thirds of the world¹s population, need to make revolution, and whether or not to accept the fact that the people already on the socialist road, who comprise one-third of the world¹s population, need to carry their revolution forward to the end. It has become an urgent and vital task of the international communist movement resolutely to defend the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. Only by strictly following the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the general road of the October Revolution is it possible to have a correct understanding of the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement and a correct attitude towards them. 2. What are the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement? They may be summarized as follows: Workers of all countries, unite; workers of the world, unite with the oppressed peoples and oppressed nations; oppose imperialism and reaction in all countries; strive for world peace, national liberation, people¹s democracy and socialism; consolidate and expand the socialist camp; bring the proletarian world revolution step by step to complete victory; and establish a new world without imperialism, without capitalism and without the exploitation of man by man. This, in our view, is the general line of the international communist movement at the present stage. 3. This general line proceeds from the actual world situation taken as a whole and from a class analysis of the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world, and is directed against the counter-revolutionary global strategy of U.S. imperialism. This general line is one of forming a broad united front, with the socialist camp and the international proletariat as its 6 nucleus, to oppose the imperialists and reactionaries headed by the United States; it is a line of boldly arousing the masses, expanding the revolutionary forces, winning over the middle forces and isolating the reactionary forces. This general line is one of resolute revolutionary struggle by the people of all countries and of carrying the proletarian world revolution forward to the end; it is the line that most effectively combats imperialism and defends world peace. If the general line of the international communist movement is one-sidedly reduced to ³peaceful coexistence², ³peaceful competition² and ³peaceful transition², this is to violate the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement, to discard the historical mission of proletarian world revolution, and to depart from the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism. The general line of the international communist movement should reflect the general law of development of world history. The revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the people in various countries go through different stages and they all have their own characteristics, but they will not transcend the general law of development of world history. The general line should point out the basic direction for the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and people of all countries. While working out its specific line and policies, it is most important for each Communist or Workers¹ Party to adhere to the principle of integrating the universal truth of Marxism- Leninism with the concrete practice of revolution and construction in its own country. 4. In defining the general line of the international communist movement, the starting point is the concrete class analysis of world politics and economics as a whole and of actual world conditions, that is to say, of the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world. 7 If one avoids a concrete class analysis, seizes at random on certain superficial phenomena, and draws subjective and groundless conclusions, one cannot possibly reach correct conclusions with regard to the general line of the international communist movement but will inevitably slide on to a track entirely different from that of Marxism-Leninism. What are the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world? Marxist-Leninists consistently hold that they are: the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp; the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries; the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism; and the contradictions among imperialist countries and among monopoly capitalist groups. The contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp is a contradiction between two fundamentally different social systems, socialism and capitalism. It is undoubtedly very sharp. But Marxist-Leninists must not regard the contradictions in the world as consisting solely and simply of the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp. The international balance of forces has changed and has become increasingly favourable to socialism and to all the oppressed peoples and nations of the world, and most unfavourable to imperialism and the reactionaries of all countries. Nevertheless, the contradictions enumerated above still objectively exist. These contradictions and the struggles to which they give rise are interrelated and influence each other. Nobody can obliterate any of these fundamental contradictions or subjectively substitute one for all the rest. It is inevitable that these contradictions will give rise to popular revolutions, which alone can resolve them. 8 5. The following erroneous views should be repudiated on the question of the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world: a. the view which blots out the class content of the contradiction between the socialist and the imperialist camps and fails to see this contradiction as one between states under the dictatorship of the proletariat and states under the dictatorship of the monopoly capitalists; b. the view which recognizes only the contradiction between the socialist and the imperialist camps, while neglecting or underestimating the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist world, between the oppressed nations and imperialism, among the imperialist countries and among the monopoly capitalist groups, and the struggles to which these contradictions give rise; c. the view which maintains with regard to the capitalist world that the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can be resolved without a proletarian revolution in each country and that the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism can be resolved without revolution by the oppressed nations; d. the view which denies that the development of the inherent contradictions in the contemporary capitalist world inevitably leads to a new situation in which the imperialist countries are locked in an intense struggle, and asserts that the contradictions among the imperialist countries can be reconciled, or even eliminated, by ³international agreements among the big monopolies²; and e. the view which maintains that the contradiction between the two world systems of socialism and capitalism will automatically disappear in the course of ³economic competition², that the other fundamental world contradictions will automatically do so with the disappearance of the contradiction between the two systems, and that a ³world 9 without wars², a new world of ³all-round co-operation², will appear. It is obvious that these erroneous views inevitably lead to erroneous and harmful policies and hence to setbacks and losses of one kind or another to the cause of the people and of socialism. 6. The balance of forces between imperialism and socialism has undergone a fundamental change since World War II. The main indication of this change is that the world now has not just one socialist country but a number of socialist countries forming the mighty socialist camp, and that the people who have taken the socialist road now number not two hundred million but a thousand million, or a third of the world¹s population. The socialist camp is the outcome of the struggles of the international proletariat and working people. It belongs to the international proletariat and working people as well as to the people of the socialist countries. The main common demands of the people of the countries in the socialist camp and the international proletariat and working people are that all the Communist and Workers¹ Parties in the socialist camp should: adhere to the Marxist-Leninist line and pursue correct Marxist-Leninist domestic and foreign policies; consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the worker-peasant alliance led by the proletariat and carry the socialist revolution forward to the end on the economic, political and ideological fronts; promote the initiative and creativeness of the broad masses, carry out socialist construction in a planned way, develop production, improve the people¹s livelihood and strengthen national defense; strengthen the unity of the socialist camp on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, and support other socialist countries on the basis of proletarian internationalism; 10 oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war, and defend world peace; oppose the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counterrevolutionary policies of the reactionaries of all countries; and help the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed classes and nations of the world. All Communist and Workers¹ Parties in the socialist camp owe it to their own people and to the international proletariat and working people to fulfil these demands. By fulfilling these demands the socialist camp will exert a decisive influence on the course of human history. For this very reason, the imperialists and reactionaries invariably try in a thousand and one ways to influence the domestic and foreign policies of the countries in the socialist camp, to undermine the camp and break up the unity of the socialist countries and particularly the unity of China and the Soviet Union. They invariably try to infiltrate and subvert the socialist countries and even entertain the extravagant hope of destroying the socialist camp. The question of what is the correct attitude towards the socialist camp is a most important question of principle confronting all Communist and Workers¹ Parties. It is under new historical conditions that the Communist and Workers¹ Parties are now carrying on the task of proletarian internationalist unity and struggle. When only one socialist country existed and when this country was faced with hostility and jeopardized by all the imperialists and reactionaries because it firmly pursued the correct Marxist-Leninist line and policies, the touchstone of proletarian internationalism for every Communist Party was whether or not it resolutely defended the only socialist country. Now there is a socialist camp consisting of thirteen countries, Albania, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, the Democratic People¹s Republic of Korea, 11 Mongolia, Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. Under these circumstances, the touchstone of proletarian internationalism for every Communist Party is whether or not it resolutely defends the whole of the socialist camp, whether or not it defends the unity of all the countries in the camp on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and whether or not it defends the Marxist-Leninist line and policies which the socialist countries ought to pursue. If anybody does not pursue the correct Marxist-Leninist line and policies, does not defend the unity of the socialist camp but on the contrary creates tension and splits within it, or even follows the policies of the Yugoslav revisionists, tries to liquidate the socialist camp or helps capitalist countries to attack fraternal socialist countries, then he is betraying the interests of the entire international proletariat and the people of the world. If anybody, following in the footsteps of others, defends the erroneous opportunist line and policies pursued by a certain socialist country instead of upholding the correct Marxist- Leninist line and policies which the socialist countries ought to pursue, defends the policy of split instead of upholding the policy of unity, then he is departing from Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 7. Taking advantage of the situation after World War II, the U.S. imperialists stepped into the shoes of the German, Italian and Japanese fascists, and have been trying to erect a huge world empire such as has never been known before. The strategic objectives of U.S. imperialism have been to grab and dominate the intermediate zone lying between the United States and the socialist camp, put down the revolutions of the oppressed peoples and nations, proceed to destroy the socialist countries, and thus to subject all the peoples and countries of the world, including its allies, to domination and enslavement by U.S. monopoly capital. 12 Ever since World War II, the U.S. imperialists have been conducting propaganda for war against the Soviet Union and the socialist camp. There are two aspects to this propaganda. While the U.S. imperialists are actually preparing such a war, they also use this propaganda as a smokescreen for their oppression of the American people and for the extension of their aggression against the rest of the capitalist world. The 1960 Statement points out: ³U.S. imperialism has become the biggest international exploiter.² ³The United States is the mainstay of colonialism today.² ³U.S. imperialism is the main force of aggression and war.² ³International developments in recent years have furnished many new proofs of the fact that U.S. imperialism is the chief bulwark of world reaction and an international gendarme, that it has become an enemy of the peoples of the whole world.² U.S. imperialism is pressing its policies of aggression and war all over the world, but the outcome is bound to be the opposite of that intended ‹ it will only be to hasten the awakening of the people in all countries and to hasten their revolutions. The U.S. imperialists have thus placed themselves in opposition to the people of the whole world and have become encircled by them. The international proletariat must and can unite all the forces that can be united, make use of the internal contradictions in the enemy camp and establish the broadest united front against the U.S. imperialists and their lackeys. The realistic and correct course is to entrust the fate of the people and of mankind to the unity and struggle of the world proletariat and to the unity and struggle of the people in all countries. Conversely, to make no distinction between enemies, friends and ourselves and to entrust the fate of the people and of mankind to collaboration with U.S. imperialism is to lead peo 13 ple astray. The events of the last few years have exploded this illusion. 8. The various types of contradictions in the contemporary world are concentrated in the vast areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under imperialist rule and the storm-centres of world revolution dealing direct blows at imperialism. The national democratic revolutionary movement in these areas and the international socialist revolutionary movement are the two great historical currents of our time. The national democratic revolution in these areas is an important component of the contemporary proletarian world revolution. The anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America are pounding and undermining the foundations of the rule of imperialism and colonialism, old and new, and are now a mighty force in defence of world peace. In a sense, therefore, the whole cause of the international proletarian revolution hinges on the outcome of the revolutionary struggles of the people of these areas, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the world¹s population. Therefore, the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America is definitely not merely a matter of regional significance but one of overall importance for the whole cause of proletarian world revolution. Certain persons now go so far as to deny the great international significance of the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and, on the pretext of breaking down the barriers of nationality, colour and geographical location, are trying their best to efface the line of demarcation between oppressed and oppressor nations and between oppressed and oppressor countries and to hold down the revolutionary struggles of the peoples in these 14 areas. In fact, they cater to the needs of imperialism and create a new ³theory² to justify the rule of imperialism in these areas and the promotion of its policies of old and new colonialism. Actually, this ³theory² seeks not to break down the barriers of nationality, colour and geographical location but to maintain the rule of the ³superior nations² over the oppressed nations. It is only natural that this fraudulent ³theory² is rejected by the people in these areas. The working class in every socialist country and in every capitalist country must truly put into effect the fighting slogans, ³Workers of all countries, unite!² and ³Workers and oppressed nations of the world, unite!²; it must study the revolutionary experience of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, firmly support their revolutionary actions and regard the cause of their liberation as a most dependable support for itself and as directly in accord with its own interests. This is the only effective way to break down the barriers of nationality, colour and geographical location and this is the only genuine proletarian internationalism. It is impossible for the working class in the European and American capitalist countries to liberate itself unless it unites with the oppressed nations and unless those nations are liberated. Lenin rightly said: The revolutionary movement in the advanced countries would actually be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle against capital, the workers of Europe and America were not closely and completely united with the hundreds upon hundreds of millions of ³colonial² slaves who are oppressed by capital. 1 Certain persons in the international communist movement are now taking a passive or scornful or negative attitude towards the struggles of the oppressed nations for liberation. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³The Second Congress of the Communist International², Selected Works, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 472-73. 15 They are in fact protecting the interests of monopoly capital, betraying those of the proletariat, and degenerating into social democrats. The attitude taken towards the revolutionary struggles of the people in the Asian, African and Latin American countries is an important criterion for differentiating those who want revolution from those who do not and those who are truly defending world peace from those who are abetting the forces of aggression and war. 9. The oppressed nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America are faced with the urgent task of fighting imperialism and its lackeys. History has entrusted to the proletarian parties in these areas the glorious mission of holding high the banner of struggle against imperialism, against old and new colonialism and for national independence and people¹s democracy, of standing in the forefront of the national democratic revolutionary movement and striving for a socialist future. In these areas, extremely broad sections of the population refuse to be slaves of imperialism. They include not only the workers, peasants, intellectuals and petty bourgeoisie, but also the patriotic national bourgeoisie and even certain kings, princes and aristocrats who are patriotic. The proletariat and its party must have confidence in the strength of the masses and, above all, must unite with the peasants and establish a solid worker-peasant alliance. It is of primary importance for advanced members of the proletariat to work in the rural areas, help the peasants to get organized, and raise their class consciousness and their national self-respect and self-confidence. On the basis of the worker-peasant alliance the proletariat and its party must unite all the strata that can be united and organize a broad united front against imperialism and its lackeys. In order to consolidate and expand this united front it is necessary that the proletarian party should maintain its 16 ideological political and organizational independence and insist on the leadership of the revolution. The proletarian party and the revolutionary people must learn to master all forms of struggle, including armed struggle. They must defeat counter-revolutionary armed force with revolutionary armed force whenever imperialism and its lackeys resort to armed suppression. The nationalist countries which have recently won political independence are still confronted with the arduous tasks of consolidating it, liquidating the forces of imperialism and domestic reaction, carrying out agrarian and other social reforms and developing their national economy and culture. It is of practical and vital importance for these countries to guard and fight against the neo-colonialist policies which the old colonialists adopt to preserve their interests, and especially against the neo-colonialism of U.S. imperialism. In some of these countries, the patriotic national bourgeoisie continue to stand with the masses in the struggle against imperialism and colonialism and introduce certain measures of social progress. This requires the proletarian party to make a full appraisal of the progressive role of the patriotic national bourgeoisie and strengthen unity with them. As the internal social contradictions and the international class struggle sharpen, the bourgeoisie, and particularly the big bourgeoisie, in some newly independent countries increasingly tend to become retainers of imperialism and to pursue anti-popular, anti-Communist and counter-revolutionary policies. It is necessary for the proletarian party resolutely to oppose these reactionary policies. Generally speaking, the bourgeoisie in these countries have a dual character. When a united front is formed with the bourgeoisie, the policy of the proletarian party should be one of both unity and struggle. The policy should be to unite with the bourgeoisie, in so far as they tend to be progressive, anti-imperialist and anti-feudal, but to struggle against their 17 reactionary tendencies to compromise and collaborate with imperialism and the forces of feudalism. On the national question the world outlook of the proletarian party is internationalism, and not nationalism. In the revolutionary struggle it supports progressive nationalism and opposes reactionary nationalism. It must always draw a clear line of demarcation between itself and bourgeois nationalism, to which it must never fall captive. The 1960 Statement says: Communists expose attempts by the reactionary section of the bourgeoisie to represent its selfish, narrow class interests as those of the entire nation; they expose the demagogic use by bourgeois politicians of socialist slogans for the same purpose. . . . If the proletariat becomes the tail of the landlords and bourgeoisie in the revolution, no real or thorough victory in the national democratic revolution is possible, and even if victory of a kind is gained, it will be impossible to consolidate it. In the course of the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples, the proletarian party must put forward a programme of its own which is thoroughly against imperialism and domestic reaction and for national independence and people¹s democracy, and it must work independently among the masses, constantly expand the progressive forces, win over the middle forces and isolate the reactionary forces; only thus can it carry the national democratic revolution through to the end and guide the revolution on to the road of socialism. 10. In the imperialist and the capitalist countries, the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are essential for the thorough resolution of the contradictions of capitalist society. In striving to accomplish this task the proletarian party must under the present circumstances actively lead the work 18 ing class and the working people in struggles to oppose monopoly capital, to defend democratic rights, to oppose the menace of fascism, to improve living conditions, to oppose imperialist arms expansion and war preparations, to defend world peace and actively to support the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations. In the capitalist countries which U.S. imperialism controls or is trying to control, the working class and the people should direct their attacks mainly against U.S. imperialism, but also against their own monopoly capitalists and other reactionary forces who are betraying the national interests. Large-scale mass struggles in the capitalist countries in recent years have shown that the working class and working people are experiencing a new awakening. Their struggles, which are dealing blows at monopoly capital and reaction, have opened bright prospects for the revolutionary cause in their own countries and are also a powerful support for the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and for the countries of the socialist camp. The proletarian parties in imperialist or capitalist countries must maintain their own ideological, political and organizational independence in leading revolutionary struggles. At the same time, they must unite all the forces that can be united and build a broad united front against monopoly capital and against the imperialist policies of aggression and war. While actively leading immediate struggles, Communists in the capitalist countries should link them with the struggle for long-range and general interests, educate the masses in a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary spirit, ceaselessly raise their political consciousness and undertake the historical task of the proletarian revolution. If they fail to do so, if they regard the immediate movement as everything, determine their conduct from case to case, adapt themselves to the events of the day and sacrifice the basic interests of the proletariat, that is out-and-out social democracy. 19 Social democracy is a bourgeois ideological trend. Lenin pointed out long ago that the social democratic parties are political detachments of the bourgeoisie, its agents in the working-class movement and its principal social prop. Communists must at all times draw a clear line of demarcation between themselves and social democratic parties on the basic question of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and liquidate the ideological influence of social democracy in the international working-class movement and among the working people. Beyond any shadow of doubt, Communists must win over the masses under the influence of the social democratic parties and must win over those left and middle elements in the social democratic parties who are willing to oppose domestic monopoly capital and domination by foreign imperialism, and must unite with them in extensive joint action in the day-to-day struggle of the working-class movement and in the struggle to defend world peace. In order to lead the proletariat and working people in revolution, Marxist-Leninist Parties must master all forms of struggle and be able to substitute one form for another quickly as the conditions of struggle change. The vanguard of the proletariat will remain unconquerable in all circumstances only if it masters all forms of struggle ‹ peaceful and armed, open and secret, legal and illegal, parliamentary struggle and mass struggle, etc. It is wrong to refuse to use parliamentary and other legal forms of struggle when they can and should be used. However, if a Marxist-Leninist Party falls into legalism or parliamentary cretinism, confining the struggle within the limits permitted by the bourgeoisie, this will inevitably lead to renouncing the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. 11. On the question of transition from capitalism to socialism, the proletarian party must proceed from the stand of class struggle and revolution and base itself on the Marxist 20 Leninist teachings concerning the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Communists would always prefer to bring about the transition to socialism by peaceful means. But can peaceful transition be made into a new world-wide strategic principle for the international communist movement? Absolutely not. Marxism-Leninism consistently holds that the fundamental question in all revolutions is that of state power. The 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement both clearly point out, ³Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling classes never relinquish power voluntarily.² The old government never topples even in a period of crisis, unless it is pushed. This is a universal law of class struggle. In specific historical conditions, Marx and Lenin did raise the possibility that revolution may develop peacefully. But, as Lenin pointed out, the peaceful development of revolution is an opportunity ³very seldom to be met with in the history of revolutions². As a matter of fact, there is no historical precedent for peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. Certain persons say there was no precedent when Marx foretold that socialism would inevitably replace capitalism. Then why can we not predict a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism despite the absence of a precedent? This parallel is absurd. Employing dialectical and historical materialism, Marx analysed the contradictions of capitalism, discovered the objective laws of development of human society and arrived at a scientific conclusion, whereas the prophets who pin all their hopes on ³peaceful transition² proceed from historical idealism, ignore the most fundamental contradictions of capitalism, repudiate the Marxist-Leninist teachings on class struggle, and arrive at a subjective and groundless conclusion. How can people who repudiate Marxism get any help from Marx? It is plain to everyone that the capitalist countries are strengthening their state machinery ‹ and especially their 21 military apparatus ‹ the primary purpose of which is to suppress the people in their own countries. The proletarian party must never base its thinking, its policies for revolution and its entire work on the assumption that the imperialists and reactionaries will accept peaceful transformation. The proletarian party must prepare itself for two eventualities ‹ while preparing for a peaceful development of the revolution, it must also fully prepare for a non-peaceful development. It should concentrate on the painstaking work of accumulating revolutionary strength, so that it will be ready to seize victory when the conditions for revolution are ripe or to strike powerful blows at the imperialists and the reactionaries when they launch surprise attacks and armed assaults. If it fails to make such preparations, the proletarian party will paralyse the revolutionary will of the proletariat, disarm itself ideologically and sink into a totally passive state of unpreparedness both politically and organizationally, and the result will be to bury the proletarian revolutionary cause. 12. All social revolutions in the various stages of the history of mankind are historically inevitable and are governed by objective laws independent of man¹s will. Moreover, history shows that there never was a revolution which was able to achieve victory without zigzags and sacrifices. With Marxist-Leninist theory as the basis, the task of the proletarian party is to analyse the concrete historical conditions, put forward the correct strategy and tactics, and guide the masses in bypassing hidden reefs, avoiding unnecessary sacrifices and reaching the goal step by step. Is it possible to avoid sacrifices altogether? Such is not the case with the slave revolutions, the serf revolutions, the bourgeois revolutions, or the national revolutions; nor is it the case with proletarian revolutions. Even if the guiding line of the revolution is correct, it is impossible to have a sure guarantee 22 against setbacks and sacrifices in the course of the revolution. So long as a correct line is adhered to, the revolution is bound to triumph in the end. To abandon revolution on the pretext of avoiding sacrifices is in reality to demand that the people should forever remain slaves and endure infinite pain and sacrifice. Elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that the birth pangs of a revolution are far less painful than the chronic agony of the old society. Lenin rightly said that ³even with the most peaceful course of events, the present [capitalist] system always and inevitably exacts countless sacrifices from the working class².1 Whoever considers a revolution can be made only if everything is plain sailing, only if there is an advance guarantee against sacrifices and failure, is certainly no revolutionary. However difficult the conditions and whatever sacrifices and defeats the revolution may suffer, proletarian revolutionaries should educate the masses in the spirit of revolution and hold aloft the banner of revolution and not abandon it. It would be ³Left² adventurism if the proletarian party should rashly launch a revolution before the objective conditions are ripe. But it would be Right opportunism if the proletarian party should not dare to lead a revolution and to seize state power when the objective conditions are ripe. Even in ordinary times, when it is leading the masses in the day-today struggle, the proletarian party should ideologically, politically and organizationally prepare its own ranks and the masses for revolution and promote revolutionary struggles, so that it will not miss the opportunity to overthrow the reactionary regime and establish a new state power when the conditions for revolution are ripe. Otherwise, when the objective conditions are ripe, the proletarian party will simply throw away the opportunity of seizing victory. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Another Massacre², Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1961, Vol. V, p. 25. 23 The proletarian party must be flexible as well as highly principled, and on occasion it must make such compromises as are necessary in the interests of the revolution. But it must never abandon principled policies and the goal of revolution on the pretext of flexibility and of necessary compromises. The proletarian party must lead the masses in waging struggles against the enemies, and it must know how to utilize the contradictions among those enemies. But the purpose of using these contradictions is to make it easier to attain the goal of the people¹s revolutionary struggles and not to liquidate these struggles. Countless facts have proved that, wherever the dark rule of imperialism and reaction exists, the people who form over 90 per cent of the population will sooner or later rise in revolution. If Communists isolate themselves from the revolutionary demands of the masses, they are bound to lose the confidence of the masses and will be tossed to the rear by the revolutionary current. If the leading group in any Party adopt a non-revolutionary line and convert it into a reformist party, then Marxist-Leninists inside and outside the Party will replace them and lead the people in making revolution. In another kind of situation, the bourgeois revolutionaries will come forward to lead the revolution and the party of the proletariat will forfeit its leadership of the revolution. When the reactionary bourgeoisie betray the revolution and suppress the people, an opportunist line will cause tragic and unnecessary losses to the Communists and the revolutionary masses. If Communists slide down the path of opportunism, they will degenerate into bourgeois nationalists and become appendages of the imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie. There are certain persons who assert that they have made the greatest creative contributions to revolutionary theory since Lenin and that they alone are correct. But it is very dubious whether they have ever really given consideration to 24 the extensive experience of the entire world communist movement, whether they have ever really considered the interests, the aims and tasks of the international proletarian movement as a whole, and whether they really have a general line for the international communist movement which conforms with Marxism-Leninism. In the last few years the international communist movement and the national liberation movement have had many experiences and many lessons. There are experiences which people should praise and there are experiences which make people grieve. Communists and revolutionaries in all countries should ponder and seriously study these experiences of success and failure, so as to draw correct conclusions and useful lessons from them. 13. The socialist countries and the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations support and assist each other. The national liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin America and the revolutionary movements of the people in the capitalist countries are a strong support to the socialist countries. It is completely wrong to deny this. The only attitude for the socialist countries to adopt towards the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations is one of warm sympathy and active support; they must not adopt a perfunctory attitude, or one of national selfishness or of great-power chauvinism. Lenin said, ³The foreign policy of the proletariat is alliance with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries and with all the oppressed nations against all and any imperialists.²1 Whoever fails to understand this point and considers that the support and aid given by the socialist countries to the oppressed peoples and nations are a burden or charity is going counter to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³The Foreign Policy of the Russian Revolution², Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXV, p. 87. 25 The superiority of the socialist system and the achievements of the socialist countries in construction play an exemplary role and are an inspiration to the oppressed peoples and the oppressed nations. But this exemplary role and inspiration can never replace the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. No oppressed people or nation can win liberation except through its own staunch revolutionary struggle. Certain persons have one-sidedly exaggerated the role of peaceful competition between socialist and imperialist countries in their attempt to substitute peaceful competition for the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. According to their preaching, it would seem that imperialism will automatically collapse in the course of this peaceful competition and that the only thing the oppressed peoples and nations have to do is to wait quietly for the advent of this day. What does this have in common with Marxist-Leninist views? Moreover, certain persons have concocted the strange tale that China and some other socialist countries want ³to unleash wars² and to spread socialism by ³wars between states². As the Statement of 1960 points out, such tales are nothing but imperialist and reactionary slanders. To put it bluntly, the purpose of those who repeat these slanders is to hide the fact that they are opposed to revolutions by the oppressed peoples and nations of the world and opposed to others supporting such revolutions. 14. In the last few years much ‹ in fact a great deal ‹ has been said on the question of war and peace. Our views and policies on this question are known to the world, and no one can distort them. It is a pity that although certain persons in the international communist movement talk about how much they love peace and hate war, they are unwilling to acquire even a faint understanding of the simple truth on war pointed out by Lenin. Lenin said: 26 It seems to me that the main thing that is usually forgotten on the question of war, which receives inadequate attention, the main reason why there is so much controversy, and, I would say, futile, hopeless and aimless controversy, is that people forget the fundamental question of the class character of the war; why the war broke out; the classes that are waging it; the historical and historico-economic conditions that gave rise to it.1 As Marxist-Leninists see it, war is the continuation of politics by other means, and every war is inseparable from the political system and the political struggles which give rise to it. If one departs from this scientific Marxist-Leninist proposition which has been confirmed by the entire history of class struggle, one will never be able to understand either the question of war or the question of peace. There are different types of peace and different types of war. Marxist-Leninists must be clear about what type of peace or what type of war is in question. Lumping just wars and unjust wars together and opposing all of them undiscriminatingly is a bourgeois pacifist and not a Marxist-Leninist approach. Certain persons say that revolutions are entirely possible without war. Now which type of war are they referring to ‹ a war of national liberation or a revolutionary civil war, or a world war? If they are referring to a war of national liberation or a revolutionary civil war, then this formulation is, in effect, opposed to revolutionary wars and to revolution. If they are referring to a world war, then they are shooting at a nonexistent target. Although Marxist-Leninists have pointed out, on the basis of the history of the two world wars, that world wars inevitably lead to revolution, no Marxist- 1 V. I. Lenin, ³War and Revolution², Collected Works, Russ. ed., State Publishing House for Political Literature, Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXIV, p. 362. 27 Leninist ever has held or ever will hold that revolution must be made through world war. Marxist-Leninists take the abolition of war as their ideal and believe that war can be abolished. But how can war be abolished? This is how Lenin viewed it: . . . our object is to achieve the socialist system of society, which, by abolishing the division of mankind into classes, by abolishing all exploitation of man by man, and of one nation by other nations, will inevitably abolish all possibility of war.1 The Statement of 1960 also puts it very clearly, ³The victory of socialism all over the world will completely remove the social and national causes of all wars.² However, certain persons now actually hold that it is possible to bring about ³a world without weapons, without armed forces and without wars² through ³general and complete disarmament² while the system of imperialism and of the exploitation of man by man still exists. This is sheer illusion. An elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that the armed forces are the principal part of the state machine and that a so-called world without weapons and without armed forces can only be a world without states. Lenin said: Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, without betraying its world-historical mission, to throw all armaments on the scrap heap; and the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before.2 What are the facts in the world today? Is there a shadow of evidence that the imperialist countries headed by the 1 Ibid., p. 363. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³The War Program of the Proletarian Revolution², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 574. 28 United States are ready to carry out general and complete disarmament? Are they not each and all engaged in general and complete arms expansion? We have always maintained that, in order to expose and combat the imperialists¹ arms expansion and war preparations, it is necessary to put forward the proposal for general disarmament. Furthermore, it is possible to compel imperialism to accept some kind of agreement on disarmament, through the combined struggle of the socialist countries and the people of the whole world. If one regards general and complete disarmament as the fundamental road to world peace, spreads the illusion that imperialism will automatically lay down its arms and tries to liquidate the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations on the pretext of disarmament, then this is deliberately to deceive the people of the world and help the imperialists in their policies of aggression and war. In order to overcome the present ideological confusion in the international working-class movement on the question of war and peace, we consider that Lenin¹s thesis, which has been discarded by the modern revisionists, must be restored in the interest of combating the imperialist policies of aggression and war and defending world peace. The people of the world universally demand the prevention of a new world war. And it is possible to prevent a new world war. The question then is, what is the way to secure world peace? According to the Leninist viewpoint, world peace can be won only by the struggles of the people in all countries and not by begging the imperialists for it. World peace can only be effectively defended by relying on the development of the forces of the socialist camp, on the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and working people of all countries, on the liberation struggles of the oppressed nations and on the struggles of all peace-loving people and countries. 29 Such is the Leninist policy. Any policy to the contrary definitely will not lead to world peace but will only encourage the ambitions of the imperialists and increase the danger of world war. In recent years, certain persons have been spreading the argument that a single spark from a war of national liberation or from a revolutionary people¹s war will lead to a world conflagration destroying the whole of mankind. What are the facts? Contrary to what these persons say, the wars of national liberation and the revolutionary people¹s wars that have occurred since World War II have not led to world war. The victory of these revolutionary wars has directly weakened the forces of imperialism and greatly strengthened the forces which prevent the imperialists from launching a world war and which defend world peace. Do not the facts demonstrate the absurdity of this argument? 15. The complete banning and destruction of nuclear weapons is an important task in the struggle to defend world peace. We must do our utmost to this end. Nuclear weapons are unprecedentedly destructive, which is why for more than a decade now the U.S. imperialists have been pursuing their policy of nuclear blackmail in order to realize their ambition of enslaving the people of all countries and dominating the world. But when the imperialists threaten other countries with nuclear weapons, they subject the people in their own country to the same threat, thus arousing them against nuclear weapons and against the imperialist policies of aggression and war. At the same time, in their vain hope of destroying their opponents with nuclear weapons, the imperialists are in fact subjecting themselves to the danger of being destroyed. The possibility of banning nuclear weapons does indeed exist. However, if the imperialists are forced to accept an agreement to ban nuclear weapons, it decidedly will not be because of their ³love for humanity² but because of the pres 30 sure of the people of all countries and for the sake of their own vital interests. In contrast to the imperialists, socialist countries rely upon the righteous strength of the people and on their own correct policies, and have no need whatever to gamble with nuclear weapons in the world arena. Socialist countries have nuclear weapons solely in order to defend themselves and to prevent imperialism from launching a nuclear war. In the view of Marxist-Leninists, the people are the makers of history. In the present, as in the past, man is the decisive factor. Marxist-Leninists attach importance to the role of technological change, but it is wrong to belittle the role of man and exaggerate the role of technology. The emergence of nuclear weapons can neither arrest the progress of human history nor save the imperialist system from its doom, any more than the emergence of new techniques could save the old systems from their doom in the past. The emergence of nuclear weapons does not and cannot resolve the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world, does not and cannot alter the law of class struggle, and does not and cannot change the nature of imperialism and reaction. It cannot, therefore, be said that with the emergence of nuclear weapons the possibility and the necessity of social and national revolutions have disappeared, or the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, and especially the theories of proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and of war and peace, have become outmoded and changed into stale ³dogmas². 16. It was Lenin who advanced the thesis that it is possible for the socialist countries to practise peaceful coexistence with the capitalist countries. It is well known that after the great Soviet people had repulsed foreign armed intervention the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government, led first by Lenin and then by Stalin, consistently 31 pursued the policy of peaceful coexistence and that they were forced to wage a war of self-defence only when attacked by the German imperialists. Since its founding, the People¹s Republic of China too has consistently pursued the policy of peaceful coexistence with countries having different social systems, and it is China which initiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. However, a few years ago certain persons suddenly claimed Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence as their own ³great discovery². They maintain that they have a monopoly on the interpretation of this policy. They treat ³peaceful coexistence² as if it were an all-inclusive, mystical book from heaven and attribute to it every success the people of the world achieve by struggle. What is more, they label all who disagree with their distortions of Lenin¹s views as opponents of peaceful coexistence, as people completely ignorant of Lenin and Leninism, and as heretics deserving to be burnt at the stake. How can the Chinese Communists agree with this view and practice? They cannot, it is impossible. Lenin¹s principle of peaceful coexistence is very clear and readily comprehensible by ordinary people. Peaceful coexistence designates a relationship between countries with different social systems, and must not be interpreted as one pleases. It should never be extended to apply to the relations between oppressed and oppressor nations, between oppressed and oppressor countries or between oppressed and oppressor classes, and never be described as the main content of the transition from capitalism to socialism, still less should it be asserted that peaceful coexistence is mankind¹s road to socialism. The reason is that it is one thing to practise peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. It is absolutely impermissible and impossible for countries practising peaceful coexistence to touch even a hair of each other¹s social system. The class struggle, the struggle for national liberation and the transition from capitalism to socialism in various countries are quite another thing. They are 32 all bitter, life-and-death revolutionary struggles which aim at changing the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot replace the revolutionary struggles of the people. The transition from capitalism to socialism in any country can only be brought about through the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country. In the application of the policy of peaceful coexistence, struggles between the socialist and imperialist countries are unavoidable in the political, economic and ideological spheres, and it is absolutely impossible to have ³all-round co-operation². It is necessary for the socialist countries to engage in negotiations of one kind or another with the imperialist countries. It is possible to reach certain agreements through negotiation by relying on the correct policies of the socialist countries and on the pressure of the people of all countries. But necessary compromises between the socialist countries and the imperialist countries do not require the oppressed peoples and nations to follow suit and compromise with imperialism and its lackeys. No one should ever demand in the name of peaceful coexistence that the oppressed peoples and nations should give up their revolutionary struggles. The application of the policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries is advantageous for achieving a peaceful international environment for socialist construction, for exposing the imperialist policies of aggression and war and for isolating the imperialist forces of aggression and war. But if the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries is confined to peaceful coexistence, then it is impossible to handle correctly either the relations between socialist countries or those between the socialist countries and the oppressed peoples and nations. Therefore it is wrong to make peaceful coexistence the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries. In our view, the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries should have the following content: 33 to develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and cooperation among the countries in the socialist camp in accordance with the principle of proletarian internationalism; to strive for peaceful coexistence on the basis of the Five Principles with countries having different social systems and oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war; and, to support and assist the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations. These three aspects are interrelated and indivisible, and not a single one can be omitted. 17. For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes power, class struggle continues as an objective law independent of man¹s will, differing only in form from what it was before the taking of power. After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number of times that: a. The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the ³paradise² they have been deprived of. b. New elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the petty-bourgeois atmosphere. c. Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the working class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence and the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere of the petty bourgeoisie. d. The external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist country are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists¹ threat of armed intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish peaceful disintegration. Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin¹s. 34 For decades or even longer periods after socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization, it will be impossible to say that any socialist country will be free from those elements which Lenin repeatedly denounced, such as bourgeois hangers-on, parasites, speculators, swindlers, idlers, hooligans and embezzlers of state funds; or to say that a socialist country will no longer need to perform or be able to relinquish the task laid down by Lenin of conquering ³this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism². In a socialist country, it takes a very long historical period gradually to settle the question of who will win ‹ socialism or capitalism. The struggle between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism runs through this whole historical period. This struggle rises and falls in a wave-like manner, at times becoming very fierce, and the forms of the struggle are many and varied. The 1957 Declaration rightly states that ³the conquest of power by the working class is only the beginning of the revolution, not its conclusion². To deny the existence of class struggle in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the necessity of thoroughly completing the socialist revolution on the economic, political and ideological fronts is wrong, does not correspond to objective reality and violates Marxism-Leninism. 18. Both Marx and Lenin maintained that the entire period before the advent of the higher stage of communist society is the period of transition from capitalism to communism, the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say, the proletarian state, goes through the dialectical process of establishment, consolidation, strengthening and withering away. In the ³Critique of the Gotha Programme², Marx posed the question as follows: 35 Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.1 Lenin frequently emphasized Marx¹s great theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat and analysed the development of this theory, particularly in his outstanding work, ³The State and Revolution², where he wrote: . . . the transition from capitalist society ‹ which is developing towards communism ‹ to a communist society is impossible without a ³political transition period², and the state in this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.2 He further said: The essence of Marx¹s teaching on the state has been mastered only by those who understand that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from ³classless society², from communism.3 As slated above, the fundamental thesis of Marx and Lenin is that the dictatorship of the proletariat will inevitably continue for the entire historical period of the transition from capitalism to communism, that is, for the entire period up to the abolition of all class differences and the entry into a classless society, the higher stage of communist society. What will happen if it is announced, halfway through, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary? 1 Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1955, Vol. II, pp. 32-33. 2 V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 289. 3 Ibid., p. 234. 36 Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Does this not license the development of ³this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism has inherited from capitalism²? In other words, this would lead to extremely grave consequences and make any transition to communism out of the question. Can there be a ³state of the whole people²? Is it possible to replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a ³state of the whole people²? This is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular country but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class state. So long as the state remains a state, it must bear a class character; so long as the state exists, it cannot be a state of the ³whole people². As soon as society becomes classless, there will no longer be a state. Then what sort of thing would a ³state of the whole people² be? Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism can understand that the so-called ³state of the whole people² is nothing new. Representative bourgeois figures have always called the bourgeois state a ³state of all the people², or a ³state in which power belongs to all the people². Certain persons may say that their society is already one without classes. We answer: No, there are classes and class struggles in all socialist countries without exception. Since remnants of the old exploiting classes who are trying to stage a comeback still exist there, since new capitalist elements are constantly being generated there, and since there are still parasites, speculators, idlers, hooligans, embezzlers of state funds, etc., how can it be said that classes or class 37 struggles no longer exist? How can it be said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary? Marxism-Leninism tells us that in addition to the suppression of the hostile classes, the historical tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the course of building socialism necessarily include the correct handling of relations between the working class and peasantry, the consolidation of their political and economic alliance and the creation of conditions for the gradual elimination of the class difference between worker and peasant. When we look at the economic base of any socialist society, we find that the difference between ownership by the whole people and collective ownership exists in all socialist countries without exception, and that there is individual ownership too. Ownership by the whole people and collective ownership are two kinds of ownership and two kinds of relations of production in socialist society. The workers in enterprises owned by the whole people and the peasants on farms owned collectively belong to two different categories of labourers in socialist society. Therefore, the class difference between worker and peasant exists in all socialist countries without exception. This difference will not disappear until the transition to the higher stage of communism is achieved. In their present level of economic development all socialist countries are still far, far removed from the higher stage of communism in which ³from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs² is put into practice. Therefore, it will take a long, long time to eliminate the class difference between worker and peasant. And until this difference is eliminated, it is impossible to say that society is classless or that there is no longer any need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. In calling a socialist state the ³state of the whole people² is one trying to replace the Marxist-Leninist theory of the state by the bourgeois theory of the state? Is one trying to replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a state of a different character? 38 If that is the case, it is nothing but a great historical retrogression. The degeneration of the social system in Yugoslavia is a grave lesson. 19. Leninism holds that the proletarian party must exist together with the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialist countries. The party of the proletariat is indispensable for the entire historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The reason is that the dictatorship of the proletariat has to struggle against the enemies of the proletariat and of the people, remould the peasants and other small producers, constantly consolidate the proletarian ranks, build socialism and effect the transition to communism; none of these things can be done without the leadership of the party of the proletariat. Can there be a ³party of the entire people²? Is it possible to replace the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat by a ³party of the entire people²? This, too, is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular Party, but a fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class political party. All political parties have a class character. Party spirit is the concentrated expression of class character. The party of the proletariat is the only party able to represent the interests of the whole people. It can do so precisely because it represents the interests of the proletariat, whose ideas and will it concentrates. It can lead the whole people because the proletariat can finally emancipate itself only with the emancipation of all mankind, because the very nature of the proletariat enables its party to approach problems in terms of its present and future interests, because the party is boundlessly loyal to the people and has the spirit of self-sacrifice; hence its democratic centralism and iron discipline. Without such a party, it is impossible to maintain the 39 dictatorship of the proletariat and to represent the interests of the whole people. What will happen if it is announced halfway before entering the higher stage of communist society that the party of the proletariat has become a ³party of the entire people² and if its proletarian class character is repudiated? Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the party of the proletariat? Does this not disarm the proletariat and all the working people, organizationally and ideologically, and is it not tantamount to helping restore capitalism? Is it not ³going south by driving the chariot north² to talk about any transition to communist society in such circumstances? 20. Over the past few years, certain persons have violated Lenin¹s integral teachings about the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses, and raised the issue of ³combating the cult of the individual²; this is erroneous and harmful. The theory propounded by Lenin is as follows: a. The masses are divided into classes. b. Classes are usually led by political parties. c. Political parties, as a general rule, are directed by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions and are called leaders. Lenin said, ³All this is elementary.² The party of the proletariat is the headquarters of the proletariat in revolution and struggle. Every proletarian party must practise centralism based on democracy and establish a strong Marxist-Leninist leadership before it can become an organized and battle-worthy vanguard. To raise the question of ³combating the cult of the individual² is actually to counterpose the leaders to the masses, undermine the party¹s 40 unified leadership which is based on democratic centralism, dissipate its fighting strength and disintegrate its ranks. Lenin criticized the erroneous views which counterpose the leaders to the masses. He called them ³ridiculously absurd and stupid². The Communist Party of China has always disapproved of exaggerating the role of the individual, has advocated and persistently practised democratic centralism within the Party and advocated the linking of the leadership with the masses, maintaining that correct leadership must know how to concentrate the views of the masses. While loudly combating the so-called ³cult of the individual², certain persons are in reality doing their best to defame the proletarian party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the same time, they are enormously exaggerating the role of certain individuals, shifting all errors onto others and claiming all credit for themselves. What is more serious is that, under the pretext of ³combating the cult of the individual², certain persons are crudely interfering in the internal affairs of other fraternal Parties and fraternal countries and forcing other fraternal Parties to change their leadership in order to impose their own wrong line on these Parties. What is all this if not great-power chauvinism, sectarianism and splittism? What is all this if not subversion? It is high time to propagate seriously and comprehensively Lenin¹s integral teachings on the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses. 21. Relations between socialist countries are international relations of a new type. Relations between socialist countries, whether large or small, and whether more developed or less developed economically, must be based on the principles of complete equality, respect for territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, and non-interference in each other¹s internal affairs, and must also be based on the principles of 41 mutual support and mutual assistance in accordance with proletarian internationalism. Every socialist country must rely mainly on itself for its construction. In accordance with its own concrete conditions, every socialist country must rely first of all on the diligent labour and talents of its own people, utilize all its available resources fully and in a planned way, and bring all its potential into play in socialist construction. Only thus can it build socialism effectively and develop its economy speedily. This is the only way for each socialist country to strengthen the might of the entire socialist camp and enhance its capacity to assist the revolutionary cause of the international proletariat. Therefore, to observe the principle of mainly relying on oneself in construction is to apply proletarian internationalism concretely. If, proceeding only from its own partial interests, any socialist country unilaterally demands that other fraternal countries submit to its needs, and uses the pretext of opposing what they call ³going it alone² and ³nationalism² to prevent other fraternal countries from applying the principle of relying mainly on their own efforts in their construction and from developing their economies on the basis of independence, or even goes to the length of putting economic pressure on other fraternal countries ‹ then these are pure manifestations of national egoism. It is absolutely necessary for socialist countries to practise mutual economic assistance and co-operation and exchange. Such economic co-operation must be based on the principles of complete equality, mutual benefit and comradely mutual assistance. It would be great-power chauvinism to deny these basic principles and, in the name of ³international division of labour² or ³specialization², to impose one¹s own will on others, infringe on the independence and sovereignty of fraternal countries or harm the interests of their people. 42 In relations among socialist countries it would be preposterous to follow the practice of gaining profit for oneself at the expense of others, a practice characteristic of relations among capitalist countries, or go so far as to take the ³economic integration² and the ³common market², which monopoly capitalist groups have instituted for the purpose of seizing markets and grabbing profits, as examples which socialist countries ought to follow in their economic co-operation and mutual assistance. 22. The 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement lay down the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties. These are the principle of solidarity, the principle of mutual support and mutual assistance, the principle of independence and equality and the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation ‹ all on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. We note that in its letter of March 30 the Central Committee of the CPSU says that there are no ³higher-ranking² and ³subordinate² Parties in the communist movement, that all Communist Parties are independent and equal, and that they should all build their relations on the basis of proletarian internationalism and mutual assistance. It is a fine quality of Communists that their deeds are consistent with their words. The only correct way to safeguard and strengthen unity among the fraternal Parties is genuinely to adhere to, and not to violate, the principle of proletarian internationalism and genuinely to observe, and not to undermine, the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties ‹ and to do so, not only in words but, much more important, in deeds. If the principle of independence and equality is accepted in relations among fraternal Parties, then it is impermissible for any Party to place itself above others, to interfere in their internal affairs, and to adopt patriarchal ways in relations with them. 43 If it is accepted that there are no ³superiors² and ³subordinates² in relations among fraternal Parties, then it is impermissible to impose the programme, resolutions and line of one¹s own Party on other fraternal Parties as the ³common programme² of the international communist movement. If the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation is accepted in relations among fraternal Parties, then one should not emphasize ³who is in the majority² or ³who is in the minority² and bank on a so-called majority in order to force through one¹s own erroneous line and carry out sectarian and splitting policies. If it is agreed that differences between fraternal Parties should be settled through inter-Party consultation, then other fraternal Parties should not be attacked publicly and by name at one¹s own congress or at other Party congresses, in speeches by Party leaders, resolutions, statements, etc.; and still less should the ideological differences among fraternal Parties be extended into the sphere of state relations. We hold that in the present circumstances, when there are differences in the international communist movement, it is particularly important to stress strict adherence to the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid down in the Declaration and the Statement. In the sphere of relations among fraternal Parties and countries, the question of Soviet-Albanian relations is an outstanding one at present. Here the question is what is the correct way to treat a fraternal Party and country and whether the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries stipulated in the Declaration and the Statement are to be adhered to. The correct solution of this question is an important matter of principle in safeguarding the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement. How to treat the Marxist-Leninist fraternal Albanian Party of Labour is one question. How to treat the Yugoslav revisionist clique of traitors to Marxism-Leninism is quite another 44 question. These two essentially different questions must on no account be placed on a par. Your letter says that you ³do not relinquish the hope that the relations between the CPSU and the Albanian Party of Labour may be improved², but at the same time you continue to attack the Albanian comrades for what you call ³splitting activities². Clearly this is self-contradictory and in no way contributes to resolving the problem of Soviet-Albanian relations. Who is it that has taken splitting actions in Soviet-Albanian relations? Who is it that has extended the ideological differences between the Soviet and Albanian Parties to state relations? Who is it that has brought the divergences between the Soviet and Albanian Parties and between the two countries into the open before the enemy? Who is it that has openly called for a change in the Albanian Party and state leadership? All this is plain and clear to the whole world. Is it possible that the leading comrades of the CPSU do not really feel their responsibility for the fact that Soviet- Albanian relations have so seriously deteriorated? We once again express our sincere hope that the leading comrades of the CPSU will observe the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries and take the initiative in seeking an effective way to improve Soviet- Albanian relations. In short, the question of how to handle relations with fraternal Parties and countries must be taken seriously. Strict adherence to the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries is the only way forcefully to rebuff slanders such as those spread by the imperialists and reactionaries about the ³hand of Moscow². Proletarian internationalism is demanded of all Parties without exception, whether large or small, and whether in power or not. However, the larger Parties and the Parties in power bear a particularly heavy responsibility in this respect. 45 The series of distressing developments which have occurred in the socialist camp in the past period have harmed the interests not only of the fraternal Parties concerned but also of the masses of the people in their countries. This convincingly demonstrates that the larger countries and Parties need to keep in mind Lenin¹s behest never to commit the error of great-power chauvinism. The comrades of the CPSU state in their letter that ³the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has never taken and will never take a single step that could sow hostility among the peoples of our country towards the fraternal Chinese people or other peoples². Here we do not desire to go back and enumerate the many unpleasant events that have occurred in the past, and we only wish that the comrades of the CPSU will strictly abide by this statement in their future actions. During the past few years, our Party members and our people have exercised the greatest restraint in the face of a series of grave incidents which were in violation of the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries and despite the many difficulties and losses which have been imposed on us. The spirit of proletarian internationalism of the Chinese Communists and the Chinese people has stood a severe test. The Communist Party of China is unswervingly loyal to proletarian internationalism, upholds and defends the principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries, and safeguards and strengthens the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement. 23. In order to carry out the common programme of the international communist movement unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties, an uncompromising struggle must be waged against all forms of opportunism, which is a deviation from Marxism-Leninism. The Declaration and the Statement point out that revisionism, or, in other words, Right opportunism, is the main danger 46 in the international communist movement. Yugoslav revisionism typifies modern revisionism. The Statement points out particularly: The Communist Parties have unanimously condemned the Yugoslav variety of international opportunism, a variety of modern revisionist ³theories² in concentrated form. It goes on to say: After betraying Marxism-Leninism, which they termed obsolete, the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia opposed their anti-Leninist revisionist programme to the Declaration of 1957; they set the League of Communists of Yugoslavia against the international communist movement as a whole, severed their country from the socialist camp, made it dependent on so-called ³aid² from U.S. and other imperialists. . . . The Statement says further: The Yugoslav revisionists carry on subversive work against the socialist camp and the world communist movement. Under the pretext of an extra-bloc policy, they engage in activities which prejudice the unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries. Therefore, it draws the following conclusion: Further exposure of the leaders of Yugoslav revisionists and active struggle to safeguard the communist movement and the working-class movement from the anti-Leninist ideas of the Yugoslav revisionists, remains an essential task of the Marxist-Leninist Parties. The question raised here is an important one of principle for the international communist movement. Only recently the Tito clique have publicly stated that they are persisting in their revisionist programme and anti-Marxist- Leninist stand in opposition to the Declaration and the Statement. 47 U.S. imperialism and its NATO partners have spent several thousand millions of U.S. dollars nursing the Tito clique for a long time. Cloaked as ³Marxist-Leninists² and flaunting the banner of a ³socialist country², the Tito clique has been undermining the international communist movement and the revolutionary cause of the people of the world, serving as a special detachment of U.S. imperialism. It is completely groundless and out of keeping with the facts to assert that Yugoslavia is showing ³definite positive tendencies², that it is a ³socialist country², and that the Tito clique is an ³anti-imperialist force². Certain persons are now attempting to introduce the Yugoslav revisionist clique into the socialist community and the international communist ranks. This is openly to tear up the agreement unanimously reached at the 1960 meeting of the fraternal Parties and is absolutely impermissible. Over the past few years, the revisionist trend flooding the international working-class movement and the many experiences and lessons of the international communist movement have fully confirmed the correctness of the conclusion in the Declaration and the Statement that revisionism is the main danger in the international communist movement at present. However, certain persons are openly saying that dogmatism and not revisionism is the main danger, or that dogmatism is every bit as dangerous as revisionism, etc. What sort of principle underlies all this? Firm Marxist-Leninists and genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties must put principles first. They must not barter away principles, approving one thing today and another tomorrow, advocating one thing today and another tomorrow. Together with all Marxist-Leninists, the Chinese Communists will continue to wage an uncompromising struggle against modern revisionism in order to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the principled stand of the Declaration and the Statement. 48 While combating revisionism, which is the main danger in the international communist movement, Communists must also combat dogmatism. As stated in the 1957 Declaration, proletarian parties ³should firmly adhere to the principle of combining . . . universal Marxist-Leninist truth with the specific practice of revolution and construction in their countries². That is to say: On the one hand, it is necessary at all times to adhere to the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. Failure to do so will lead to Right opportunist or revisionist errors. On the other hand, it is always necessary to proceed from reality, maintain close contact with the masses, constantly sum up the experience of mass struggles, and independently work out and apply policies and tactics suited to the conditions of one¹s own country. Errors of dogmatism will be committed if one fails to do so, if one mechanically copies the policies and tactics of another Communist Party, submits blindly to the will of others or accepts without analysis the programme and resolutions of another Communist Party as one¹s own line. Some people are now violating this basic principle, which was long ago affirmed in the Declaration. On the pretext of ³creatively developing Marxism-Leninism², they cast aside the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, they describe as ³universal Marxist-Leninist truths² their own prescriptions which are based on nothing but subjective conjecture and are divorced from reality and from the masses, and they force others to accept these prescriptions unconditionally. That is why many grave phenomena have come to pass in the international communist movement. 24. A most important lesson from the experience of the international communist movement is that the development and victory of a revolution depend on the existence of a revolutionary proletarian party. There must be a revolutionary party. 49 There must be a revolutionary party built according to the revolutionary theory and revolutionary style of Marxism- Leninism. There must be a revolutionary party able to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in its own country. There must be a revolutionary party able to link the leadership closely with the broad masses of the people. There must be a revolutionary party that perseveres in the truth, corrects its errors and knows how to conduct criticism and self-criticism. Only such a revolutionary party can lead the proletariat and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and its lackeys, winning a thorough victory in the national democratic revolution and winning the socialist revolution. If a party is not a proletarian revolutionary party but a bourgeois reformist party; If it is not a Marxist-Leninist party but as revisionist party; If it is not a vanguard party of the proletariat but a party tailing after the bourgeoisie; If it is not a party representing the interests of the proletariat and all the working people but a party representing the interests of the labour aristocracy; If it is not an internationalist party but a nationalist party; If it is not a party that can use its brains to think for itself and acquire an accurate knowledge of the trends of the different classes in its own country through serious investigation and study, and knows how to apply the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism and integrate it with the concrete practice of its own country, but instead is a party that parrots the words of others, copies foreign experience without analysis, runs hither and thither in response to the baton of certain persons abroad, and has become a hodgepodge of revisionism, dogmatism and everything but Marxists-Leninist principle; Then such a party is absolutely inculpable of leading the proletariat and the masses in revolutionary struggle, absolutely 50 incapable of winning the revolution and absolutely incapable of fulfilling the great historical mission of the proletariat. This is a question all Marxist-Leninists, all class-conscious workers and all progressive people everywhere need to ponder deeply. 25. It is the duty of Marxist-Leninists to distinguish between truth and falsehood with respect to the differences that have arisen in the international communist movement. In the common interest of the unity for struggle against the enemy, we have always advocated solving problems through inter-Party consultations and opposed bringing differences into the open before the enemy. As the comrades of the CPSU know, the public polemics in the international communist movement have been provoked by certain fraternal Party leaders and forced on us. Since a public debate has been provoked, it ought to be conducted on the basis of equality among fraternal Parties and of democracy, and by presenting the facts and reasoning things out. Since certain Party leaders have publicly attacked other fraternal Parties and provoked a public debate, it is our opinion that they have no reason or right to forbid the fraternal Parties attacked to make public replies. Since certain Party leaders have published innumerable articles attacking other fraternal Parties, why do they not publish in their own press the articles those Parties have written, in reply? Latterly, the Communist Party of China has been subjected to preposterous attacks. The attackers have raised a great hue and cry and, disregarding the facts, have fabricated many charges against us. We have published these articles and speeches attacking us in our own press. We have also published in full in our press the Soviet leader¹s report at the meeting of the Supreme Soviet on December 12, 1962, the Pravda Editorial Board¹s article of January 7, 51 1963, the speech of the head of the CPSU delegation at the Sixth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany on January 16, 1963 and the Pravda Editorial Board¹s article of February 10, 1963. We have also published the full text of the two letters from the Central Committee of the CPSU dated February 21 and March 30, 1963. We have replied to some of the articles and speeches in which fraternal Parties have attacked us, but have not yet replied to others. For example, we have not directly replied to the many articles and speeches of the comrades of the CPSU. Between December 15, 1962 and March 8, 1963, we wrote seven articles in reply to our attackers. These articles are entitled: ³Workers of All Countries, Unite, Oppose Our Common Enemy!², ³The Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us², ³Leninism and Modern Revisionism², ³Let Us Unite on the Basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement², ³Whence the Differences? ‹ A Reply to Thorez and Other Comrades², ³More on the Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us ‹ Some Important Problems of Leninism in the Contemporary World², ³A Comment on the Statement of the Communist Party of the U.S.A.². Presumably, you are referring to these articles when towards the end of your letter of March 30 you accuse the Chinese press of making ³groundless attacks² on the CPSU. It is turning things upside down to describe articles replying to our attackers as ³attacks². Since you describe our articles as ³groundless² and as so very bad, why do you not publish all seven of these ³groundless attacks², in the same way as we have published your 52 articles, and let all the Soviet comrades and Soviet people think for themselves and judge who is right and who wrong? You are of course entitled to make a point-by-point refutation of these articles you consider ³groundless attacks². Although you call our articles ³groundless² and our arguments wrong, you do not tell the Soviet people what our arguments actually are. This practice can hardly be described as showing a serious attitude towards the discussion of problems by fraternal Parties, towards the truth or towards the masses. We hope that the public debate among fraternal Parties can be stopped. This is a problem that has to be dealt with in accordance with the principles of independence, of equality and of reaching unanimity through consultation among fraternal Parties. In the international communist movement, no one has the right to launch attacks whenever he wants, or to order the ³ending of open polemics² whenever he wants to prevent the other side from replying. It is known to the comrades of the CPSU that, in order to create a favourable atmosphere for convening the meeting of the fraternal Parties, we have decided temporarily to suspend, as from March 9, 1963, public replies to the public attacks directed by name against us by comrades of fraternal Parties. We reserve the right of public reply. In our letter of March 9, we said that on the question of suspending public debate ³it is necessary that our two Parties and the fraternal Parties concerned should have some discussion and reach an agreement that is fair and acceptable to all². * * * The foregoing are our views regarding the general line of the international communist movement and some related questions of principle. We hope, as we indicated at the beginning of this letter, that the frank presentation of our views will be conducive to mutual understanding. Of course, comrades may agree or disagree with these views. But in our opinion, the questions we discuss here are the crucial 53 questions calling for attention and solution by the international communist movement. We hope that all these questions and also those raised in your letter will be fully discussed in the talks between our two Parties and at the meeting of representatives of all the fraternal Parties. In addition, there are other questions of common concern, such as the criticism of Stalin and some important matters of principle regarding the international communist movement which were raised at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU, and we hope that on these questions, too, there will be a frank exchange of opinion in the talks. With regard to the talks between our two Parties, in our letter of March 9 we proposed that Comrade Khrushchov come to Peking; if this was not convenient, we proposed that another responsible comrade of the Central Committee of the CPSU lead a delegation to Peking or that we send a delegation to Moscow. Since you have stated in your letter of March 30 that Comrade Khrushchov cannot come to China, and since you have not expressed a desire to send a delegation to China, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has decided to send a delegation to Moscow. In your letter of March 30, you invited Comrade Mao Tsetung to visit the Soviet Union. As early as February 23, Comrade Mao Tse-tung in his conversation with the Soviet Ambassador to China clearly stated the reason why he was not prepared to visit the Soviet Union at the present time. You were well aware of this. When a responsible comrade of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China received the Soviet Ambassador to China on May 9, he informed you that we would send a delegation to Moscow in the middle of June. Later, in compliance with the request of the Central Committee of the CPSU, we agreed to postpone the talks between our two Parties to July 5. We sincerely hope that the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties will yield positive results and contribute to the preparations for convening the meeting of all Communist and Workers¹ Parties. It is now more than ever necessary for all Communists to unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and of the Declaration and the Statement unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties. Together with Marxist-Leninist Parties and revolutionary people the world over, the Communist Party of China will continue its unremitting efforts to uphold the interests of the socialist camp and the international communist movement, the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed peoples and nations, and the struggle against imperialism and for world peace. We hope that events which grieve those near and dear to us and only gladden the enemy will not recur in the international communist movement in the future. The Chinese Communists firmly believe that the Marxist- Leninists, the proletariat and the revolutionary people everywhere will unite more closely, overcome all difficulties and obstacles and win still greater victories in the struggle against imperialism and for world peace, and in the fight for the revolutionary cause of the people of the world and the cause of international communism. Workers of all countries, unite! Workers and oppressed peoples and nations of the world, unite! Oppose our common enemy! With communist greetings, The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CPSU AND OURSELVES Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) (September 6, 1963) 57 T is more than a month since the Central Committee of I the Communist Party of the Soviet Union published its Open Letter of July 14 to Party organizations and all Communists in the Soviet Union. This Open Letter, and the steps taken by the leadership of the CPSU since its publication, have pushed Sino-Soviet relations to the brink of a split and have carried the differences in the international communist movement to a new stage of unprecedented gravity. Now Moscow, Washington, New Delhi and Belgrade are joined in a love feast and the Soviet press is running an endless assortment of fantastic stories and theories attacking China. The leadership of the CPSU has allied itself with U.S. imperialism, the Indian reactionaries and the renegade Tito clique against socialist China and against all Marxist- Leninist Parties, in open betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, in brazen repudiation of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement and in flagrant violation of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance. The present differences within the international communist movement and between the Chinese and Soviet Parties involve a whole series of important questions of principle. In its letter of June 14 to the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Central Committee of the CPC systematically and comprehensively discussed the essence of these differences. It pointed out that, in the last analysis, the present differences within the international communist movement and between the Chinese and Soviet Parties involve the questions of whether or not to accept the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement, whether or not to accept Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, whether or not there is need for revolution, whether or 58 not imperialism is to be opposed, and whether or not the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement is desired. How have the differences in the international communist movement and between the leadership of the CPSU and ourselves arisen? And how have they grown to their present serious dimensions? Everybody is concerned about these questions. In our article ³Whence the Differences?²1 we dealt with the origin and growth of the differences in the international communist movement in general outline. We deliberately refrained from giving certain facts concerning this question, and particularly certain important facts involving the leadership of the CPSU, and left the leadership of the CPSU some leeway, though we were ready to provide a fuller picture and to thrash out the rights and wrongs when necessary. Now that the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU has told many lies about the origin and development of the differences and completely distorted the facts, it has become necessary for us to set forth certain facts in order to explain the matter in greater detail. In its Open Letter, the Central Committee of the CPSU dares not state the truth to its Party members and the masses of the people. Instead of being open and above-board and respecting the facts as Marxist-Leninists should, the leadership of the CPSU resorts to the customary practice of bourgeois politicians, distorting the facts and confusing truth and falsehood in its determined attempt to shift the blame for the emergence and growth of the differences on to the Chinese Communist Party. Lenin once said, ³Honesty in politics is the result of strength; hypocrisy is the result of weakness.²2 Honesty and respect for the facts mark the attitude of Marxist-Leninists. 1 Renmin Ribao editorial, February 27, 1963. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³Polemical Notes², Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XVII, p. 166. 59 Only those who have degenerated politically depend on telling lies for a living. The facts are most eloquent. Facts are the best witness. Let us look at the facts. THE DIFFERENCES BEGAN WITH THE 20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU There is a saying, ³It takes more than one cold day for the river to freeze three feet deep.² The present differences in the international communist movement did not, of course, begin just today. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU spreads the notion that the differences in the international communist movement were started by ³Long Live Leninism!² 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 of differences of principle in the international communist movement began more than seven years ago. To be specific, it began with the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. The 20th Congress of the CPSU was the first step along the road of revisionism taken by the leadership of the CPSU. From the 20th Congress to the present, the revisionist line of the leadership of the CPSU has gone through the process of emergence, formation, growth and systematization. And by a gradual process, too, people have come to understand more and more deeply the revisionist line of the CPSU leadership. From the very outset we held that a number of views advanced at the 20th Congress concerning the contemporary international struggle and the international communist movement were wrong, were violations of Marxism-Leninism. In 60 particular, the complete negation of Stalin on the pretext of ³combating the personality cult² and the thesis of peaceful transition to socialism by ³the parliamentary road² are gross errors of principle. The criticism of Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU was wrong both in principle and in method. Stalin¹s life was that of a great Marxist-Leninist, a great proletarian revolutionary. For thirty years after Lenin¹s death, Stalin was the foremost leader of the CPSU and the Soviet Government, as well as the recognized leader of the international communist movement and the standard-bearer of the world revolution. During his lifetime, Stalin made some serious mistakes, but compared to his great and meritorious deeds his mistakes are only secondary. Stalin rendered great services to the development of the Soviet Union and the international communist movement. In the article ³On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat² published in April 1956, we said: After Lenin¹s death Stalin creatively applied and developed Marxism-Leninism as the chief leader of the Party and the state. Stalin expressed the will and aspirations of the people, and proved himself an outstanding Marxist- Leninist fighter, in the struggle in defence of the legacy of Leninism against its enemies ‹ the Trotskyites, Zinovievites and other bourgeois agents. Stalin won the support of the Soviet people and played an important role in history primarily because, together with the other leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he defended Lenin¹s line on the industrialization of the Soviet Union and the collectivization of agriculture. By pursuing this line, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union brought about the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union and created the conditions for the victory of the Soviet Union in the war against Hitler; these victories of the Soviet people accorded with the interests of the working class of the 61 world and all progressive mankind. It was therefore natural that the name of Stalin was greatly honoured throughout the world.1 It was necessary to criticize Stalin¹s mistakes. But in his secret report to the 20th Congress, Comrade Khrushchov completely negated Stalin, and in doing so defamed the dictatorship of the proletariat, defamed the socialist system, the great CPSU, the great Soviet Union and the international communist movement. Far from using a revolutionary proletarian party¹s method of criticism and self-criticism for the purpose of making an earnest and serious analysis and summation of the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he treated Stalin as an enemy and shifted the blame for all mistakes on to Stalin alone. Khrushchov viciously and demagogically told a host of lies in his secret report, and threw around charges that Stalin had a ³persecution mania², indulged in ³brutal arbitrariness², took the path of ³mass repressions and terror², ³knew the country and agriculture only from films² and ³planned operations on a globe², that Stalin¹s leadership ³became a serious obstacle in the path of Soviet social development², and so on and so forth. He completely obliterated the meritorious deeds of Stalin who led the Soviet people in waging resolute struggle against all internal and external foes and achieving great results in socialist transformation and socialist construction, who led the Soviet people in defending and consolidating the first socialist country in the world and winning the glorious victory in the anti-fascist war, and who defended and developed Marxism-Leninism. In completely negating Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchov in effect negated the dictatorship of the proletariat and the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism which Stalin defended and developed. It was at that 1 The Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1964, p. 7. 62 Congress that Khrushchov, in his report, began the repudiation of Marxism-Leninism on a number of questions of principle. In his report to the 20th Congress, under the pretext that ³radical changes² had taken place in the world situation, Khrushchov put forward the thesis of ³peaceful transition². He said that the road of the October Revolution was ³the only correct road in those historical conditions², but that as the situation had changed, it had become possible to effect the transition from capitalism to socialism ³through the parliamentary road². In essence, this erroneous thesis is a clear revision of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the state and revolution and a clear denial of the universal significance of the road of the October Revolution. In his report, under the same pretext that ³radical changes² had taken place in the world situation, Khrushchov also questioned the continued validity of Lenin¹s teachings on imperialism and on war and peace, and in fact tampered with Lenin¹s teachings. Khrushchev pictured the U.S. Government and its head as people resisting the forces of war, and not as representatives of the imperialist forces of war. He said, ³. . . the advocates of settling outstanding issues by means of war still hold strong positions there [in the United States], and . . . they continue to exert big pressure on the President and the Administration.² He went on to say that the imperialists were beginning to admit that the positions-of-strength policy had failed and that ³symptoms of a certain sobering up are appearing² among them. It was as much as saying that it was possible for the U.S. Government and its head not to represent the interests of the U.S. monopoly capital and for them to abandon their policies of war and aggression and that they had become forces defending peace. Khrushchov declared: ³We want to be friends with the United States and to co-operate with it for peace and international security and also in the economic and cultural spheres.² 63 This wrong view later developed into the line of ³Soviet- U.S. co-operation for the settlement of world problems². Distorting Lenin¹s correct principle of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, Khrushchov declared that peaceful coexistence was the ³general line of the foreign policy² of the U.S.S.R. This amounted to excluding from the general line of foreign policy of the socialist countries their mutual assistance and co-operation as well as assistance by them to the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations, or to subordinating all this to the policy of so-called ³peaceful coexistence². The questions raised by the leadership of the CPSU at the 20th Congress, and especially the question of Stalin and of ³peaceful transition², are by no means simply internal affairs of the CPSU; they are vital issues of common interest for all fraternal Parties. Without any prior consultation with the fraternal Parties, the leadership of the CPSU drew arbitrary conclusions; it forced the fraternal Parties to accept a fait accompli and, on the pretext of ³combating the personality cult², crudely interfered in the internal affairs of fraternal Parties and countries and tried to subvert their leaderships, thus pushing its policy of sectarianism and splittism in the international communist movement. Subsequent developments show with increasing clarity that the revision and betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism by the leaders of the CPSU have grown out of the above errors. The CPC has always differed in principle in its view of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, and the leading comrades of the CPSU are well aware of this. Yet the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU asserts that the Communist Party of China previously gave the 20th Congress full support, that we ³have made a 180-degree turn² in our evaluation of the 20th Congress, and that our position is full of ³vacillation and wavering² and is ³false². 64 It is impossible for the leadership of the CPSU to shut out the heavens with one palm. Let the facts speak for themselves. On many occasions in internal discussions after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, leading comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC solemnly criticized the errors of the CPSU leadership. In April 1956, less than two months after the 20th Congress, in conversations both with Comrade Mikoyan, member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and with the Soviet Ambassador to China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung expressed our views on the question of Stalin. He emphasized that Stalin¹s ³merits outweighed his faults² and that it was necessary to ³make a concrete analysis² and ³an all-round evaluation² of Stalin. On October 23, 1956, on receiving the Soviet Ambassador to China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out, ³Stalin deserves to be criticized, but we do not agree with the method of criticism, and there are some other matters we do not agree with.² On November 30, 1956, on receiving the Soviet Ambassador to China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung again pointed out that the basic policy and line during the period when Stalin was in power were correct and that methods that are used against enemies must not be used against one¹s comrades. Both Comrade Liu Shao-chi in his conversation with leaders of the CPSU in October 1956, and Comrade Chou Enlai in his conversations on October 1, 1956 with the delegation of the CPSU to the Eighth Congress of the CPC and on January 18, 1957 with leaders of the CPSU, also expressed our views on the question of Stalin, and both criticized the errors of the leaders of the CPSU as consisting chiefly of ³total lack of an overall analysis² of Stalin, ³lack of selfcriticism² and ³failure to consult with the fraternal Parties in advance². 65 In internal discussions with comrades of the CPSU, leading comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC also stated where eve differed on the question of peaceful transition. Furthermore, in November 1957 the Central Committee of the CPC presented the Central Committee of the CPSU with a written ³Outline of Views on the Question of Peaceful Transition², comprehensively and clearly explaining the viewpoint of the CPC. In their many internal discussions with comrades of the CPSU, leading comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC also systematically set forth our views on the international situation and the strategy of the international communist movement, with direct reference to the errors of the 20th Congress of the CPSU. These are plain facts. How can the leadership of the CPSU obliterate them by bare-faced lying? Attempting to conceal these important facts, the Central Committee of the CPSU in its Open Letter quotes out of context public statements by Comrades Mao Tse-tung, Liu Shaochi and Teng Hsiao-ping to show that at one time the Chinese Communist Party completely affirmed the 20th Congress of the CPSU. This is futile. The fact is that at no time and in no place did the Chinese Communist Party completely affirm the 20th Congress of the CPSU, agree with the complete negation of Stalin or endorse the view of peaceful transition to socialism through the ³parliamentary road². Not long after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, on April 5, 1956, we published ³On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat²; then, on December 29, 1956, we published ³More on the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat². While refuting the anti- Communist slanders of the imperialists and reactionaries, these two articles made an all-round analysis of the life of Stalin, affirmed the universal significance of the road of the October Revolution, summed up the historical experience of 66 the dictatorship of the proletariat, and tactfully but unequivocally criticized the erroneous propositions of the 20th Congress. Is this not a widely known fact? Since the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Chinese Communist Party has continued to display the portrait of Stalin along with those of the other great revolutionary leaders, Marx, Engels and Lenin. Is not this, too, a widely known fact? It needs to be said, of course, that for the sake of unity against the enemy and out of consideration for the difficult position the leaders of the CPSU were in, we refrained in those days from open criticism of the errors of the 20th Congress, because the imperialists and the reactionaries of all countries were exploiting these errors and carrying on frenzied activities against the Soviet Union, against communism and against the people, and also because the leaders of the CPSU had not yet departed so far from Marxism-Leninism as they did later. We fervently hoped at the time that the leaders of the CPSU would put their errors right. Consequently, we always endeavoured to seek out positive aspects and on public occasions gave them whatever support was appropriate and necessary. Even so, by stressing positive lessons and principles in their public speeches, leading comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC explained our position with regard to the 20th Congress of the CPSU. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU asserts that in his political report to the Eighth Congress of the CPC, Comrade Liu Shao-chi completely affirmed the 20th Congress of the CPSU. But it was in this very report that Comrade Liu Shao-chi spoke on the lessons of the Chinese revolution and explained that the road of ³peaceful transition² was wrong and impracticable. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU asserts that in his report to the Eighth Congress of the CPC on the revision of the Party Constitution, Comrade Teng 67 Hsiao-ping completely affirmed the ³struggle against the personality cult² conducted at the 20th Congress. But it was in this very report that Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping discussed at some length democratic centralism in the Party and the interrelationship between leaders and masses, explained the consistent and correct style of work of our Party, and thus in effect criticized the error of the 20th Congress concerning the ³struggle against the personality cult². Is there anything wrong in the way we acted? Have we not done exactly what a Marxist-Leninist Party ought to do by persevering in principle and upholding unity? How can this consistently correct attitude of the Chinese Communist Party towards the 20th Congress be described as full of ³vacillation and wavering², as ³false² and as representing ³a 180-degree turn²? In making these charges against us in the Open Letter, perhaps the Central Committee of the CPSU thought it could deny the criticisms we made because they were known only to a few leaders of the CPSU, and that it could use falsehoods to deceive the broad masses of the CPSU membership and the Soviet people. But does this not prove its own falseness? THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE 20TH CONGRESS OF THE CPSU The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU loudly proclaims the ³splendid² and ³majestic results² of the 20th Congress of the CPSU. But history cannot be altered. People not suffering from too short a memory will recall that by its errors the 20th Congress produced not ³splendid² or ³majestic results² but a discrediting of the Soviet Union, of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of socialism and communism, and gave an opportunity to the imperialists, the reactionaries and all the 68 other enemies of communism, with extremely serious consequences for the international communist movement. After the Congress, swollen with arrogance the imperialists and reactionaries everywhere stirred up a world-wide tidal wave against the Soviet Union, against communism and against the people. The U.S. imperialists saw the all-out attack on Stalin by the leadership of the CPSU as something that was ³never so suited to our purposes²,1 they talked openly about using Khrushchov¹s secret report as a ³weapon with which to destroy the prestige and influence of the Communist movement²2 and they took the opportunity to advocate ³peaceful transformation² in the Soviet Union.3 The Titoites became most aggressive. Flaunting their reactionary slogan of ³anti-Stalinism², they wildly attacked the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system. They declared that the 20th Congress of the CPSU ³created sufficient elements² for the ³new course² which Yugoslavia had started and that ³the question now is whether this course will win or the course of Stalinism will win again².4 The Trotskyites, enemies of communism, who had been in desperate straits, feverishly resumed activity. In its Manifesto to the Workers and Peoples of the Entire World the so-called Fourth International said: Today, when the Kremlin leaders are themselves admitting the crimes of Stalin, they implicitly recognize that the indefatigable struggle carried on . . . by the world Trotskyist movement against the degeneration of the workers¹ state, was fully justified. The errors of the 20th Congress brought great ideological confusion in the international communist movement and 1 Radio talk by T. C. Streibert, Director of the U.S. Information Agency, June 11, 1956. 2 ³The Communist Crisis², New York Times editorial, June 23, 1956. 3 J. F. Dulles, Statement at the Press Conference, April 3, 1956. 4 J. B. Tito, Speech Made in Pula, November 11, 1956. 69 caused it to be deluged with revisionist ideas. Along with the imperialists, the reactionaries and the Tito clique, renegades from communism in many countries attacked Marxism- Leninism and the international communist movement. Most striking among the events which took place during this period were the incident in Soviet-Polish relations and the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary. The two events were different in character. But the leadership of the CPSU made grave errors in both. By moving up troops in an attempt to subdue the Polish comrades by armed force it committed the error of great-power chauvinism. And at the critical moment when the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries had occupied Budapest, for a time it intended to adopt a policy of capitulation and abandon socialist Hungary to counter-revolution. These errors of the leadership of the CPSU inflated the arrogance of all the enemies of communism, created serious difficulties for many fraternal Parties and caused the international communist movement great damage. In the face of this situation, the Chinese Communist Party and other fraternal Parties persevering in Marxism-Leninism firmly demanded repulsing the assaults of imperialism and reaction and safeguarding the socialist camp and the international communist movement. We insisted on the taking of all necessary measures to smash the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary and firmly opposed the abandonment of socialist Hungary. We insisted that in the handling of problems between fraternal Parties and countries correct principles should be followed so as to strengthen the unity of the socialist camp, and we firmly opposed the erroneous methods of great-power chauvinism. At the same time, we made very great efforts to safeguard the prestige of the CPSU. At that time the leaders of the CPSU accepted our suggestion and on October 30, 1956 issued the Soviet Government¹s Declaration on the Foundations of the Development and Further Strengthening of Friendship and Co-operation Be 70 tween the Soviet Union and Other Socialist Countries², in which they examined some of their own past mistakes in handling their relations with fraternal countries. On November 1, the Chinese Government issued a statement expressing support for the Soviet Government¹s declaration. All this we did in the interests of the international communist movement, and also in order to persuade the leaders of the CPSU to draw the proper lessons and correct their errors in good time and not slide farther away from Marxism- Leninism. But subsequent events showed that the leaders of the CPSU nursed rancour against us and regarded the CPC which perseveres in proletarian internationalism as the biggest obstacle to their wrong line. THE 1957 MOSCOW MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIES The 1957 Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers¹ Parties took place in Moscow after the repulse of the heavy attacks of the imperialists and the reactionaries of various countries on the international communist movement. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says that the 20th Congress of the CPSU played an ³immense part² in defining the general line of the international communist movement. The facts show the very reverse. The erroneous views of the 20th Congress on many important questions of principle were rejected and corrected by the 1957 meeting of fraternal Parties. The well-known Declaration of 1957, adopted by the Moscow Meeting, summed up the experience of the international communist movement, set forth the common fighting tasks of all the Communist Parties, affirmed the universal significance of the road of the October Revolution, outlined the common laws governing socialist revolution and socialist 71 construction and laid down the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries. The common line of the international communist movement which was thus worked out at the meeting embodies the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism and is opposed to the erroneous views deviating from Marxism-Leninism which were advanced by the 20th Congress. The principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries laid down in the Declaration are concrete expressions of the principle of proletarian internationalism and stand opposed to the great-power chauvinism and sectarianism of the leadership of the CPSU. The delegation of the CPC, which was headed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, did a great deal of work during the meeting. On the one hand, it had full consultations with the leaders of the CPSU, and where necessary and appropriate waged struggle against them, in order to help them correct their errors; on the other hand, it held repeated exchanges of views with the leaders of other fraternal Parties in order that a common document acceptable to all might be worked out. At this meeting, the chief subject of controversy between us and the delegation of the CPSU was the transition from capitalism to socialism. In their original draft of the Declaration the leadership of the CPSU insisted on the inclusion of the erroneous views of the 20th Congress on peaceful transition. The original draft said not a word about nonpeaceful transition, mentioning only peaceful transition; moreover, it described peaceful transition as ³securing a majority in parliament and transforming parliament from an instrument of the bourgeois dictatorship into an instrument of a genuine people¹s state power². In fact, it substituted the ³parliamentary road² advocated by the opportunists of the Second International for the road of the October Revolution and tampered with the basic Marxist-Leninist theory on the state and revolution. The Chinese Communist Party resolutely opposed the wrong views contained in the draft declaration submitted by 72 the leadership of the CPSU. We expressed our views on the two successive drafts put forward by the Central Committee of the CPSU and made a considerable number of major changes of principle which we presented as our own revised draft. Repeated discussions were then held between the delegations of the Chinese and Soviet Parties on the basis of our revised draft before the Joint Draft Declaration by the CPSU and the CPC was submitted to the delegations of the other fraternal Parties for their opinions. As a result of the common efforts of the delegations of the CPC and the other fraternal Parties, the meeting finally adopted the present version of the Declaration, which contains two major changes on the question of the transition from capitalism to socialism compared with the first draft put forward by the leadership of the CPSU. First, while indicating the possibility of peaceful transition, the Declaration also points to the road of non-peaceful transition and stresses that ³Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling classes never relinquish power voluntarily². Secondly, while speaking of securing ³a firm majority in parliament², the Declaration emphasizes the need to ³launch an extra-parliamentary mass struggle, smash the resistance of the reactionary forces and create the necessary conditions for peaceful realization of the socialist revolution². Despite these changes, the formulation in the Declaration on the question of the transition from capitalism to socialism was still unsatisfactory. We finally conceded the point only out of consideration for the repeatedly expressed wish of the leaders of the CPSU that the formulation should show some connection with that of the 20th Congress of the CPSU. However, we presented the Central Committee of the CPSU with an outline of our views on the question of peaceful transition in which the views of the CPC were explained comprehensively and clearly. The outline emphasizes the following: 73 ³In the present situation of the international communist movement, it is advantageous from the point of view of tactics to refer to the desire for peaceful transition. But it would be inappropriate to over-emphasize the possibility of peaceful transition.² ³They [the proletariat and the Communist Party] must be prepared at all times to repulse counter-revolutionary attacks and, at the critical juncture of the revolution when the working class is seizing state power, to overthrow the bourgeoisie by armed force if it uses armed force to suppress the peoples revolution (generally speaking, it is inevitable that the bourgeoisie will do so).² ³To obtain a majority in parliament is not the same as smashing the old state machinery (chiefly the armed forces) and establishing new state machinery (chiefly the armed forces). Unless the military-bureaucratic state machinery of the bourgeoisie is smashed, a parliamentary majority for the proletariat and its reliable allies will either be impossible . . . or undependable. . . .² (See Appendix I.) As a result of the common efforts of the delegations of the CPC and the other fraternal Parties, the 1957 Declaration also corrected the erroneous views which the CPSU leadership had put forward at the 20th Congress on such questions as imperialism and war and peace, and it added many important points on a number of questions of principle. The main additions were the thesis that U.S. imperialism is the centre of world reaction and the sworn enemy of the people, the thesis that if imperialism should unleash a world war it would doom itself to destruction, the common laws governing the socialist revolution and the building of socialism; the principle of combining the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of revolution and construction in different countries, the formulation on the importance of applying dialectical materialism in practical work, the 74 thesis that the seizure of political power by the working class is the beginning of the revolution and not its end; the thesis that it will take a fairly long time to solve the question of who will win ‹ capitalism or socialism, the thesis that the existence of bourgeois influence is an internal source of revisionism, while surrender to imperialist pressure is its external source; and so on. At the same time, the delegation of the CPC made some necessary compromises. In addition to the formulation on the question of peaceful transition, we did not agree with the reference to the 20th Congress of the CPSU and suggested changes. But out of consideration for the difficult position of the leadership of the CPSU at the time, we did not insist on the changes. Who could have imagined that these concessions which we made out of consideration for the larger interest would later be used by the leadership of the CPSU as an excuse for aggravating differences and creating a split in the international communist movement? The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU constantly equates the resolution of the 20th Congress of the CPSU with the Declaration of 1957 in its attempt to substitute the wrong line of the 20th Congress for the common line of the international communist movement. We pointed out long ago and now deem it necessary to reiterate, that in accordance with the principle that all fraternal Parties are independent and equal, no one is entitled to demand of fraternal Parties that they accept the resolutions of the Congress of one Party or for that matter anything else; and the resolutions of a Party Congress, whatever the Party, cannot be regarded as the common line of the international communist movement and have no binding force on other fraternal Parties. Only Marxism-Leninism and the documents unanimously agreed upon constitute the common code binding us and all fraternal Parties. 75 THE GROWTH OF THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIP After the Moscow Meeting of 1957 with its unanimously agreed Declaration, we hoped that the leadership of the CPSU would follow the line laid down in the Declaration and correct its errors. We regret to say that contrary to the expectations we and all other Marxist-Leninist fraternal Parties entertained, the leadership of the CPSU perpetrated increasingly serious violations of the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries, and departed farther and farther from the path of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The revisionism of the leadership of the CPSU grew. This development aggravated the differences in the international communist movement and carried them to a new stage. In complete disregard of the common conclusion of the 1957 Declaration that U.S. imperialism is the enemy of all the people of the world, the leadership of the CPSU passionately sought collaboration with U.S. imperialism and the settlement of world problems by the heads of the Soviet Union and the United States. Particularly around the time of the Camp David Talks in September 1959, Khrushchov lauded Eisenhower to the skies, hailing him as a man who ³enjoys the absolute confidence of his people²1 and who ³also worries about ensuring peace just as we do².2 Moreover, comrades of the CPSU energetically advertised the so-called ³spirit of Camp David², whose existence Eisenhower himself denied, alleging that it marked ³a new era in international relations² 3 and ³a turning-point in history².4 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Mass Meeting in Moscow, September 28, 1959. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Press Conference in Washington, September 27, 1959. 3 A. A. Gromyko Speech at the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, October 31, 1959. 4 New Year message of greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and K. Y. Voroshilov to D. D. Eisenhower, January 1, 1960. 76 Completely disregarding the revolutionary line of the 1957 Declaration, in statements by Khrushchov and in the Soviet press the leaders of the CPSU vigorously advocated their revisionist line of ³peaceful coexistence², ³peaceful competition² and ³peaceful transition², praised the ³wisdom² and ³goodwill² of the imperialists, preached that ³a world without weapons, without armed forces and without wars² could be brought into being while the greater part of the globe was still ruled and controlled by imperialism,1 that universal and complete disarmament could ³open up literally a new epoch in the economic development of Asia, Africa and Latin America²,2 etc., etc. The CPSU published many books and articles in which it tampered with the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism, emasculated their revolutionary spirit and propagated its revisionist views on a whole series of important problems of principle in the fields of philosophy, political economy, socialist and communist theory, history, literature and art. The leadership of the CPSU actively endeavoured to impose its erroneous views on the international democratic organizations and to change their correct lines. An outstanding case in point was the behaviour of the Soviet comrades at the Peking session of the General Council Of the World Federation of Trade Unions in June 1960. Completely disregarding the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries which were laid down in the 1957 Declaration, the leaders of the CPSU, eager to curry favour with U.S. imperialism, engaged in unbridled activities against China. They regarded the Chinese Communist Party, which adheres to Marxism-Leninism, as an obstacle to their revisionist line. They thought they had solved their internal problems and had ³stabilized² their own 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Replies to Questions by Roberto J. Noble, Director of the Argentine paper Clarin, December 30, 1959. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 18, 1959. 77 position and could therefore step up their policy of ³being friendly to enemies and tough with friends². In 1958 the leadership of the CPSU put forward unreasonable demands designed to bring China under Soviet military control. These unreasonable demands were rightly and firmly rejected by the Chinese Government. Not long afterwards, in June 1959, the Soviet Government unilaterally tore up the agreement on new technology for national defense concluded between China and the Soviet Union in October 1957, and refused to provide China with a sample of an atomic bomb and technical data concerning its manufacture. Then, on the eve of Khrushchov¹s visit to the United States, ignoring China¹s repeated objections the leadership of the CPSU rushed out the TASS statement of September 9 on the Sino-Indian border incident, siding with the Indian reactionaries. In this way, the leadership of the CPSU brought the differences between China and the Soviet Union right into the open before the whole world. The tearing up of the agreement on new technology for national defence by the leadership of the CPSU and its issuance of the statement on the Sino-Indian border clash on the eve of Khrushchov¹s visit to the United States were presentation gifts to Eisenhower so as to curry favour with the U.S. imperialists and create the so-called ³spirit of Camp David². The leaders of the CPSU and Soviet publications also levelled many virulent attacks on the domestic and foreign policies of the Chinese Communist Party. These attacks were almost invariably led by Khrushchov himself. He insinuated that China¹s socialist construction was ³skipping over a stage² and was ³equalitarian communism²1 and that China¹s People¹s Communes were ³in essence reactionary².2 By innuendo he 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the 21st Congress of the CPSU, January 1959. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Conversation with the U.S. Senator H. H. Humphrey, December 1, 1958. 78 maligned China as warlike, guilty of ³adventurism²,1 and so on and so forth. Back from the Camp David Talks, he went so far as to try to sell China the U.S. plot of ³two Chinas² and, at the state banquet celebrating the tenth anniversary of the founding of the People¹s Republic of China, he read China a lecture against ³testing by force the stability of the capitalist system². The line of revisionism and splittism pursued by the leadership of the CPSU created serious confusion in the ranks of the international communist movement. It seemed as though U.S. imperialism had ceased to be the sworn enemy of the people of the world. Eisenhower was welcomed by certain Communists as a ³peace envoy². Marxism-Leninism and the Declaration of 1957 seemed to be outmoded. In the circumstances, in order to defend Marxism-Leninism and the 1957 Declaration and clear up the ideological confusion in the international communist movement, the Communist Party of China published ³Long Live Leninism!² and two other articles in April 1960. Keeping to our consistent stand of persevering in principle and upholding unity, we concentrated on explaining the revolutionary theses of the 1957 Declaration and the fundamental Marxist-Leninist theories on imperialism, war and peace, proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The views in these three articles were totally different from the series of erroneous views that were being propagated by the leaders of the CPSU. However, for the sake of the larger interest, we refrained from publicly criticizing the comrades of the CPSU and directed the spearhead of struggle against the imperialists and the Yugoslav revisionists. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU spends much energy distorting and attacking ³Long Live Leninism!² and the two other articles, but is unable to support its attacks with any convincing arguments. We should 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, October 1959. 79 like to put this question: In those circumstances, should we have kept silent on the wrong views and absurd arguments which had become current? Did we not have the right, and indeed the duty, to come forward in defense of Marxism- Leninism and the Declaration of 1957? THE SURPRISE ASSAULT ON THE CPC BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CPSU A week after the publication of ³Long Live Leninism!² and our two other articles, an American U-2 plane intruded into Soviet air space and the United States aborted the four-power summit conference. The ³spirit of Camp David² completely vanished. Thus events entirely confirmed our views. In face of the arch enemy, it was imperative for the Communist Parties of China and the Soviet Union and the fraternal Parties of the whole world to eliminate their differences, strengthen their unity and wage a common struggle against the enemy. But that was not what happened. In the summer of 1960 there was a widening of the differences in the international communist movement, a large-scale campaign was launched against the Chinese Communist Party, and the leadership of the CPSU extended the ideological differences between the Chinese and Soviet Parties to the sphere of state relations. In early June 1960 the Central Committee of the CPSU made the proposal that the Third Congress of the Rumanian Workers¹ Party to be held in Bucharest later in June, should be taken as an opportunity for representatives of the Communist and Workers¹ Parties of all the socialist countries to meet and exchange views on the international situation following the miscarriage of the four-power summit conference caused by the United States. The Chinese Communist Party did not approve of this idea of a hasty meeting nor of the idea of a representative meeting of the Parties of the 80 socialist countries alone. We made the positive proposal that there should be a meeting of representatives of all the Communist and Workers¹ Parties of the world and maintained that adequate preparations were necessary to make that meeting a success. Our proposal was agreed to by the CPSU. The two Parties thereupon agreed that, in preparation for the international meeting, the representatives of the fraternal Parties attending the Third Congress of the Rumanian Workers¹ Party could provisionally exchange views on the date and place for the meeting, but not take any decision. At Bucharest, to our amazement, the leaders of the CPSU went back on their word and unleashed a surprise assault on the Chinese Communist Party, turning the spearhead of struggle against us and not against U.S. imperialism. The Bucharest meeting of representatives of fraternal Parties took place from June 24 to June 26. It is a plain lie for the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU to describe that meeting as ³comradely assistance² to the Chinese Communist Party. Indeed, on the eve of the meeting, the delegation of the CPSU headed by Khrushchov distributed among the representatives of some fraternal Parties, and read out to those of others, a Letter of Information dated June 21 from the Central Committee of the CPSU to the Central Committee of the CPC. This Letter of Information groundlessly slandered and attacked the CPC all along the line; it constituted a programme for the anti-China campaign which was launched by the leadership of the CPSU. In the meeting, Khrushchov took the lead in organizing a great converging onslaught on the Chinese Communist Party. In his speech, he wantonly vilified the Chinese Communist Party as ³madmen², ³wanting to unleash war², ³picking up the banner of the imperialist monopoly capitalists², being ³pure nationalist² on the Sino-Indian boundary question and employing ³Trotskyite ways² against the CPSU. Some of the fraternal Party representatives who obeyed Khrushchov and 81 followed his lead also wantonly charged the CPC with being ³dogmatic², ³Left adventurist², ³pseudo-revolutionary², ³sectarian², ³worse than Yugoslavia², and so on and so forth. The anti-China campaign launched by Khrushchov at this meeting was also a surprise to many fraternal Parties. The representatives of a number of Marxist-Leninist fraternal Parties took exception to the wrong action of the leadership of the CPSU. At this meeting, the delegation of the Albanian Party of Labour refused to obey the baton of the leaders of the CPSU and firmly opposed their sectarian activities. Consequently the leaders of the CPSU regarded the Albanian Party of Labour as a thorn in their side. Whereupon they took increasingly drastic steps against the Albanian Party. Can this dastardly attack on the CPC launched by the leadership of the CPSU be called ³comradely assistance²? Of course not. It was a pre-arranged anti-Chinese performance staged by the leadership of the CPSU; it was a serious and crude violation of the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid down in the 1957 Declaration; it was a large-scale attack on a Marxist-Leninist Party by the revisionists, represented by the leaders of the CPSU. In the circumstances, the Communist Party of China waged a tit-for-tat struggle against the leadership of the CPSU in defence of the positions of Marxism-Leninism and the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid down in the Declaration. For the sake of the larger interest, the CPC delegation in Bucharest signed the Communique on the meeting, and at the same time, on June 26, 1960 distributed a written statement upon the instructions of the Central Committee of the CPC. In this statement, the CPC delegation pointed out that Khrushchov¹s behaviour at the Bucharest meeting created an extremely bad precedent in the international communist movement. It solemnly declared: 82 ³There are differences between us and Comrade Khrushchov on a series of fundamental principles of Marxism- Leninism.² ³The future of the international communist movement depends on the needs and the struggles of the people of all countries and on the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, and will never be decided by the baton of any individual.² ³. . . our Party believes in and obeys the truth of Marxism- Leninism and Marxism-Leninism alone, and will never submit to erroneous views which run counter to Marxism- Leninism.² (See Appendix II.) The leaders of the CPSU did not reconcile themselves to their failure to subdue the Chinese Communist Party in Bucharest. Immediately after the Bucharest meeting, they brought more pressure to bear on China by taking a series of steps to extend the ideological differences between the Chinese and Soviet Parties to the sphere of state relations. In July the Soviet Government suddenly took a unilateral decision recalling all the Soviet experts in China within one month, thereby tearing up hundreds of agreements and contracts. The Soviet side unilaterally scrapped the agreement on the publication of the magazine Druzhba (Friendship) by China for Soviet readers and of Su Chung You Hao (Soviet-Chinese Friendship) by the Soviet Union for Chinese readers and their distribution on reciprocal terms; it took the unwarranted step of demanding the recall by the Chinese Government of a staff member of the Chinese Embassy in the Soviet Union; and it provoked troubles on the Sino-Soviet border. Apparently the leaders of the CPSU imagined that once they waved their baton, gathered a group of hatchet-men to make a converging assault, and applied immense political and economic pressures, they could force the Chinese Communist Party to abandon its Marxist-Leninist and proletarian internationalist stand and submit to their revisionist and greatpower chauvinist behests. But the tempered and long-tested Chinese Communist Party and Chinese people could neither 83 be vanquished nor subdued. Those who tried to subjugate us by engineering a converging assault and applying pressures completely miscalculated. We shall leave the details of the way the leadership of the CPSU sabotaged Sino-Soviet relations for other articles. Here we shall simply point out that on the subject of Sino-Soviet relations, the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU falsely charges China with extending the ideological differences to the sphere of state relations and with curtailing trade between the two countries, while deliberately concealing the fact that the Soviet Government withdrew all its experts from China and unilaterally tore up hundreds of agreements and contracts, and that it was these unilateral Soviet actions which made Sino-Soviet trade shrink. For the leadership of the CPSU to deceive its members and the Soviet people in such a bare-faced way is truly sad. THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO LINES AT THE 1960 MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIES In the latter half of 1960, a sharp struggle developed in the international communist movement around the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers¹ Parties. It was a struggle between the line of Marxism-Leninism and the line of revisionism and between the policy of persevering in principle and upholding unity and the policy of abandoning principle and creating splits. It had become evident before the meeting that the leadership of the CPSU was stubbornly persisting in its wrong stand and was endeavouring to impose its wrong line on the international communist movement. The Chinese Communist Party was keenly aware of the gravity of the differences. In the interests of the international communist movement we made many efforts, hoping 84 that the leadership of the CPSU would not proceed too far down the wrong path. On September 10, 1960 the Central Committee of the CPC replied to the June 21 Letter of Information of the Central Committee of the CPSU. In its reply which set forth the facts and reasoned things out, the Central Committee of the CPC systematically explained its views on a series of important questions of principle concerning the world situation and the international communist movement, refuted the attacks of the leadership of the CPSU on us, criticized its wrong views and put forward to the Central Committee of the CPSU five positive proposals for settling the differences and attaining unity. (For the five proposals, see Appendix III.) The Central Committee of the CPC subsequently sent a delegation to Moscow in September for talks with the delegation of the CPSU. During these talks, the delegation of the CPC pointed out that, while prettifying U.S. imperialism, the leadership of the CPSU was actively opposing China and extending the ideological differences between the two Parties to state relations, and was thus treating enemies as brothers and brothers as enemies. Again and again the delegation of the CPC urged the leaders of the CPSU to change their wrong stand, return to the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries, and strengthen the unity between the Chinese and Soviet Parties and between the two countries in order to fight the common enemy. However, the leaders of the CPSU showed not the slightest intention of correcting their errors. Thus a sharp struggle became inevitable. This struggle first unfolded in the Drafting Committee, attended by the representatives of 26 fraternal Parties, which prepared the documents for the meeting of fraternal Parties, and later grew to unprecedented acuteness at the meeting of the representatives of 81 fraternal Parties. In the meetings of the Drafting Committee in Moscow during October, the leaders of the CPSU attempted to force 85 through their own draft statement, which contained a whole string of erroneous views. As a result of principled struggle by the delegations of the CPC and some other fraternal Parties, the Drafting Committee after heated debates made many important changes of principle in the draft statement put forward by the CPSU. The committee reached agreement on most of the draft. However, in their determination to continue the debate, the leadership of the CPSU refused to arrive at agreement on several important points at issue in the draft and, moreover, on Khrushchov¹s return from New York, even scrapped the agreements which had already been reached on some questions. The meeting of the representatives of the 81 fraternal Parties was held in Moscow in November 1960. Ignoring the desire of the Chinese and many other delegations to eliminate the differences and strengthen unity, on the eve of the meeting the leadership of the CPSU distributed among the representatives of the fraternal Parties gathered in Moscow a letter of 127 pages, which attacked the Chinese Communist Party more savagely than ever, thus provoking still sharper controversy. Such was the most unnatural atmosphere in which the meeting of the representatives of the 81 fraternal Parties was held. By their base conduct, the leaders of the CPSU brought the meeting to the brink of rupture. But the meeting finally reached agreement and achieved positive results, because the delegations of the Chinese Communist Party and some other fraternal Parties kept to principle, persevered in struggle and upheld unity, and because the majority of the delegations of the fraternal Parties demanded unity and were against a split. In its Open Letter, the Central Committee of the CPSU declares that at this meeting the delegation of the CPC ³signed the Statement only when the danger of its full isolation became clear². This is another lie. What was the actual state of affairs? 86 It is true that, both before and during the meeting, the leadership of the CPSU engineered converging assaults on the Chinese Communist Party by a number of representatives of fraternal Parties, and relying on a so-called majority endeavoured to bring the delegations of the Chinese and other Marxist-Leninist Parties to their knees and compel them to accept its revisionist line and views. However, the attempts by the leaders of the CPSU to impose things on others met with failure, both in the Drafting Committee of the 26 fraternal Parties and in the meeting of the representatives of the 81 fraternal Parties. The fact remains that many of the wrong theses they put forward in their draft statement were rejected. Here are some examples: The wrong thesis of the leadership of the CPSU that peaceful coexistence and economic competition form the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries was rejected. Its wrong thesis that the emergence of a new stage in the general crisis of capitalism is the result of peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition was rejected. Its wrong thesis that there is a growing possibility of peaceful transition was rejected. It¹s wrong thesis about opposing the policy of ³going it alone² on the part of socialist countries, which in effect meant opposing the policy of their relying mainly on themselves in construction, was rejected. Its wrong thesis concerning opposition to so-called ³cliquish activities² and ³factional activities² in the international communist movement was rejected. In effect this thesis meant demanding that fraternal Parties should obey its baton, liquidating the principles of independence and equality in relations among fraternal Parties, and replacing the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation by the practice of subduing the minority by the majority. Its wrong thesis of underestimating the serious danger of modern revisionism was rejected. 87 The fact remains that many correct views on important principles set forth by the delegations of the Chinese and other fraternal Parties were written into the Statement. The theses on the unaltered nature of imperialism; on U.S. imperialism as the enemy of the people of the whole world; on the formation of the most extensive united front against U.S. imperialism; on the national liberation movement as an important force in preventing world war; on the thoroughgoing completion by the newly-independent countries of their national democratic revolutions; on support by the socialist countries and the international working-class movement for the national liberation struggle; on the need for the working class and the masses in the advanced capitalist countries under U.S. imperialist political, economic and military domination to direct their chief blows at U.S. imperialist domination and also at the monopoly capital and other reactionary forces at home which betray their national interests; on the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation among fraternal Parties; against the revisionist emasculation of the revolutionary spirit of Marxism-Leninism; on the betrayal of Marxism-Leninism by the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia; and so on ‹ all these theses are in the Statement as a result of the acceptance of the views of the Chinese and some other delegations. It is, of course, necessary to add that after the leaders of the CPSU agreed to drop their erroneous propositions and accepted the correct propositions of other Parties, the delegations of the CPC and some other fraternal Parties also made certain concessions. For instance, we differed on the questions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism, but out of consideration for the needs of the CPSU and certain other fraternal Parties we agreed to the inclusion of the same wording on these two questions as that used in the 1957 Declaration. But we made it plain at the time to the leaders of the CPSU that this would be the last time we accommodated ourselves to 88 such a formulation about the 20th Congress; we would never do so again. From all the above it can be seen that the struggle between the two lines in the international communist movement dominated the 1960 Moscow Meeting from beginning to end. The errors of the leadership of the CPSU as revealed at this meeting had developed further. From the draft statement of the leaders of the CPSU and their speeches during the meeting, it could be clearly seen that the main political content of the wrong line they were attempting to impose on the fraternal Parties consisted of the erroneous theories of ³peaceful coexistence², ³peaceful competition² and ³peaceful transition², while its organizational content consisted of erroneous sectarian and splitting policies. It was a revisionist line in fundamental conflict with Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The delegations of the Chinese and other fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties resolutely opposed it and firmly upheld the line of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The outcome of the struggle at this meeting was that the revisionist line and views of the leadership of the CPSU were in the main repudiated and that the Marxist-Leninist line gained a great victory. The revolutionary principles embodied in the Statement adopted at the meeting are powerful weapons in the hands of all fraternal Parties in the struggles against imperialism and for world peace, national liberation, people¹s democracy and socialism; they are also powerful weapons in the hands of Marxist-Leninists throughout the world in combating modern revisionism. At the meeting the fraternal Parties which upheld Marxism- Leninism earnestly criticized the erroneous views of the leadership of the CPSU and compelled it to accept many of their correct views; in doing so they changed the previous highly abnormal situation, in which not even the slightest criticism of the errors of the leadership of the CPSU was tolerated and its word was final. This was an event of great 89 historical significance in the international communist movement. The Central Committee of the CPSU asserts in its Open Letter that the delegation of the CPC was ³completely isolated² at the meeting. This is merely an impudent attempt on the part of the leadership of the CPSU to represent its defeat as a victory. The principles of mutual solidarity as well as independence and equality among fraternal Parties and of reaching unanimity through consultation were observed at the meeting and the mistaken attempt of the leaders of the CPSU to use a majority to overrule the minority and to impose their views on other fraternal Parties was frustrated. The meeting demonstrated once again that in resolving differences among fraternal Parties it is highly necessary for Marxist-Leninist Parties to stick to principle, persevere in struggle and uphold unity. THE REVISIONISM OF THE CPSU LEADERSHIP BECOMES SYSTEMATIZED The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU asserts that ³in appending their signatures to the 1960 Statement, the CPC leaders were only manoeuvring². Is that really a fact? No. On the contrary, it was the leaders of the CPSU and not we who were manoeuvring. The facts have shown that at the 1960 meeting of fraternal Parties the leaders of the CPSU agreed to delete or change the erroneous propositions in their draft statement against their will and they were insincere in their acceptance of the correct propositions of fraternal Parties. They did not care two hoots about the document which was jointly agreed upon by the fraternal Parties. The ink was scarcely dry on their signature to the 1960 Statement before they began wrecking it. On December 1 Khrushchov signed the Statement on behalf of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and twenty-four 90 hours later, violating what the fraternal Parties had agreed on, the same Khrushchov brazenly described Yugoslavia as a socialist country at the banquet for the delegations of the fraternal Parties. After the meeting of the 81 fraternal Parties, the leaders of the CPSU became more and more blatant in wrecking the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. On the one hand, they took as their friend U.S. imperialism which the Statement declares to be the enemy of the people of the world, advocating ³U.S.-Soviet co-operation² and expressing the desire to work together with Kennedy to ³set about building durable bridges of confidence, mutual understanding and friendship².1 On the other hand, they took some fraternal Parties and countries as their enemies and drastically worsened the Soviet Union¹s relations with Albania. The 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October 1961 marked a new low in the CPSU leadership¹s efforts to oppose Marxism- Leninism and split the socialist camp and the international communist movement. It marked the systematization of the revisionism which the leadership of the CPSU had developed step by step from the 20th Congress onward. The leadership of the CPSU unleashed a great public attack on the Albanian Party of Labour at the 22nd Congress. In his speech Khrushchov went so far as openly to call for the overthrow of the Albanian leadership under Comrades Enver Hoxha and Mehmet Shehu. Thus the leadership of the CPSU established the vicious precedent of a Party congress being used for public attacks on other fraternal Parties. Another great thing the leadership of the CPSU did at the Congress was the renewed concentrated onslaught on Stalin five years after the complete negation of him at the 20th Congress and eight years after his death. 1 Message of greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. Brezhnev to J. F. Kennedy on the 185th Anniversary of the Independence of the United States, July 4, 1961. 91 In the final analysis, this was done in order that the leaders of the CPSU should be able to throw the Declaration and the Statement overboard, oppose Marxism-Leninism and pursue a systematically revisionist line. Their revisionism was expressed in concentrated form in the new Programme of the CPSU which that Congress adopted. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says that the line of the 22nd Congress was ³approved at the meetings of representatives of the Communist Parties and set out in the Declaration and Statement². Is it not very careless of the leaders of the CPSU to make such a statement? How can they describe what happened in 1961 as having been ³approved² or ³set out² at the meeting of the Communist and Workers¹ Parties in 1960, or as far back as that in 1957? But leaving aside such silly self-commendation for the moment, let us first see the kind of stuff the Programme adopted at the 22nd Congress is made of. Even a cursory study of the Programme and the report on it made by Khrushchov shows that it is an out-and-out revisionist programme which totally violates the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement. It runs counter to the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement on many important questions of principle. Many of the erroneous views of the leadership of the CPSU which were rejected at the 1960 meeting of fraternal Parties reappear. For instance, it describes peaceful coexistence as the general principle of foreign policy, one-sidedly stresses the possibility of peaceful transition and slanders the policy of a socialist country¹s relying mainly on its own efforts in construction as ³going it alone². The Programme goes a step further in systematizing the wrong line pursued by the leadership of the CPSU since its 20th Congress, the main content of which is ³peaceful coexistence², ³peaceful competition² and ³peaceful transition². 92 The Programme crudely revises the essence of Marxism- Leninism, namely, the teachings on proletarian revolution, on the dictatorship of the proletariat and on the party of the proletariat, declaring that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer needed in the Soviet Union and that the nature of the CPSU as the vanguard of the proletariat has changed, and advancing fallacies of a ³state of the whole people² and a ³party of the entire people². It substitutes humanism for the Marxist-Leninist theory of class struggle and substitutes the bourgeois slogan of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity for the ideals of communism. It is a programme which opposes revolution on the part of the people still living under the imperialist and capitalist system, who comprise two-thirds of the world¹s population, and opposes the carrying of revolution through to completion on the part of the people already on the socialist road, who comprise one-third of the world¹s population. It is a revisionist programme for the preservation or restoration of capitalism. The Communist Party of China resolutely opposed the errors of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU. Comrade Chou En-lai, who headed the CPC delegation to the Congress, stated our Party¹s position in his speech there, and he also frankly criticized the errors of the leadership of the CPSU in subsequent conversations with Khrushchov and other leaders of the CPSU. In his conversation with the delegation of the CPC, Khrushchov flatly turned down our criticisms and advice and even expressed undisguised support for anti-Party elements in the Chinese Communist Party. He openly stated that after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, when the leaders of the CPSU were beginning to take a ³road different from that of Stalin² (that is, the road of revisionism), they still needed the support of the fraternal Parties. He said, ³The voice of the Chinese Communist Party was then of great significance to us², but 93 ³things are different now², and ³we are doing well² and ³we shall go our own way². Khrushchov¹s remarks showed that the leaders of the CPSU had made up their minds to go all the way down the road of revisionism and splitting. Although the Chinese Communist Party has frequently given them comradely advice, they have simply ignored it and shown not the slightest intention of mending their ways. AN ADVERSE CURRENT THAT IS OPPOSED TO MARXISM-LENINISM AND IS SPLITTING THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT In the Open Letter the leaders of the CPSU try hard to make people believe that after the 22nd Congress they ³made fresh efforts² to improve relations between the Chinese and Soviet Parties and to strengthen unity among the fraternal Parties and countries. This is another lie. What are the facts? They show that since the 22nd Congress the leadership of the CPSU has become more unbridled in violating the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries and in pursuing policies of great-power chauvinism, sectarianism and splittism in order to promote its own line of systematic revisionism, which is in complete violation of Marxism- Leninism. This has brought about a continuous deterioration in Sino-Soviet relations and grave damage to the unity of the fraternal Parties and countries. The following are the main facts about how the leaders of the CPSU have sabotaged Sino-Soviet unity and the unity of fraternal Parties and countries since the 22nd Congress: 1. The leaders of the CPSU have tried hard to impose their erroneous line upon the international communist movement 94 and to replace the Declaration and the Statement with their own revisionist programme. They describe their erroneous line as the ³whole set of Leninist policies of the international communist movement of recent years²,1 and they call their revisionist programme the ³real Communist Manifesto of our time²2 and the ³common programme² of the ³Communist and Workers¹ Parties and of the people of countries of the socialist community².3 Any fraternal Party which rejects the erroneous line and programme of the CPSU and perseveres in the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement is looked upon as an enemy by the leaders of the CPSU, who oppose, attack and injure it and try to subvert its leadership by every possible means. 2. Disregarding all consequences, the leadership of the CPSU broke off diplomatic relations with socialist Albania, an unprecedented step in the history of relations between fraternal Parties and countries. 3. The leadership of the CPSU has continued to exert pressure on China and to make outrageous attacks on the Chinese Communist Party. In its letter of February 22, 1962 to the Central Committee of the CPC, the Central Committee of the CPSU accused the CPC of taking a ³special stand of their own² and pursuing a line at variance with the common course of the fraternal Parties, and even made a crime out of our support for the Marxist-Leninist Albanian Party of Labour. As pre-conditions for improving Sino-Soviet relations, the leaders of the CPSU attempted to compel the CPC to abandon its Marxist-Leninist and proletarian internationalist stand, 1 J. Y. Andropov, ³The 22nd Congress of the CPSU and the Development of the World Socialist System², Pravda, December 2, 1961. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Conference of the Agricultural Workers of the Uzbek and Other Republics, November 16, 1961. 3 ³Unity Multiplies Tenfold the Forces of Communism², Pravda editorial, August 25, 1961. 95 abandon its consistent line, which is in lull conformity with the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement, accept their erroneous line, and also accept as a fait accompli their violation of the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries. In its Open Letter, the Central Committee of the CPSU boasted of its letters to the Central Committee of the CPC during this period, of Khrushchov¹s remarks about his desire for unity in October 1962 to our Ambassador to the Soviet Union and so on, but in fact these were all acts for realizing their base attempt. 4. The Central Committee of the CPSU rejected the proposals made by the fraternal Parties of Indonesia, Viet Nam, New Zealand, etc., that a meeting of representatives of the fraternal Parties should be convened, as well as the five positive proposals made by the Central Committee of the CPC in its letter of April 7, 1962 to the Central Committee of the CPSU for the preparation for the meeting of fraternal Parties. In its reply of May 31, 1962 to the Central Committee of the CPC, the Central Committee of the CPSU went so far as to make the demand that the Albanian comrades abandon their own stand as a precondition for improving Soviet-Albanian relations and also for convening a meeting of the fraternal Parties. 5. In April and May 1962 the leaders of the CPSU used their organs and personnel in Sinkiang, China, to carry out large-scale subversive activities in the Ili region and enticed and coerced several tens of thousands of Chinese citizens into going to the Soviet Union. The Chinese Government lodged repeated protests and made repeated representations, but the Soviet Government refused to repatriate these Chinese citizens on the pretext of ³the sense of Soviet legality²1 and ³humanitarianism². 2 To this day this incident remains unsettled. 1 Memorandum presented to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Soviet Embassy in China on August 9, 1962. 2 Memorandum presented to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Soviet Embassy in China on April 29, 1962. 96 This is indeed an astounding event, unheard of in the relations between socialist countries. 6. In August 1962 the Soviet Government formally notified China that the Soviet Union would conclude an agreement with the United States on the prevention of nuclear proliferation. This was a joint Soviet-U.S. plot to monopolize nuclear weapons and an attempt to deprive China of the right to possess nuclear weapons to resist the U.S. nuclear threat. The Chinese Government lodged repeated protests against this. 7. The leadership of the CPSU has become increasingly anxious to strike political bargains with U.S. imperialism and has been bent on forming a reactionary alliance with Kennedy, even at the expense of the interests of the socialist camp and the international communist movement. An outstanding example was the fact that, during the Caribbean crisis, the leadership of the CPSU committed the error of capitulationism by submitting to the nuclear blackmail of the U.S. imperialists and accepting the U.S. Government¹s demand for ³international inspection² in violation of Cuban sovereignty. 8. The leadership of the CPSU has become increasingly anxious to collude with the Indian reactionaries and is bent on forming a reactionary alliance with Nehru against socialist China. The leadership of the CPSU and its press openly sided with Indian reaction, condemned China for its just stand on the Sino-Indian border conflict and defended the Nehru government. Two-thirds of Soviet economic aid to India have been given since the Indian reactionaries provoked the Sino- Indian border conflict. Even after large-scale armed conflict on the Sino-Indian border began in the autumn of 1962, the leadership of the CPSU has continued to extend military aid to the Indian reactionaries. 9. The leadership of the CPSU has become increasingly anxious to collude with the Tito clique of Yugoslavia and is bent on forming a reactionary alliance with the renegade Tito to oppose all Marxist-Leninist Parties. After the 22nd Con 97 gress, it took a series of steps to reverse the verdict on the Tito clique and thus openly tore up the 1960 Statement. 10. Since November 1962 the leadership of the CPSU has launched still fiercer attacks, on an international scale, against the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist- Leninist Parties and whipped up a new adverse current in order to split the socialist camp and the international communist movement. Khrushchov made one statement after another and the Soviet press carried hundreds of articles attacking the Chinese Communist Party on a whole set of issues. Directed by the leaders of the CPSU, the Congresses of the fraternal Parties of Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy and the Democratic Republic of Germany became stages for anti-China performances, and more than forty fraternal Parties published resolutions, statements or articles attacking the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist Parties. The facts cited above cannot possibly be denied by the leaders of the CPSU. These iron-clad facts prove that the ³fresh efforts² they made after the 22nd Congress of the CPSU were aimed, not at improving Sino-Soviet relations and strengthening unity between the fraternal Parties and countries, but on the contrary, at further ganging up with the U.S. imperialists, the Indian reactionaries and the renegade Tito clique in order to create a wider split in the socialist camp and the international communist movement. In these grave circumstances, the Chinese Communist Party had no alternative but to make open replies to the attacks of some fraternal Parties. Between December 15, 1962 and March 8, 1963 we published seven such replies. In these articles we continued to leave some leeway and did not criticize the leadership of the CPSU by name. Despite the serious deterioration in Sino-Soviet relations resulting from the errors of the leadership of the CPSU, the Chinese Communist Party agreed to send its delegation to Moscow for the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties, and, in order that there might be a systematic exchange of 98 views in the talks, put forward its proposal concerning the general line of the international communist movement in its letter of reply to the Central Committee of the CPSU dated June 14. As subsequent facts have shown, the leaders of the CPSU were not only insincere about eliminating differences and strengthening unity, but used the talks as a smokescreen for covering up their activities to further worsen Sino-Soviet relations. On the eve of the talks, the leaders of the CPSU publicly attacked the Chinese Communist Party by name, through statements and resolutions. At the same time, they unjustifiably expelled a number of Chinese Embassy personnel and research students from the Soviet Union. On July 14, that is, on the eve of the U.S.-British-Soviet talks, while the Sino-Soviet talks were still in progress, the leadership of the CPSU hastily published the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU to Party organizations and all Communists in the Soviet Union and launched unbridled attacks on the Chinese Communist Party. This was another precious presentation gift made by the leaders of the CPSU to the U.S. imperialists in order to curry favour with them. Immediately afterwards in Moscow, the leadership of the CPSU signed the treaty on the partial halting of nuclear tests with the United States and Britain in open betrayal of the interests of the Soviet people, the people in the socialist camp including the Chinese people, and the peace-loving people of the world; there was a flurry of contacts between the Soviet Union and India; Khrushchov went to Yugoslavia for a ³vacation²; the Soviet press launched a frenzied anti-Chinese campaign; and so on and so forth. This whole train of events strikingly demonstrates that, disregarding everything, the leadership of the CPSU is allying with the imperialists, the reactionaries of all countries and the renegade Tito clique in order to oppose fraternal socialist countries and fraternal 99 Marxist-Leninist Parties. All this completely exposes the revisionist and divisive line which the leadership of the CPSU is following. At present, the ³anti-Chinese chorus² of the imperialists, the reactionaries of all countries and the revisionists is making a lot of noise. And the campaign led by Khrushchov to oppose Marxism-Leninism and split the socialist camp and the international communist ranks is being carried on with growing intensity. WHAT HAVE THE FACTS OF THE PAST SEVEN YEARS DEMONSTRATED? In the foregoing we have reviewed at some length the origin and development of the differences. Our aim is to clarify the facts which were distorted in the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU and to help our Party members and our people and also the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people of the world to see the truth. The facts of the past seven years have amply proved that the differences between the Chinese and Soviet Parties and within the international communist movement have arisen solely because the leadership of the CPSU has departed from Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement and pursued a revisionist and splitting line in the international communist movement. The process in which the leadership of the CPSU has gone farther and farther down the road of revisionism and splittism is the very process which has widened and aggravated the differences. The facts of the past seven years have amply proved that the present differences within the international communist movement are differences between the line of adhering to Marxism-Leninism and the line of clinging to revisionism, between the revolutionary line and the non-revolutionary and 100 anti-revolutionary line, between the anti-imperialist line and the line of capitulation to imperialism. They are differences between proletarian internationalism and great-power chauvinism, sectarianism and splittism. The facts of the past seven years have amply proved that the road taken by the leadership of the CPSU is the course of allying with imperialism against socialism, allying with the United States against China, allying with the reactionaries of all countries against the people of the world, and allying with the renegade Tito clique against fraternal Marxist- Leninist Parties. This erroneous line of the leadership of the CPSU has led to a revisionist flood on an international scale, brought the international communist movement face to face with the danger of a split of unprecedented gravity, and brought serious damage to the peoples¹ cause of world peace, national liberation, people¹s democracy and socialism. The facts of the past seven years have also amply proved that the Communist Party of China has constantly striven to prevent the situation from deteriorating and to uphold principle, eliminate differences, strengthen unity and wage a common struggle against the enemy. We have exercised great restraint and done our very best. The Communist Party of China has always stressed the importance of the unity of the Chinese and Soviet Parties and the two countries. It has always held in respect the Communist Party of the Soviet Union created by the great Lenin. We have always cherished deep proletarian affection for the great CPSU and the great Soviet people. We have rejoiced over every achievement of the CPSU and the Soviet people, and we have been saddened by every error of the leadership of the CPSU that has harmed the socialist camp and the international communist movement. It is not just today that the Chinese Communists have begun to discover the errors of the CPSU leadership. Ever since the 20th Congress of the CPSU, we have watched with concern as the CPSU leadership took the road of revisionism. 101 Confronted with this grave situation, our Party has scores of times and for a long period considered: what should we do? We asked ourselves, should we follow the CPSU leadership and suit all our actions to its wishes? In that case, the leadership of the CPSU would of course rejoice, but would not we ourselves then turn into revisionists? We also asked ourselves, should we keep silent about the errors of the CPSU leadership? We believed that the errors of the CPSU leadership were not just accidental, individual and minor errors, but rather a whole series of errors of principle, which endanger the interests of the entire socialist camp and international communist movement. As a member in the ranks of the international communist movement, how could we be indifferent and keep silent about these errors? If we should do that, would not we be abandoning our duty to defend Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism? We foresaw that if we criticized the errors of the leaders of the CPSU, they would certainly strike at us vindictively and thus inevitably cause serious damage to China¹s socialist construction. But should Communists take a stand of national egoism and not dare to uphold truth for fear of vindictive blows? Should Communists barter away principles? We took into consideration the fact that the CPSU was built by Lenin, that it is the Party of the first socialist state, and that it enjoyed high prestige in the international communist movement and among the people of the whole world. Therefore, over a considerable period of time, we were particularly careful and patient in criticizing the leaders of the CPSU, trying our best to confine such criticism to inter-Party talks between the leaders of the Chinese and Soviet Parties and to solve the differences through private discussions without resorting to public polemics. But all the comradely criticism and advice given to the leaders of the CPSU by responsible comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC in scores of inter-Party talks did not succeed in enabling them to return to the correct path. The 102 CPSU leaders went farther and farther down the road of revisionism and splittism. In return for the advice we gave in goodwill, they applied a succession of political, economic and military pressures against us and launched attacks which became increasingly violent. The CPSU leaders have a bad habit: they undiscriminatingly stick labels on anyone who criticizes them. They say, ³You are anti-Soviet!² No, friends! The label ³anti-Soviet² cannot be stuck on us. Our criticism of your errors is precisely for the sake of defending the great CPSU and the great Soviet Union and preventing the prestige of the CPSU and the Soviet Union from being badly damaged by you. To put it plainly, it is you, and not we, who are really anti-Soviet and who are defaming and discrediting the CPSU and the Soviet Union. Ever since the complete negation of Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, you have committed innumerable foul deeds. Not all the water in the Volga can wash away the great shame you have brought upon the CPSU and upon the Soviet Union. They say, ³You want to seize the leadership!² No, friends! It is not at all clever of you to make this slander. The way you put it, it would seem that some people are contending with you for some such thing as ³the leadership². Is this not tantamount to shamelessly claiming that some sort of ³leadership² exists in the international communist movement and that you have this ³leadership²? It is a very, very bad habit of yours thus to put on the airs of a patriarchal party. It is entirely illegitimate. The 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement clearly state that all Communist Parties are independent and equal. According to this principle, the relations among fraternal Parties should under no circumstances be like the relations between a leading Party and the led, and much less like the relations between a patriarchal father and his son. We have always opposed any one Party commanding other fraternal Parties, and it has never occurred to us that we ourselves should command other 103 fraternal Parties, and so the question of contending for leadership simply does not arise. What confronts the international communist movement now is not whether this or that Party should assume leadership but whether to respond to the baton of revisionism or to uphold the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement and persevere in the revolutionary line of Marxism-Leninism. Our criticism of the leadership of the CPSU concerns its attempt to lord it over fraternal Parties and to impose its line of revisionism and splittism on them. What we desire is merely the independent and equal status of the fraternal Parties stipulated in the Declaration and the Statement and their unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. It is the leaders of the CPSU who have provoked and extended the present great debate in the international communist movement and forced it on us. Since they have levelled large-scale attacks and all kinds of unscrupulous slanders against us, and since they have openly betrayed Marxism- Leninism and proletarian internationalism and torn up the Declaration and the Statement, they cannot expect us to abstain from replying, from refuting their slanders, from safeguarding the Declaration and the Statement and from defending Marxism-Leninism. The debate is on, and right and wrong must be thoroughly clarified. We Chinese Communists persevere in principle and uphold unity; we did so in the past, we do so now and we shall continue to do so in the future. While engaging in polemics with the leaders of the CPSU, we still hope they will realize that they have taken a most dangerous road by abandoning revolution, abandoning the revolutionary people of the world, abandoning the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement and eagerly collaborating with the U.S. imperialists, the reactionaries of all countries and the renegade Tito clique. The interests of the Chinese and Soviet peoples, of the socialist camp, of the international communist movement, and of the people throughout the world demand that all Communist and Workers¹ Parties should become united and oppose the common enemy. We hereby appeal once again to the leadership of the CPSU to correct its errors and return to the path of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, the path of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. The international communist movement is going through an important period. The present debate has a vital bearing on the future of the proletarian world revolution and the destiny of mankind. As history will prove, after this great debate Marxism-Leninism will shine forth more brilliantly and the revolutionary cause of the international proletariat and the people of the world will win still greater victories. 105 APPENDIX I OUTLINE OF VIEWS ON THE QUESTION OF PEACEFUL TRANSITION (November 10, 1957) 1. On the question of the transition from capitalism to socialism, it would be more flexible to refer to the two possibilities, peaceful transition and non-peaceful transition, than to just one, and this would place us in a position where we can have the initiative politically at any time. a. Referring to the possibility of peaceful transition indicates that for us the use of violence is primarily a matter of self-defence. It enables the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries to sidestep attacks on them on this issue, and it is politically advantageous ‹ advantageous for winning the masses and also for depriving the bourgeoisie of its pretexts for such attacks and isolating it. b. If practical possibilities for peaceful transition were to arise in individual countries in the future when the international or domestic situation changes drastically, we could then make timely use of the opportunity to win the support of the masses and solve the problem of state power by peaceful means. c. Nevertheless, we should not tie our own hands because of this desire. The bourgeoisie will not step down from the stage of history voluntarily. This is a universal law of class struggle. In no country should the proletariat and the Communist Party slacken their preparations for the revolution in any way. They must be prepared at all times to repulse counter-revolutionary attacks and, at the critical juncture of the revolution when the working class 106 is seizing state power, to overthrow the bourgeoisie by armed force if it uses armed force to suppress the people¹s revolution (generally speaking, it is inevitable that the bourgeoisie will do so). 2. In the present situation of the international communist movement, it is advantageous from the point of view of tactics to refer to the desire for peaceful transition. But it would be inappropriate to over-emphasize the possibility of peaceful transition. The reasons are: a. Possibility and reality, the desire and whether or not it can be fulfilled, are two different matters. We should refer to the desire for peaceful transition, but we should not place our hopes mainly on it and therefore should not over-emphasize this aspect. b. If too much stress is laid on the possibility of peaceful transition, and especially on the possibility of seizing state power by winning a majority in parliament it is liable to weaken the revolutionary will of the proletariat, the working people and the Communist Party and disarm them ideologically. c. To the best of our knowledge, there is still not a single country where this possibility is of any practical significance. Even if it is slightly more apparent in a particular country, over-emphasizing this possibility is inappropriate because it does not conform with the realities in the overwhelming majority of countries. Should such a possibility actually occur in some country, the Communist Party there must on the one hand strive to realize it, and on the other hand always be prepared to repulse the armed attacks of the bourgeoisie. d. The result of emphasizing this possibility will neither weaken the reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie nor lull them. e. Nor will such emphasis make the social democratic parties any more revolutionary. 107 f. Nor will such emphasis make Communist Parties grow any stronger. On the contrary, if some Communist Parties should as a result obscure their revolutionary features and thus become confused with the social democratic parties in the eyes of the people, they would only be weakened. g. It is very hard to accumulate strength and prepare for the revolution, and after all parliamentary struggle is easy in comparison. We must fully utilize the parliamentary form of struggle, but its role is limited. What is most important is to proceed with the hard work of accumulating revolutionary strength. 3. To obtain a majority in parliament is not the same as smashing the old state machinery (chiefly the armed forces) and establishing new state machinery (chiefly the armed forces). Unless the military-bureaucratic state machinery of the bourgeoisie is smashed, a parliamentary majority for the proletariat and its reliable allies will either be impossible (because the bourgeoisie will amend the constitution whenever necessary in order to facilitate the consolidation of its dictatorship) or undependable (for instance, elections may be declared null and void, the Communist Party may be outlawed, parliament may be dissolved, etc.). 4. Peaceful transition to socialism should not be interpreted in such a way as solely to mean transition through a parliamentary majority. The main question is that of the state machinery. In the 1870¹s, Marx was of the opinion that there was a possibility of achieving socialism in Britain by peaceful means, because ³at that time England was a country in which militarism and bureaucracy were less pronounced than in any other². For a period after the February Revolution, Lenin hoped that through ³all power to the Soviets² the revolution would develop peacefully and triumph, because at that time ³the arms were in the hands of the people². Neither Marx nor Lenin meant that peaceful transition could be realized by using the old state machinery. Lenin repeatedly elaborated on the famous saying of Marx and Engels, ³The working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes.² 5. The social democratic parties are not parties of socialism. With the exception of certain Left wings, they are parties serving the bourgeoisie and capitalism. They are a variant of bourgeois political parties. On the question of socialist revolution, our position is fundamentally different from that of the social democratic parties. This distinction must not be obscured. To obscure this distinction only helps the leaders for the social democratic parties to deceive the masses and hinders us from winning the masses away from the influence of the social democratic parties. However, it is unquestionably very important to strengthen our work with respect to the social democratic parties and strive to establish a united front with their left and middle groups. 6. Such is our understanding of this question. We do hold differing views on this question, but out of various considerations we did not state our views after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Since a joint Declaration is to be issued, we must now explain our views. However, this need not prevent us from attaining common language in the draft Declaration. In order to show a connection between the formulation of this question in the draft Declaration and the formulation of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, we agree to take the draft put forward today by the Central Committee of the CPSU as a basis, while proposing amendments in certain places. 109 APPENDIX II STATEMENT OF THE DELEGATION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA AT THE BUCHAREST MEETING OF FRATERNAL PARTIES (June 26, 1960) 1. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China maintains that at this meeting Comrade Khrushchov of the Delegation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has completely violated the longstanding principle in the international communist movement that questions of common concern should be settled by consultation among fraternal Parties, and has completely broken the agreement made prior to the meeting to confine it to an exchange of views and not to make any decision; this he has done by his surprise attack of putting forward a draft communique of the meeting without having consulted the fraternal Parties on its contents beforehand and without permitting full and normal discussion in the meeting. This is an abuse of the prestige enjoyed by the CPSU in the international communist movement, a prestige which has been built up over the long years since Lenin¹s time, and it is, moreover, an extremely crude act of imposing one¹s own will on other people. This attitude has nothing in common with Lenin¹s style of work and this way of doing things creates an extremely bad precedent in the international communist movement. The Central Committee of the CPC considers that this attitude and this way of doing things on the part of Comrade Khrushchov will have extraordinarily grave consequences for the international communist movement. 110 2. The Communist Party of China has always been faithful to Marxism-Leninism and has always steadfastly adhered to the theoretical positions of Marxism-Leninism. In the past two years and more, it has been completely faithful to the Moscow Declaration of 1957, and has firmly upheld all the Marxist-Leninist theses of the Declaration. There are differences between us and Comrade Khrushchov on a series of fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. These differences have a vital bearing on the interests of the entire socialist camp, on the interests of the proletariat and the working people of the whole world, on the question of whether the people of all countries will be able to preserve world peace and prevent the imperialists from launching a world war, and on the question of whether socialism will continue to score victories in the capitalist world, which comprises two-thirds of the world¹s population and three-fourths of its land space. All Marxist-Leninists should adopt a serious attitude towards these differences, give them serious thought and hold comradely discussions, so as to achieve unanimous conclusions. However, the attitude Comrade Khrushchov has adopted is patriarchal, arbitrary and tyrannical. He has in fact treated the relationship between the great Communist Party of the Soviet Union and our Party not as one between brothers, but as one between patriarchal father and son. At this meeting he has exerted pressure in an attempt to make our Party submit to his non-Marxist-Leninist views. We hereby solemnly declare that our Party believes in and obeys the truth of Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism alone, and will never submit to erroneous views which run counter to Marxism-Leninism. We consider that certain views expressed by Comrade Khrushchov in his speech at the Third Congress of the Rumanian Party are erroneous and in contravention of the Moscow Declaration. His speech will be welcomed by the imperialists and the Tito clique and has indeed already been welcomed by them. When the occasion arises, we shall be ready to carry on serious discussions with 111 the CPSU and other fraternal Parties on our differences with Comrade Khrushchov. As for the Letter of Information of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the Communist Party of China, which Comrade Khrushchov has distributed in Bucharest, the Central Committee of the CPC will reply to it in detail after carefully studying it; the reply will explain the differences of principle between the two Parties, setting forth the relevant facts, and the Central Committee of the CPC will hold serious, earnest and comradely discussions with fraternal Parties. We are convinced that in any case the truth of Marxism-Leninism will triumph in the end. Truth does not fear contention. Ultimately, it is impossible to portray truth as error or error as truth. The future of the international communist movement depends on the needs and the struggles of the people of all countries and on the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, and will never be decided by the baton of any individual. 3. We, the Communist Party of China, have always striven to safeguard the unity of all Communist Parties and the unity of all socialist countries. For the sake of genuine unity in the international communist ranks and for the sake of the common struggle against imperialism and reaction, we hold that it is necessary to unfold normal discussions on the differences and that serious questions of principle should not be settled in a hurry by abnormal methods or simply by vote. Nor should one impose on others arbitrary views which have not been tested in practice or which have already proved to be wrong in such tests. Comrade Khrushchov¹s way of doing things at this meeting is entirely detrimental to the unity of international communism. But however Comrade Khrushchov may act, the unity of the Chinese and Soviet Parties and the unity of all the Communist and Workers¹ Parties is bound to be further strengthened and developed. We are deeply convinced that, as the international communist movement and Marxism-Leninism develop, the unity of our ranks will constantly grow stronger. 4. If the relations between our two Parties are viewed as a whole, the above-mentioned differences between Comrade Khrushchov and ourselves are only of a partial character. We hold that the main thing in the relations between our two Parties is their unity in the struggle for the common cause; this is so because both our countries are socialist countries and both our Parties are built on the principles of Marxism- Leninism, and are fighting to advance the cause of the whole socialist camp, to oppose imperialist aggression and to win world peace. We believe that Comrade Khrushchov and the Central Committee of the CPSU and we ourselves will be able to find opportunities to hold calm and comradely discussions and resolve our differences, so that the Chinese and Soviet Parties may become more united and their relations further strengthened. This will be highly beneficial to the socialist camp and to the struggle of the people of the world against imperialist aggression and for world peace. 5. We are glad to see that the draft Communique of the Meeting put forward here affirms the correctness of the Moscow Declaration. But the presentation of the Marxist- Leninist theses of the Moscow Declaration in this draft is inaccurate and one-sided. And it is wrong that the draft avoids taking a clear stand on the major problems in the current international situation and makes no mention at all of modern revisionism, the main danger in the international workingclass movement. Therefore, this draft is unacceptable to us. For the sake of unity in the common struggle against the enemy, we have submitted a revised draft and propose that it be discussed. If it is not possible to reach agreement this time, we propose that a special drafting committee be set up to work out, after full discussions, a document which is acceptable to all. 113 APPENDIX III THE FIVE PROPOSALS FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE DIFFERENCES AND ATTAINMENT OF UNITY CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPC IN REPLY TO THE LETTER OF INFORMATION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU (September 10, 1960) Striving to settle the differences successfully and to attain unity, we put forward the following proposals in all sincerity: 1. The fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of the Declaration and the Manifesto of the 1957 Moscow Meeting are the ideological foundation for the unity between our two Parties and among all fraternal Parties. All our statements and actions must be absolutely loyal to the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of the Moscow Declaration, which we should use as the criteria for judging between truth and falsehood. 2. The relations among the socialist countries and among the fraternal Parties must strictly conform to the principles of equality, comradeship and internationalism as stipulated by the Moscow Declaration. 3. All disputes among the socialist countries and among the fraternal Parties must be settled in accordance with the stipulations of the Moscow Declaration, through comradely and unhurried discussion. Both the Soviet Union and China, and both the Soviet and Chinese Parties, bear great responsibilities regarding the international situation and towards the international communist movement. They should have full consultations and unhurried discussions on all important questions of common concern in order to have unity of action. If the disputes between the Chinese and Soviet Parties cannot be settled for the time being in consultations between the two Parties, then unhurried discussions should be continued. When necessary, the views of both sides should be presented completely objectively to the Communist and Workers¹ Parties of all countries so that these Parties may make correct judgments after serious deliberation and in accordance with Marxism-Leninism and the principles of the Moscow Declaration. 4. It is of the utmost importance for Communists to draw a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves, between truth and falsehood. Our two Parties should treasure and value our friendship and join hands to oppose the enemy, and should not make statements or take actions liable to undermine the unity between the two Parties and the two countries and thus give the enemy the opportunity of driving a wedge between us. 5. On the basis of the above principles, our two Parties, together with other Communist and Workers¹ Parties, should strive through full preparation and consultation to make a success of the Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers¹ Parties of all countries to be held in Moscow in November this year, and, at this meeting, should work out a document conforming to the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of the 1957 Moscow Declaration to serve as a programme to which we should all adhere, a programme for our united struggle against the enemy. ON THE QUESTION OF STALIN Second Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) (September 13, 1963) 117 HE question of Stalin is one of world-wide importance T which has had repercussions among all classes in every country and which is still a subject of much discussion today, with different classes and their political parties and groups taking different views. It is likely that no final verdict can be reached on this question in the present century. But there is virtual agreement among the majority of the international working class and of revolutionary people, who disapprove of the complete negation of Stalin and more and more cherish his memory. This is also true of the Soviet Union. Our controversy with the leaders of the CPSU is with a section of people. We hope to persuade them in order to advance the revolutionary cause. This is our purpose in writing the present article. The Communist Party of China has always held that when Comrade Khrushchov completely negated Stalin on the pretext of ³combating the personality cult², he was quite wrong and had ulterior motives. The Central Committee of the CPC pointed out in its letter of June 14 that the ³struggle against the personality cult² violates Lenin¹s integral teachings on the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses, and undermines the Communist principle of democratic centralism. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU avoids making any reply to our principled arguments, but merely labels the Chinese Communists as ³defenders of the personality cult and peddlers of Stalin¹s erroneous ideas². When he was fighting the Mensheviks, Lenin said, ³Not to reply to an argument of one¹s opponent on a question of principle, and to ascribe only Œpathos¹ to him, means not to argue 118 but to turn to abuse.²1 The attitude shown by the Central Committee of the CPSU in its Open Letter is exactly like that of the Mensheviks. Even though the Open Letter resorts to abuse in place of debate, we on our part prefer to reply to it with principled arguments and a great many facts. The great Soviet Union was the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the beginning, the foremost leader of the Party and the Government in this state was Lenin. After Lenin¹s death, it was Stalin. After Lenin¹s death, Stalin became not only the leader of the Party and Government of the Soviet Union but the acknowledged leader of the international communist movement as well. It is only forty-six years since the first socialist state was inaugurated by the October Revolution. For nearly thirty of these years Stalin was the foremost leader of this state. Whether in the history of the dictatorship of the proletariat or in that of the international communist movement, Stalin¹s activities occupy an extremely important place. The Chinese Communist Party has consistently maintained that the question of how to evaluate Stalin and what attitude to take towards him is not just one of appraising Stalin himself; more important, it is a question of how to sum up the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat andof the international communist movement since Lenin¹s death. Comrade Khrushchov completely negated Stalin at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. He failed to consult the fraternal Parties in advance on this question of principle which involves the whole international communist movement, and afterwards tried to impose a fait accompli on them. Whoever makes an appraisal of Stalin different from that of the leadership of the CPSU is charged with ³defence of the personality cult² as well as ³interference² in the internal affairs of the CPSU. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Some Remarks on the ŒReply¹ by P. Maslov², Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XV, p. 255. 119 But no one can deny the international significance of the historical experience of the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the historical fact that Stalin was the leader of the international communist movement; consequently, no one can deny that the appraisal of Stalin is an important question of principle involving the whole international communist movement. On what ground, then, do the leaders of the CPSU forbid other fraternal Parties to make a realistic analysis and appraisal of Stalin? The Communist Party of China has invariably insisted on an overall, objective and scientific analysis of Stalin¹s merits and demerits by the method of historical materialism and the presentation of history as it actually occurred, and has opposed the subjective, crude and complete negation of Stalin by the method of historical idealism and the wilful distortion and alteration of history. The Communist Party of China has consistently held that Stalin did commit errors, which had their ideological as well as social and historical roots. It is necessary to criticize the errors Stalin actually committed, not those groundlessly attributed to him, and to do so from a correct stand and with correct methods. But we have consistently opposed improper criticism of Stalin, made from a wrong stand and with wrong methods. Stalin fought tsarism and propagated Marxism during Lenin¹s lifetime; after he became a member of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party headed by Lenin he took part in the struggle to pave the way for the 1917 Revolution; after the October Revolution he fought to defend the fruits of the proletarian revolution. Stalin led the CPSU and the Soviet people, after Lenin¹s death, in resolutely fighting both internal and external foes, and in safeguarding and consolidating the first socialist state in the world. Stalin led the CPSU and the Soviet people in upholding the line of socialist industrialization and agricultural collectiviza 120 tion and in achieving great successes in socialist transformation and socialist construction. Stalin led the CPSU, the Soviet people and the Soviet army in an arduous and bitter struggle to the great victory of the anti-fascist war. Stalin defended and developed Marxism-Leninism in the fight against various kinds of opportunism, against the enemies of Leninism, the Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites and other bourgeois agents. Stalin made an indelible contribution to the international communist movement in a number of theoretical writings which are immortal Marxist-Leninist works. Stalin led the Soviet Party and Government in pursuing a foreign policy which on the whole was in keeping with proletarian internationalism and in greatly assisting the revolutionary struggles of all peoples, including the Chinese people. Stalin stood in the forefront of the tide of history guiding the struggle, and was an irreconcilable enemy of the imperialists and all reactionaries. Stalin¹s activities were intimately bound up with the struggles of the great CPSU and the great Soviet people and inseparable from the revolutionary struggles of the people of the whole world. Stalin¹s life was that of a great Marxist-Leninist, a great proletarian revolutionary. It is true that while he performed meritorious deeds for the Soviet people and the international communist movement, Stalin, a great Marxist-Leninist and proletarian revolutionary, also made certain mistakes. Some were errors of principle and some were errors made in the course of practical work; some could have been avoided and some were scarcely avoidable at a time when the dictatorship of the proletariat had no precedent to go by. In his way of thinking, Stalin departed from dialectical materialism and fell into metaphysics and subjectivism on certain questions and consequently he was sometimes divorced 121 from reality and from the masses. In struggles inside as well as outside the Party, on certain occasions and on certain questions he confused two types of contradictions which are different in nature, contradictions between ourselves and the enemy and contradictions among the people, and also confused the different methods needed in handling them. In the work led by Stalin of suppressing the counter-revolution, many counter-revolutionaries deserving punishment were duly punished, but at the same time there were innocent people who were wrongly convicted; and in 1937 and 1938 there occurred the error of enlarging the scope of the suppression of counterrevolutionaries. In the matter of Party and government organization, he did not fully apply proletarian democratic centralism and, to some extent, violated it. In handling relations with fraternal Parties and countries, he made some mistakes. He also gave some bad counsel in the international communist movement. These mistakes caused some losses to the Soviet Union and the international communist movement. Stalin¹s merits and mistakes are matters of historical, objective reality. A comparison of the two shows that his merits outweighed his faults. He was primarily correct, and his faults were secondary. In summing up Stalin¹s thinking and his work in their totality, surely every honest Communist with a respect for history will first observe what was primary in Stalin. Therefore, when Stalin¹s errors are being correctly appraised, criticized and overcome, it is necessary to safeguard what was primary in Stalin¹s life, to safeguard Marxism- Leninism which he defended and developed. It would be beneficial if the errors of Stalin, which were only secondary, are taken as historical lessons so that the Communists of the Soviet Union and other countries might take warning and avoid repeating those errors or commit fewer errors. Both positive and negative historical lessons are beneficial to all Communists, provided they are drawn correctly and conform with and do not distort historical facts. 122 Lenin pointed out more than once that Marxists were totally different from the revisionists of the Second International in their attitude towards people like Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg, who, for all their mistakes, were great proletarian revolutionaries. Marxists did not conceal these people¹s mistakes but through such examples learned ³how to avoid them and live up to the more rigorous requirements of revolutionary Marxism². 1 By contrast, the revisionists ³crowed² and ³cackled² over the mistakes of Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg. Ridiculing the revisionists, Lenin quoted a Russian fable in this connection. ³Sometimes eagles may fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles.²2 Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg were ³great Communists² and, in spite of their mistakes, remained ³eagles², while the revisionists were a flock of ³hens² ³in the backyard of the working class movement, among the dung heaps².3 The historical role of Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg is by no means comparable to that of Stalin. Stalin was the great leader of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the international communist movement over a whole historical era, and greater care should be exercised in evaluating him. The leaders of the CPSU have accused the Chinese Communist Party of ³defending² Stalin. Yes, we do defend Stalin. When Khrushchov distorts history and completely negates Stalin, naturally we have the inescapable duty to come forward and defend him in the interests of the international communist movement. In defending Stalin, the Chinese Communist Party defends his correct side, defends the glorious history of struggle of the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Preface to the Pamphlet by Voinov (A. V. Lunacharsky) on the Attitude of the Party Towards the Trade Unions², Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. XIII, p. 165. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³Notes of a Publicist², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. X, p. 312. 3 Ibid., p. 313. 123 created by the October Revolution; it defends the glorious history of struggle of the CPSU; it defends the prestige of the international communist movement among working people throughout the world. In brief, it defends the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. It is not only the Chinese Communists who are doing this; all Communists devoted to Marxism-Leninism, all staunch revolutionaries and all fairminded people have been doing the same thing. While defending Stalin, we do not defend his mistakes. Long ago the Chinese Communists had first-hand experience of some of his mistakes. Of the erroneous ³Left² and Right opportunist lines which emerged in the Chinese Communist Party at one time or another, some arose under the influence of certain mistakes of Stalin¹s, in so far as their international sources were concerned. In the late twenties, the thirties and the early and middle forties, the Chinese Marxist-Leninists represented by Comrades Mao Tse-tung and Liu Shao-chi resisted the influence of Stalin¹s mistakes; they gradually overcame the erroneous lines of ³Left² and Right opportunism and finally led the Chinese revolution to victory. But since some of the wrong ideas put forward by Stalin were accepted and applied by certain Chinese comrades, we Chinese should bear the responsibility. In its struggle against ³Left² and Right opportunism, therefore, our Party criticized only its own erring comrades and never put the blame on Stalin. The purpose of our criticism was to distinguish between right and wrong, learn the appropriate lessons and advance the revolutionary cause. We merely asked the erring comrades that they should correct their mistakes. If they failed to do so, we waited until they were gradually awakened by their own practical experience, provided they did not organize secret groups for clandestine and disruptive activities. Our method was the proper method of inner-Party criticism and self-criticism; we started from the desire for unity and arrived at a new unity on a new basis through criticism and struggle, and thus good results were achieved. We held that 124 these were contradictions among the people and not between the enemy and ourselves, and that therefore we should use the above method. What attitude have Comrade Khrushchov and other leaders of the CPSU taken towards Stalin since the 20th Congress of the CPSU? They have not made an overall historical and scientific analysis of his life and work but have completely negated him without any distinction between right and wrong. They have treated Stalin not as a comrade but as an enemy. They have not adopted the method of criticism and selfcriticism to sum up experience but have blamed Stalin for all errors, or ascribed to him the ³mistakes² they have arbitrarily invented. They have not presented the facts and reasoned things out but have made demagogic personal attacks on Stalin in order to poison people¹s minds. Khrushchov has abused Stalin as a ³murderer², a ³criminal², a ³bandit²,1 a ³gambler², a ³despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible², ³the greatest dictator in Russian history², a ³fool²,2 an ³idiot²,3 etc. When we are compelled to cite all this filthy, vulgar and malicious language, we are afraid it may soil our pen and paper. Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as ³the greatest dictator in Russian history². Does not this mean that the Soviet people lived for thirty long years under the ³tyranny² of ³the greatest dictator in Russian history² and not under the socialist system? The great Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the whole world completely disagree with this slander! Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a ³despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible². Does not this mean that the experience 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Conversation with the Delegation of the Chinese Communist Party, October 22, 1961. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the May Day Reception of 1962. Given by the Soviet Government. 3 N. S. Khrushchov, Conversation with the Delegation of the Chinese Communist Party, October 22, 1961. 125 the great CPSU and the great Soviet people provided over thirty years for people the world over was not the experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat but that of life under the rule of a feudal ³despot²? The great Soviet people, the Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the whole world completely disagree with this slander! Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a ³bandit². Does not this mean that the first socialist state in the world was for a long period headed by a ³bandit²? The great Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the whole world completely disagree with this slander! Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a ³fool². Does not this mean that the CPSU which waged heroic revolutionary struggles over the past decades had a ³fool² as its leader? The Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the whole world completely disagree with this slander! Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as an ³idiot². Does not this mean that the great Soviet army which triumphed in the anti-fascist war had an ³idiot² as its supreme commander? The glorious Soviet commanders and fighters and all antifascist fighters of the world completely disagree with this slander! Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a ³murderer². Does not this mean that the international communist movement had a ³murderer² as its teacher for decades? Communists of the whole world, including the Soviet Communists, completely disagree with this slander! Khrushchov has maligned Stalin as a ³gambler². Does not this mean that the revolutionary peoples had a ³gambler² as their standard-bearer in the struggles against imperialism and reaction? All revolutionary people of the world, including the Soviet people, completely disagree with this slander! Such abuse of Stalin by Khrushchov is a gross insult to the great Soviet people, a gross insult to the CPSU, to the Soviet army, to the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the socialist 126 system to the international communist movement, to the revolutionary people the world over and to Marxism-Leninism. In what position does Khrushchov, who participated in the leadership of the Party and the state during Stalin¹s period place himself when he beats his breast, pounds the table and shouts abuse of Stalin at the top of his voice? In the position of an accomplice to a ³murderer² or a ³bandit²? Or in the same position as a ³fool² or an ³idiot²? What difference is there between such abuse of Stalin by Khrushchov and the abuse by the imperialists, the reactionaries in various countries, and the renegades to communism? Why such inveterate hatred of Stalin? Why attack him more ferociously than you do the enemy? In abusing Stalin, Khrushchov is in fact wildly denouncing the Soviet system and state. His language in this connection is by no means weaker but is actually stronger than that of such renegades as Kautsky, Trotsky, Tito and Djilas. People should quote the following passage from the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU and ask Khrushchov: ³How can they say these things about the party of the great Lenin, about the motherland of socialism, about the people who were the first in the world to accomplish a socialist revolution, upheld its great gains in fierce battles against international imperialism and domestic counter-revolution, are displaying miracles of heroism and dedication in the effort to build communism are faithfully fulfilling their internationalist duty to the working people of the world²! In his article, ³The Political Significance of Abuse², Lenin said, ³Abuse in politics often covers up the utter lack of ideological content, the helplessness and the impotence, the annoying impotence of the abuser.² Does this not apply to the leaders of the CPSU who, feeling constantly haunted by the spectre of Stalin, try to cover up their total lack of principle, their helplessness and annoying impotence by abusing Stalin? The great majority of the Soviet people disapprove of such abuse of Stalin. They increasingly cherish the memory of 127 Stalin. The leaders of the CPSU have seriously isolated themselves from the masses. They always feel they are being threatened by the haunting spectre of Stalin, which is in fact the broad masses¹ great dissatisfaction with the complete negation of Stalin. So far Khrushchov has not dared to let the Soviet people and the other people in the socialist camp see the secret report completely negating Stalin which he made to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, because it is a report which cannot bear the light of day, a report which would seriously alienate the masses. Especially noteworthy is the fact that while they abuse Stalin in every possible way, the leaders of the CPSU regard Eisenhower, Kennedy and the like ³with respect and trust².1 They abuse Stalin as a ³despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible² and ³the greatest dictator in Russian history², but compliment both Eisenhower and Kennedy as ³having the support of the absolute majority of the American people²!2 They abuse Stalin as an ³idiot² but praise Eisenhower and Kennedy as ³sensible²! On the one hand, they viciously lash at a great Marxist-Leninist, a great proletarian revolutionary and a great leader of the international communist movement, and on the other, they laud the chieftains of imperialism to the skies. Is there any possibility that the connection between these phenomena is merely accidental and that it does not follow with inexorable logic from the betrayal of Marxism- Leninism? If his memory is not too short, Khrushchov ought to remember that at a mass rally held in Moscow in January 1937 he himself rightly condemned those who had attacked Stalin, saying, ³In lifting their hand against Comrade Stalin, they lifted it against all of us, against the working class and the working people! In lifting their hand against Comrade Stalin, 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Letter in Reply to J. F. Kennedy, October 28, 1962. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Replies to the Questions by the Editors-in-Chief of Pravda and Izvestia, in Pravda, June 15, 1963. 128 they lifted it against the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin!² Khrushchev himself repeatedly extolled Stalin as an ³intimate friend and comrade-in-arms of the great Lenin²,1 as ³the greatest genius, teacher and leader of mankind²2 and ³the great, ever-victorious marshal²,3 as ³the sincere friend of the people²4 and as his ³own fathere².5 If one compares the remarks made by Khrushchov when Stalin was alive with those made after his death, one will not fail to see that Khrushchov has made a 180-degree turn in his evaluation of Stalin. If his memory is not too short, Khrushchov should of course remember that during the period of Stalin¹s leadership he himself was particularly active in supporting and carrying out the then prevailing policy for suppressing counter-revolutionaries. On June 6, 1937, at the Fifth Party Conference of Moscow Province, Khrushchov declared: Our Party will mercilessly crush the band of traitors and betrayers, and wipe out all the Trotskyist-Right dregs. . . . The guarantee of this is the unshakable leadership of our Central Committee, the unshakable leadership of our leader Comrade Stalin. . . . We shall totally annihilate the enemies ‹ to the last man ‹ and scatter their ashes to the winds. On June 8, 1938, at the Fourth Party Conference of Kiev Province, Khrushchov declared: 1 N. S. Khrushchov, ³Stalin and the Great Friendship of the Peoples of the Soviet Union², Pravda, December 21, 1939. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the 18th Congress of the CPSU(B), Pravda, March 15, 1939. 3 N. S. Khrushchov and others, Letter to All the Officers and Men of the Soviet Red Army, Pravda, May 13, 1945. 4 N. S. Khrushchov, ³Stalin and the Great Friendship of the Peoples of the Soviet Union², Pravda, December 21, 1939. 5 N. S. Khrushchov, ³Stalinist Friendship Among the Peoples ‹ Guarantee of the Invincibility of Our Motherland², Pravda, December 21, 1949. 129 The Yakyirs, Balyitskys, Lyubehenkys, Zatonskys and other scum wanted to bring Polish landowners to the Ukraine, wanted to bring here the German fascists, landlords and capitalists. . . . We have annihilated a considerable number of enemies, but still not all. Therefore, it is necessary to keep our eyes open. We should bear firmly in mind the words of Comrade Stalin, that as long as capitalist encirclement exists, spies and saboteurs will be smuggled into our country. Why does Khrushchov, who was in the leadership of the Party and the state in Stalin¹s period and who actively supported and firmly executed the policy for suppressing counterrevolutionaries, repudiate everything done during this period and shift the blame for all errors on to Stalin alone, while altogether whitewashing himself? When Stalin did something wrong, he was capable of criticizing himself. For instance, he had given some bad counsel with regard to the Chinese revolution. After the victory of the Chinese revolution, he admitted his mistake. Stalin also admitted some of his mistakes in the work of purifying the Party ranks in his report to the 18th Congress of the CPSU (B) in 1939. But what about Khrushchov? He simply does not know what self-criticism is; all he does is to shift the entire blame on to others and claim the entire credit for himself. It is not surprising that these ugly actions of Khrushchov¹s should have taken place when modern revisionism is on the rampage. As Lenin said in 1915 when he criticized the revisionists of the Second International for their betrayal of Marxism: This is not at all surprising in this day of words forgotten, principles lost, philosophies overthrown, and resolutions and solemn promises discarded.1 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Preface to N. Bukharin¹s Pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy², Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXII, p. 104. 130 As the train of events since the 20th Congress of the CPSU has fully shown, the complete negation of Stalin by the leadership of the CPSU has had extremely serious consequences. It has provided the imperialists and the reactionaries of all countries with exceedingly welcome anti-Soviet and anti- Communist ammunition. Shortly after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the imperialists exploited Khrushchov¹s secret anti- Stalin report to stir up a world-wide tidal wave against the Soviet Union and against communism. The imperialists, the reactionaries of all countries, the Tito clique and opportunists of various descriptions all leapt at the chance to attack the Soviet Union, the socialist camp and the Communist Parties; thus many fraternal Parties and countries were placed in serious difficulties. The frantic campaign against Stalin by the leadership of the CPSU enabled the Trotskyites, who had long been political corpses, to come to life again and clamour for the ³rehabilitation² of Trotsky. In November 1961, at the conclusion of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, the International Secretariat of the so-called Fourth International stated in a Letter to the 22nd Congress of the CPSU and Its New Central Committee that in 1937 Trotsky said a monument would be erected to the honour of the victims of Stalin. ³Today,² it continued, ³this prediction has come true. Before your Congress the First Secretary of your Party has promised the erection of this monument.² In this letter the specific demand was made that the name of Trotsky be ³engraved in letters of gold on the monument erected in honour of the victims of Stalin². The Trotskyites made no secret of their joy, declaring that the anti-Stalin campaign started by the leadership of the CPSU had ³opened the door for Trotskyism² and would ³greatly help the advance of Trotskyism and its organization ‹ the Fourth International². In completely negating Stalin, the leaders of the CPSU have motives that cannot bear the light of day. 131 Stalin died in 1953; three years later the leaders of the CPSU violently attacked him at the 20th Congress, and eight years after his death they again did so at the 22nd Congress, removing and burning his remains. In repeating their violent attacks on Stalin, the leaders of the CPSU aimed at erasing the indelible influence of this great proletarian revolutionary among the people of the Soviet Union and throughout the world, and at paving the way for negating Marxism-Leninism, which Stalin had defended and developed, and for the all-out application of a revisionist line. Their revisionist line began exactly with the 20th Congress and became fully systematized at the 22nd Congress. The facts have shown ever more clearly that their revision of the Marxist-Leninist theories on imperialism, war and peace, proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, revolution in the colonies and semicolonies, the proletarian party, etc., is inseparably connected with their complete negation of Stalin. It is under the cover of ³combating the personality cult² that the leadership of the CPSU tries to negate Stalin completely. In launching ³the combat against the personality cult², the leaders of the CPSU are not out to restore what they call ³the Leninist standards of Party life and principles of leadership². On the contrary, they are violating Lenin¹s teachings on the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses and contravening the principle of democratic centralism in the Party. Marxist-Leninists maintain that if the revolutionary party of the proletariat is genuinely to serve as the headquarters of the proletariat in struggle, it must correctly handle the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses and must be organized on the principle of democratic centralism. Such a Party must have a fairly stable nucleus of leadership, which should consist of a group of long-tested leaders who are good at integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of revolution. 132 The leaders of the proletarian party, whether members of the Central or local committees, emerge from the masses in the course of class struggles and mass revolutionary movements. They are infinitely loyal to the masses, have close ties with them and are good at correctly concentrating the ideas of the masses and then carrying them through. Such leaders are genuine representatives of the proletariat and are acknowledged by the masses. It is a sign of the political maturity of a proletarian party for it to have such leaders, and herein lies the hope of victory for the cause of the proletariat. Lenin was absolutely right in saying that ³not a single class in history has achieved power without producing its political leaders, its prominent representatives able to organise a movement and lead it².1 He also said: The training of experienced and most influential Party leaders is a long-term and difficult task. But without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat, its ³unity of will², will remain a phrase.2 The Communist Party of China has always adhered to the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the role of the masses and the individual in history and on the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses, and upheld democratic centralism in the Party. We have always maintained collective leadership; at the same time, we are against belittling the role of leaders. While we attach importance to this role, we are against dishonest and excessive eulogy of individuals and exaggeration of their role. As far back as 1949 the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, on Comrade Mao Tse-tung¹s suggestion, took a decision forbidding public celebrations of any kind on the birthdays of Party leaders and the naming of places, streets or enterprises after them. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. II, p. 13. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³A Letter to the German Communists², Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, p 492. 133 This consistent and correct approach of ours is fundamentally different from the ³combat against the personality cult² advocated by the leadership of the CPSU. It has become increasingly clear that in advocating the ³combat against the personality cult² the leaders of the CPSU do not intend, as they themselves claim, to promote democracy, practise collective leadership and oppose exaggeration of the role of the individual but have ulterior motives. What exactly is the gist of their ³combat against the personality cult²? To put it bluntly, it is nothing but the following: 1. on the pretext of ³combating the personality cult², to counterpose Stalin, the leader of the Party, to the Party organization, the proletariat and the masses of the people; 2. on the pretext of ³combating the personality cult², to besmirch the proletarian party, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the socialist system; 3. on the pretext of ³combating the personality cult², to build themselves up and to attack revolutionaries loyal to Marxism-Leninism so as to pave the way for revisionist schemers to usurp the Party and state leadership; 4. on the pretext of ³combating the personality cult², to interfere in the internal affairs of fraternal Parties and countries and strive to subvert their leadership to suit themselves; and 5. on the pretext of ³combating the personality cult², to attack fraternal Parties which adhere to Marxism-Leninism and to split the international communist movement. The ³combat against the personality cult² launched by Khrushchov is a despicable political intrigue. Like someone described by Marx, ³He is in his element as an intriguer, while a nonentity as a theorist.²1 The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU states that ³while rejecting the personality cult and combat- 1 ³Marx to F. Bolte², Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Ger. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1950, Vol. II, p. 438. 134 ing its consequences² they have ³a high regard for leaders who . . . enjoy deserved prestige². What does this mean? It means that, while trampling Stalin underfoot, the leaders of the CPSU laud Khrushchov to the skies. They describe Khrushchov, who was not yet a Communist at the time of the October Revolution and who was a lowranking political worker during the Civil War, as an ³active creator of the Red Army².1 They ascribe the great victory of the decisive battle in the Soviet Patriotic War entirely to Khrushchov, saying that in the Battle Of Stalingrad ³Khrushchov¹s voice was very frequently heard²2 and that he was ³the soul of the Stalingraders². 3 They attribute the great achievements in nuclear weapons and rocketry wholly to Khrushchov, calling him ³cosmic father².4 But as everybody knows, the success of the Soviet Union in manufacturing the atom and hydrogen bombs was a great achievement of the Soviet scientists and technicians and the Soviet people under Stalin¹s leadership. The foundations of rocketry were also laid in Stalin¹s time. How can these important historical facts be obliterated? How can all credit be given to Khrushchev? They laud Khrushchov who has revised the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism and who holds that Leninism is outmoded as the ³brilliant model who creatively developed and enriched Marxist-Leninist theory².5 What the leaders of the CPSU are doing under the cover of ³combating the personality cult² is exactly as Lenin said: 1 ³Life for the People², Zarya Vostoka, December 17, 1961. 2 ³Created and Reared by the Party², Agitator, No. 2, 1963. 3 V. I. Chuikov, Speech at the Rally Marking the 20th Anniversary of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, Pravda, June 22, 1961. 4 G. S. Titov, Speech at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 26, 1961. 5 A. N. Kosygin, Speech at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 21, 1961. 135 . . . in place of the old leaders, who hold ordinary human views on ordinary matters, new leaders are put forth . . . who talk supernatural nonsense and confusion.1 The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU slanders our stand in adhering to Marxism-Leninism, asserting that we ³are trying to impose upon other Parties the order of things, the ideology and morals, the forms and methods of leadership that flourished in the period of the personality cult². This remark again exposes the absurdity of the ³combat against the personality cult². According to the leaders of the CPSU, after the October Revolution put an end to capitalism in Russia there followed a ³period of the personality cult². It would seem that the ³social system² and ³the ideology and morals² of that period were not socialist. In that period the Soviet working people were under a ³heavy burden², there prevailed an ³atmosphere of fear, suspicion and uncertainty which poisoned the life of the people²,2 and Soviet society was impeded in its development. In his speech at the Soviet-Hungarian friendship rally on July 19, 1963, Khrushchov dwelt on what he called Stalin¹s rule of ³terror², saying that Stalin ³maintained his power with an axe². He described the social order of the time in the following terms: ³. . . in that period a man leaving for work often did not know whether he would return home, whether he would see his wife and children again.² ³The period of the personality cult² as described by the leadership of the CPSU was one when society was more ³hateful² and ³barbarous² than in the period of feudalism or capitalism. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³ŒLeft-Wing¹ Communism, an Infantile Disorder², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. X, p. 82. 2 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to all Party Organizations, to All Communists of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 136 According to the leadership of the CPSU, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system of society which were established as a result of the October Revolution failed to remove the oppression of the working people or accelerate the development of Soviet society for several decades; only after the 20th Congress of the CPSU carried out the ³combat against the personality cult² was the ³heavy burden² removed from the working people and ³the development of Soviet society² suddenly ³accelerated².1 Khrushchov said, ³Ah! If only Stalin had died ten years earlier!²2 As everybody knows, Stalin died in 1953; ten years earlier would have been 1943, the very year when the Soviet Union began its counter-offensive in the Great Patriotic War. At that time, who wanted Stalin to die? Hitler! It is not a new thing in the history of the international communist movement for the enemies of Marxism-Leninism to vilify the leaders of the proletariat and try to undermine the proletarian cause by using some such slogan as ³combating the personality cult². It is a dirty trick which people saw through long ago. In the period of the First International the schemer Bakunin used similar language to rail at Marx. At first, to worm himself into Marx¹s confidence, he wrote him, ³I am your disciple and I am proud of it.²3 Later, when he failed in his plot to usurp the leadership of the First International, he abused Marx and said, ³As a German and a Jew, he is authoritarian from head to heels²4 and a ³dictator².5 1 Ibid. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Soviet-Hungarian Friendship Rally in Moscow, July 19, 1963. 3 M. A. Bakunin¹s Letter to Karl Marx, December 22, 1868, Die Neue Zeit, No. 1, 1900. 4 Franz Mehring, Karl Marx, the Story of His Life, Eng. ed., Covici Friede Publishers, New York, 1935, p. 429. 5 ³Engels to A. Bebel, June 20, 1873², Selected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 432. 137 In the period of the Second International the renegade Kautsky used similar language to rail at Lenin. He slandered Lenin, likening him to ³the God of monotheists²1 who had reduced Marxism ³to the status not only of a state religion but of a medieval or oriental faith².2 In the period of the Third International the renegade Trotsky similarly used such language to rail at Stalin. He said that Stalin was a ³tyrant²3 and that ³the Stalinist bureaucracy has created a vile leader-cult, attributing to leaders divine qualities².4 The modern revisionist Tito clique also use similar words to rail at Stalin, saying that Stalin was the ³dictator² ³in a system of absolute personal power².5 Thus it is clear that the issue of ³combating the personality cult² raised by the leadership of the CPSU has come down through Bakunin, Kautsky, Trotsky and Tito, all of whom used it to attack the leaders of the proletariat and undermine the proletarian revolutionary movement. The opportunists in the history of the international communist movement were unable to negate Marx, Engels or Lenin by vilification, nor is Khrushchov able to negate Stalin by vilification. As Lenin pointed out, a privileged position cannot ensure the success of vilification. Khrushchov was able to utilize his privileged position to remove the body of Stalin from the Lenin Mausoleum, but try as he may, he can never succeed in removing the great image 1 Karl Kautsky, Social Democracy Versus Communism, Eng. ed., Rand School Press, New York, 1946, p. 54. 2 Ibid., p. 29. 3 Leon Trotsky, Stalin, an Appraisal of the Man and His Influence, Eng. ed., Harper and Brothers, New York and London, 1941, p. 490. 4 Leon Trotsky, ³The Stalinist Bureaucracy and the Assassination of Kirov², On the Kirov Assassination, Eng. ed., Pioneer Publishers, New York, 1956, p. 17. 5 Edvard Kardelj, ³Five Years Later², Borba, June 28, 1953. of Stalin from the minds of the Soviet people and of the people throughout the world. Khrushchov can utilize his privileged position to revise Marxism-Leninism one way or another, but try as he may, he can never succeed in overthrowing Marxism-Leninism which Stalin defended and which is defended by Marxist-Leninists throughout the world. We would like to offer a word of sincere advice to Comrade Khrushchov. We hope you will become aware of your errors and return from your wrong path to the path of Marxism- Leninism. Long live the great revolutionary teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin! IS YUGOSLAVIA A SOCIALIST COUNTRY? Third Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) (September 26, 1963) 141 IS Yugoslavia a socialist country? This is not only a question of ascertaining the nature of the Yugoslav state, but it also involves the question of which road the socialist countries should follow: whether they should follow the road of the October Revolution and carry the socialist revolution through to the end or follow the road of Yugoslavia and restore capitalism. In addition, it involves the question of how to appraise the Tito clique: whether it is a fraternal Party and a force against imperialism or a renegade from the international communist movement and a lackey of imperialism. On this question there are fundamental differences of opinion between the leaders of the CPSU, on the one hand, and ourselves and all other Marxist-Leninists, on the other. All Marxist-Leninists hold that Yugoslavia is not a socialist country. The leading clique of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia has betrayed Marxism-Leninism and the Yugoslav people and consists of renegades from the international communist movement and lackeys of imperialism. The leaders of the CPSU, on the other hand, hold that Yugoslavia is a socialist country and that the League of Communists of Yugoslavia bases itself on Marxism-Leninism and is a fraternal Party and a force against imperialism. In its Open Letter of July 14 the Central Committee of the CPSU declares that Yugoslavia is a ³socialist country² and that the Tito clique is a ³fraternal Party² that ³stands at the helm of the ship of state². Recently Comrade Khrushchov paid a visit to Yugoslavia and in a number of speeches he revealed the real standpoint of the leaders of the CPSU still more clearly, and completely discarded the fig-leaf with which they had been covering themselves on this question. 142 In Khrushchov¹s opinion, Yugoslavia is not only a socialist country but an ³advanced² socialist country. There, one finds not ³idle talk about revolution² but ³actual construction of socialism¹¹, and the development of Yugoslavia is ³a concrete contribution to the general world revolutionary workers¹ movement²,1 which Khrushchov rather envies and wishes to emulate. In Khrushchov¹s opinion, the leaders of the CPSU and the Titoites are ³not only class brothers² but ³brothers tied together . . . by the singleness of aims confronting us². The leadership of the CPSU is a ³reliable and faithful ally² of the Tito clique.2 Khrushchov believes he has discovered genuine Marxism- Leninism in the Tito clique. The Central Committee of the CPSU was merely pretending when it asserted in its Open Letter that ³differences on a number of fundamental ideological questions still remain between the CPSU and the Yugoslav League of Communists². Now Khrushchov has told the Tito clique that ³we belong to one and the same idea and are guided by the same theory², and that both stand on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.3 Khrushchov has cast the Statement of 1960 to the winds. The Statement says: The Communist Parties have unanimously condemned the Yugoslav variety of international opportunism, a variety of modern revisionist ³theories² in concentrated form. It says: After betraying Marxism-Leninism, which they termed obsolete, the leaders of the League of Communists of Yu- 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Mass Rally in Velenje, Yugoslavia, August 30, 1963. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Meeting in a Factory of Rakovica, Yugoslavia, August 21, 1963. 3 N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Correspondents at Brioni, Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963, as reported by Tanjug. 143 goslavia opposed their anti-Leninist revisionist programme to the Declaration of 1957; they set the L.C.Y. against the international communist movement as a whole. . . . It says: [The leaders of the L.C.Y. were] dependent on so-called ³aid² from U.S. and other imperialists, and thereby exposed the Yugoslav people to the danger of losing the revolutionary gains achieved through a heroic struggle. It further says: The Yugoslav revisionists carry on subversive work against the socialist camp and the world communist movement. . . . they engage in activities which prejudice the unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries. The Statement is absolutely clear, and yet the leaders of the CPSU dare to say: ³In accordance with the 1960 Statement, we consider Yugoslavia a socialist country.²1 How can they say such a thing! One would like to ask: Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it is guided by a variety of international opportunism, a variety of modern revisionist theories? Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it has betrayed Marxism-Leninism and sets itself against the international communist movement as a whole? Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it carries on subversive work against the socialist camp and the world communist movement? Can a country be socialist when, as the Statement says, it engages in activities which prejudice the unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries? 1 ³For the Victory of Creative Marxism-Leninism and Against the Revision of the Course of the World Communist Movement², editorial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 11, 1963. 144 Can a country be socialist when the imperialist countries headed by the United States have nurtured it with several billions of U.S. dollars? This is indeed out of the ordinary and unheard of! Apparently, Comrade Togliatti speaks more plainly than Comrade Khrushchov. Togliatti did not mince his words; he said the position taken by the Statement of 1960 on the Tito clique was ³wrong².1 Since Khrushchov is bent on reversing the verdict on the Tito clique, he should be more explicit; there is no need to pretend to uphold the Statement. Is the Statement¹s verdict on Yugoslavia wrong and should it be reversed? Togliatti says it is wrong and should be reversed. Khrushchov in effect also says it is wrong and should be reversed. We say it is not wrong and must not be reversed. All fraternal Parties adhering to Marxism- Leninism and upholding the Statement of 1960 likewise say it is not wrong and must not be reversed. In doing so, in the opinion of the leaders of the CPSU, we are clinging to a ³stereotyped formula² and to the ³jungle laws² of the capitalist world2 and are ³ Œexcommunicating¹ Yugoslavia from socialism².3 Furthermore, whoever does not regard Yugoslavia as a socialist country is said to be going contrary to facts and making the mistake of subjectivism,4 whereas in shutting their eyes to the facts and asserting that Yugoslavia is a socialist country they are ³proceeding from objective laws, from the teaching of Marxism-Leninism² and have drawn a conclusion based on ³a profound analysis of reality².5 1 Palmiro Togliatti, ³Let Us Lead the Discussion Back to Its Real Limit², L¹Unita, January 10, 1963. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, December 1962. 3 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 4 Ibid. 5 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, December 1962. 145 What are the realities in Yugoslavia? What sort of conclusion ought one to draw if one proceeds from objective laws, from the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, and makes a profound analysis of the realities in Yugoslavia? Let us now look into this question. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE CAPITAL IN YUGOSLAV CITIES One of Khrushchov¹s arguments to affirm that Yugoslavia is a socialist country is that private capital, private enterprise and capitalists do not exist in Yugoslavia. Is that true? No, it is not. The fact is private capital and private enterprise exist on a very big scale in Yugoslavia and are developing apace. Judging by the record in all socialist countries, it is not strange to find different sectors, including a private capitalist sectors existing in the national economy of a socialist country for a considerable period after the proletariat has taken political power. What matters is the kind of policy adopted by the government towards private capitalism ‹ the policy of utilizing, restricting, transforming and eliminating it, or the policy of laissez-faire and fostering and encouraging it. This is an important criterion for determining whether a country is developing towards socialism or towards capitalism. On this question the Tito clique is going in the opposite direction from socialism. The social changes Yugoslavia introduced in the early post-war period were in the first place not thoroughgoing. The policy the Tito clique has adopted since its open betrayal is not one of transforming and eliminating private capital and private enterprise but of fostering and expanding them. Regulations issued by the Tito clique in 1953 stipulate that ³citizens¹ groups² have the right to ³found enterprises² and ³hire labour². In the same year, it issued a decree stipulat 146 ing that private individuals have the right to purchase fixed assets from state economic establishments. In 1956 the Tito clique encouraged local administrations to foster private capital by its taxation and other policies. In 1961 the Tito clique decreed that private individuals have the right to purchase foreign exchange. In 1963 the Tito clique embodied the policy of developing private capitalism in its constitution. According to provisions of the constitution, private individuals in Yugoslavia may found enterprises and hire labour. With the Tito clique¹s help and encouragement, private enterprise and private capital have mushroomed in the cities in Yugoslavia. According to the official Statistical Pocket-Book of Yugoslavia, 1963 published in Belgrade, there are over 115,000 privately-owned craft establishments in Yugoslavia. But in fact the owners of many of these private enterprises are not ³craftsmen² but typical private capitalists. The Tito clique admits that although the law allows private owners to employ a maximum of five workers each, there are some who employ ten or twenty times as many and even some who employ ³five to six hundred workers².1 And the annual turnover of some private enterprises is over 100 million dinars.2 Politika disclosed on December 7, 1961 that in many cases these private entrepreneurs are actually ³big entrepreneurs². It says: It is difficult to ascertain how wide the net of these private entrepreneurs spreads and how many workers they have. According to the law, they are entitled to keep five workers who are supposed to help them in their work. But to those who know the ins and outs of the matter, these five persons are actually contractors who in turn have their own 1 M. Todorovic, ³The Struggle on Two Fronts², Nasha Stvarnost, March issue, 1954. 2 Vesnik u sredu, December 27, 1961. 147 Œsub-contractors¹. . . . As a rule, these contractors no longer engage in labour but only give orders, make plans and conclude contracts, travelling by car from one enterprise to another. From the profits made by these entrepreneurs, one can see that they are one hundred per cent capitalists. Svet reported on December 8, 1961 that ³the net income of some private handicraftsmen reaches one million dinars per month², and the Belgrade Vecernje novosti said on December 20, 1961 that in Belgrade ³last year 116 owners of private enterprises each received an income of more than 10 million dinars². Some entrepreneurs ³received an income of about 70 million dinars² in one year, which is nearly U.S.$100,000 according to the official rate of exchange. In Yugoslav cities not only are there private industrial enterprises, private service establishments, private commerce, private housing estates and private transport business, there are also usurers, who are known as ³private bankers². These usurers operate openly and even advertise their business in the newspapers; one such advertisement runs as follows: ³A loan of 300,000 dinars for three months offered. 400,000 dinars to be returned. Security necessary.²1 All these are indisputable facts. We would like to ask those who are bent on reversing the verdict on the Tito clique: Unless it is your intention to deceive, how can you assert that Yugoslavia has no private capital, no private enterprise and no capitalists? YUGOSLAV COUNTRYSIDE SWAMPED BY CAPITALISM Let us now consider the situation in the Yugoslav countryside. Does it no longer have capitalists, as Khrushchov asserts? 1 Vesnik u sredu, December 6, 1961. 148 No, the facts are quite the reverse. The fact that Yugoslavia has been swamped by capitalism is even more striking in the countryside. Marxism-Leninism teaches us that individual economy, petty-producer economy, generates capitalism daily and hourly, and that only collectivization can lead agriculture on to the path of socialism. Stalin pointed out: Lenin says that so long as individual peasant economy, which engenders capitalists and capitalism, predominates in the country, the danger of a restoration of capitalism will exist. Clearly, so long as this danger exists there can be no serious talk of the victory of socialist construction in our country.1 On this question the Tito clique pursues a line running counter to socialism. In the initial post-war period a land reform took place in Yugoslavia and a number of peasants¹ working co-operatives were organized. But in the main the rich-peasant economy was left untouched. In 1951 the Tito clique openly declared its abandonment of the road of agricultural collectivization and began to disband the peasants¹ working co-operatives. This was a serious step taken by the Tito clique in betraying the socialist cause. Such co-operatives decreased from over 6,900 in 1950 to a little more than 1,200 at the end of 1953, and to 147 in 1960. The Yugoslav countryside is submerged in a sea of individual economy. The Tito clique declares that collectivization has not proved of value in Yugoslavia. It makes the vicious slander that 1 J. V. Stalin, ³Grain Procurements and the Prospects for the Development of Agriculture², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, p. 8. 149 ³collectivization is the same as expropriation²1 and is a path which ³preserves serfdom and poverty in the countryside for the longest possible time².2 It advocates the ridiculous idea that the development of agriculture should be ³based on the free competition of economic forces².3 While dissolving many of the peasants¹ working co-operatives, the Tito clique has promulgated one law and decree after another since 1953 to encourage the development of capitalism in the rural areas, granting freedom to buy, sell and rent land and to hire farm hands, abolishing the planned purchase of agricultural produce and replacing it with free trading in this sphere. Under this policy, the forces of capitalism spread rapidly in the rural areas and the process of polarization quickened. This has been an important aspect of the Tito clique¹s work of restoring capitalism. Polarization in the countryside is firstly revealed in the changes occurring in land ownership. Slavko Komar, formerly Yugoslav Secretary for Agriculture and Forestry, admitted that in 1959 poorer peasant households with less than 5 hectares of land each, which constitute 70 per cent of all peasant households, owned only 43 per cent of all privately-owned land, whereas well-to-do peasant households with more than 8 hectares of land each, which form only 13 per cent of all peasant households, owned 33 per cent of all privately-owned land. Komar also admitted that about 10 per cent of the peasant households bought or sold land every year.4 Most of the sellers were poorer families. 1 Edvard Kardelj, Opening Address at the Ninth Plenum of the Fourth Federal Committee of the Socialist Alliance of the Working People of Yugoslavia, May 5, 1959. 2 Vladimir Bakaric, Speech at the Sixth Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. 3 Edvard Kardelj, ³On Some Problems of Our Policy in the Villages² Komunist, Belgrade, No. 4, 1953. 4 Slavko Komar, ³Some Problems Concerning the Countryside and the Peasant Households², Socializam, No. 5, 1962. 150 The concentration of land is actually much more serious than is apparent from the above data. As revealed in the July 19, 1963 issue of Borba, the organ of the Tito clique, in one district alone there were ³thousands of peasant households with far more than the legal maximum of 10 hectares of land². In Bijeljina Commune, ³it was found that five hundred peasant households owned estates of 10 to 30 hectares². These are not isolated cases. Polarization in the rural areas also manifests itself in the great inequalities in the ownership of draught animals and farm implements. Of the 308,000 peasant households in the province of Vojvodina, which is a leading grain-producing area, 55 per cent have no draught animals. Peasant households with less than 2 hectares of land each, which constitute 40.7 per cent of all peasant households, have only 4.4 per cent of all the ploughs in this region, or an average of one plough to 20 households. On the other hand, the rich peasants own more than 1,300 tractors and a great deal of other farm machinery as well as large numbers of ploughs and animal-drawn carts.1 Polarization likewise manifests itself in the growth of such forms of capitalist exploitation as the hiring of labour. The February 7, 1958 issue of Komunist revealed that 52 per cent of the peasant households in Serbia owning more than 8 hectares of land hired labourers in 1956. In 1962 Slavko Komar said that the heads of some peasant households had in recent years ³become powerful² and that ³their income is derived not from their own labour but from unlawful trade, from the processing of both their own products and those of others, from illicit distilling of spirits, from the possession of more than the prescribed maximum of 10 hectares of farmland, which is obtained by purchasing, or more often by leasing land, fictitious partition of land among family members, seizure or concealment of public land, from the 1 The Yugoslav journal Index, No. 2, 1962. 151 acquisition of tractors through speculation and from the exploitation of poor neighbours by cultivating their land for them².1 Borba stated on August 30, 1962 that ³the so-called kindhearted producer . . . is a leaseholder of land, a hirer of labour and an experienced merchant. . . . Such people are not producers, but entrepreneurs. Some never touch a hoe all the year round. They hire labour and only supervise the work in the field and they engage in trading². Usurers, too, are very active in the Yugoslav countryside. Interest rates often run to more than 100 per cent per annum. In addition, there are people who, taking advantage of the plight of the unemployed, monopolize the labour market and practise exploitation in the process. Deprived of land and other means of production, large numbers of poverty-stricken peasants can live only by selling their labour power. According to figures given in Politika of August 20, 1962, about 70 per cent of the 1961 cash income of Yugoslav peasant households with less than 2 hectares of land came from selling their labour power. These peasants are fleeced right and left and lead a miserable life. As facts show, the Yugoslav countryside is dominated by the exploiting class. In arguing that Yugoslavia is a socialist country, the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU states that the ³socialist sector² in the rural areas of Yugoslavia has increased from 6 to 15 per cent. Unfortunately, even this pitiable percentage is not socialist. By the socialist sector of 15 per cent the leaders of the CPSU can only mean such organizations as the ³agricultural farms² and ³general agricultural co-operatives² promoted by the Tito clique. But in fact the ³agricultural farms² are capitalist farms and the ³general agricultural co-operatives² are capitalist economic organizations engaging mainly in commerce. They 1 Slavko Komar, op. cit. 152 do not affect the private ownership of land; what is more, their main function is to foster the development of the rich-peasant economy. Problems of Agriculture in Yugoslavia, a work published in Belgrade, states that ³judging by how they are organized today and how they function², the co-operatives ³do not in the least signify socialist reconstruction of agriculture and of the countryside. They are working not so much for the creation of socialist strongholds as for the development and promotion of capitalist elements. There are cases in which these cooperatives are kulak associations². The Tito clique has given the ³general agricultural cooperatives² the monopoly right to purchase agricultural products from the peasants. Taking advantage of this special privilege and of uncontrolled fluctuations in prices of farm produce, the so-called co-operatives speculate and through such commercial activities exploit the peasants in a big way. In 1958 Yugoslavia had a poor harvest. The co-operatives and other commercial organs took the opportunity to raise the selling prices of farm produce. The year 1959 brought a better harvest and the co-operatives broke their contracts with the peasants and reduced their purchases, not even hesitating to let the crops rot in the fields. The ³general agricultural co-operatives² and the ³agricultural farms² hire and exploit a large number of long-term and temporary workers. According to data in The Statistical Year- Book of the Federal People¹s Republic of Yugoslavia of 1962, long-term workers hired by the ³cooperatives² alone totalled more than 100,000 in 1961. A large number of temporary workers were also employed. As disclosed by Rad on December 1, 1962, hired labourers ³are very often subject to the crudest exploitation (the working day may be as long as 15 hours), and usually their personal income is extremely low². It is thus clear that these agricultural organizations of the so-called socialist sector are nothing but capitalist agricultural organizations. 153 Expropriation of poorer peasants and promotion of capitalist farms form the Tito clique¹s basic policy in the sphere of agriculture. Back in 1955, Tito said: We do not abandon the idea that the day will come in Yugoslavia when small farms will be combined in one way or another. . . . In America they have already done so. We must find a solution to this problem. In order to take the capitalist path, in 1959 the Tito clique promulgated the Law on the Utilization of Cultivated Land, stipulating that the land of peasants working on their own, who cannot farm it according to requirements, is subject to the ³compulsory management² of the ³general agricultural cooperatives² and ³agricultural farms². In effect, this means the expropriation of poorer peasants and the forcible annexation of their land to develop capitalist farms. This is the path of capitalist agriculture, pure and simple. In speaking of the transition from small peasant economy to an economy of large-scale farming, Stalin said: There you have two paths, the capitalist path and the socialist path: the path forward ‹ to socialism, and the path backward ‹ to capitalism. Is there a third path? Stalin said, ³The so-called third path is actually the second path, the path leading back to capitalism.² ³For what does it mean to return to individual farming and to restore the kulaks? It means restoring kulak bondage, restoring the exploitation of the peasantry by the kulaks and giving the kulaks power. But is it possible to restore the kulaks and at the same time to preserve the Soviet power? No, it is not possible. The restoration of the kulaks is bound to lead to the creation of a kulak power and to the liquidation of the Soviet power ‹ hence, it is bound to lead to the formation of a bourgeois government. And the formation of a bourgeois government is bound to lead in its turn to the 154 restoration of the landlords and capitalists, to the restoration of capitalism.²1 The path taken by Yugoslavia in agriculture during the past ten years and more is precisely the path of restoring capitalism. All these are indisputable facts. We would like to ask those who are bent on reversing the verdict on the Tito clique: Unless it is your intention to deceive, how can you assert that there are no capitalists in Yugoslavia? THE DEGENERATION OF SOCIALIST ECONOMY OWNED BY THE WHOLE PEOPLE INTO CAPITALIST ECONOMY The restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia manifests itself not only in the fact that private capitalism is spreading freely both in the cities and in the countryside. Still more important, the ³public² enterprises, which play a decisive role in the Yugoslav economy, have degenerated. The Tito clique¹s economy of ³workers¹ self-government² is state capitalism of a peculiar kind. It is not state capitalism under conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat but state capitalism under conditions in which the Tito clique has turned the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie. The means of production of the enterprises under ³workers¹ self-government² do not belong to one or more private capitalists but to the new type of bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie of Yugoslavia, which includes the bureaucrats and managers and which the Tito clique represents. Usurping the name of the state, depending on U.S. imperialism and disguising itself under the cloak of 1 J. V. Stalin, ³Speech Delivered at the First All-Union Congress of Collective-Farm Shock Brigaders², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1955, Vol. XIII, p. 248. 155 socialism, this bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie has robbed the working people of the property originally belonging to them. In reality, ³workers¹ self-government² is a system of ruthless exploitation under the domination of bureaucratcomprador capital. Since 1950, the Tito clique has issued a series of decrees instituting ³workers¹ self-government² in all state-owned factories, mines and other enterprises in communications, transport, trade, agriculture, forestry and public utilities. The essence of ³workers¹ self-government² consists of handing over the enterprises to ³working collectives², with each enterprise operating independently, purchasing its own raw materials, deciding on the variety, output and prices of its products and marketing them, and determining its own wage scale and the division of part of its profits. Yugoslav decrees further stipulate that economic enterprises have the right to buy, sell or lease fixed assets. In the enterprises under ³workers¹ self-government², ownership is described by the Tito clique as ³a higher form of socialist ownership². They assert that only with ³workers¹ self-government² can one ³really build socialism². This is sheer deception. Theoretically speaking, as anyone with a slight knowledge of Marxism knows, slogans like ³workers¹ self-government² and ³factories to the workers² have never been Marxist slogans but slogans advanced by anarchist syndicalists, bourgeois socialists and old-line opportunists and revisionists. The theory of ³workers¹ self-government² and ³factories to the workers² runs counter to the fundamental Marxist theory of socialism. It was completely refuted by the classical Marxist writers long ago. As Marx and Engels pointed out in the Communist Manifesto, ³The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State. . . .² 156 Engels wrote in Anti-Dühring, ³The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into state property.² Having seized political power, the proletariat must concentrate the means of production in the hands of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a fundamental principle of socialism. In the early period of Soviet power following the October Revolution when some people advocated handing the factories over to the producers so that they could ³organize production² directly, Lenin sternly criticized this view, saying that in reality it meant opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat. He acutely pointed out: . . . Any direct or indirect legalization of the possession of their own production by the workers of individual factories or individual professions or of their right to weaken or impede the decrees of the state power is the greatest distortion of the basic principles of Soviet power and the complete renunciation of socialism.1 It is thus clear that ³workers¹ self-government² has nothing to do with socialism. In fact, the ³workers¹ self-government² of the Tito clique does not provide self-government on the part of the workers; it is a hoax. The enterprises under ³workers¹ self-government² are actually in the clutches of the new bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie represented by the Tito clique. It controls the enterprises¹ property and personnel and takes away much the greater part of their income. Through the banks the Tito clique controls the credit of the entire country and the investment funds and liquid capital of all enterprises and supervises their financial affairs. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³On the Democracy and Socialist Character of the Soviet Power². 157 The Tito clique plunders the income of these enterprises by various means, such as the collection of taxes and interest. According to the statistics of the ³Report on the Work in 1961 by the Federal Executive Council of Yugoslavia², it took away about three-quarters of the enterprises¹ net income in this way. The Tito clique seizes the fruits of the people¹s labour which it appropriates chiefly for meeting the extravagant expenses of this clique of bureaucrats, for maintaining its reactionary rule, for strengthening the apparatus which suppresses the working people, and for paying tribute to the imperialists in the form of the servicing of foreign debts. Moreover, the Tito clique controls these enterprises through their managers. The managers are nominally chosen by competition by the enterprises but are in fact appointed by the Tito clique. They are agents of the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie in these enterprises. In the enterprises under ³workers¹ self-government², the relations between managers and workers are actually relations between employers and employees, between the exploiters and the exploited. As matters stand, the managers can determine the production plans and the direction of development of these enterprises, dispose of the means of production, take the decisions on the distribution of the enterprises¹ income, hire or fire workers and overrule the resolutions of the workers¹ councils or management boards. Abundant information published in the Yugoslav press proves that the workers¹ council is merely formal, a kind of voting machine, and that all power in the enterprise is in the hands of the manager. The fact that the manager of an enterprise controls its means of production and the distribution of its income enables him to appropriate the fruits of the workers¹ labour by means of various privileges. 158 The Tito clique itself admits that in these enterprises there is a wide gap between managers and workers not only in wages but also in bonuses. In some enterprises, the bonuses of the managers and higher staff are forty times those of the workers. ³In certain enterprises, the total amount of the bonus which a group of leaders received is equal to the wage fund of the entire collective.²1 Moreover, the managers of the enterprises use their privileges to make a lot of money by various subterfuges. Bribery, embezzlement and theft are still bigger sources of income for the managers. The broad masses of the workers live in poverty. There is no guarantee of employment. Large numbers of workers lose their jobs with the closing down of enterprises. According to official statistics, in February 1963 the number of the unemployed reached 339,000, or about 10 per cent of the number of the employed. In addition, every year many workers go abroad seeking work. Politika admitted on September 25, 1961 that ³there exists a great gap between some workers and office employees; the former look upon the latter as Œbureaucrats¹ who Œswallow up¹ their wages². These facts show that in the Yugoslav enterprises under ³workers¹ self-government², a new social group has come into being consisting of the few who appropriate the fruits of labour of the many. It is an important component of the new bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie in Yugoslavia. By promoting ³workers¹ self-government², the Tito clique has completely pushed the enterprises originally owned by the whole people off the path of socialist economy. The main manifestations of this are the following: First, the abandonment of unified economic planning by the state. 1 Letter of the Central Committee of the L.C.Y. to Its Organizations and Leaderships at All Levels, February 17, 1958. 159 Second, the use of profits as the primary incentive in the operation of the enterprises. They may adopt a variety of methods to increase their income and profits. In other words, in the enterprises under ³workers¹ self-government² the aim of production is not to meet the needs of society but to seek profits, just as in any capitalist enterprise. Third, the pursuance of the policy of encouraging capitalist free competition. Tito has said to the managers of the enterprises, ³Competition at home will be beneficial to our ordinary people, the consumers.² The Tito clique also openly declares that it allows ³competition, the seeking of profits, speculation and the like² because ³they play a positive role in promoting the initiative of the producers, their collective, the communes, etc.².1 Fourth, the use of credit and the banks as important levers to promote capitalist free competition. In granting loans, the Tito regime¹s credit and banking system invites tenders for investment. Whoever is capable of repaying the loan in the shortest period and paying the highest rate of interest will obtain the loan. In their words, this is ³to use competition as the usual method of allocating investment credits².2 Fifth, relations among the enterprises are not socialist relations of mutual support and co-ordination under a unified government plan but capitalist relations of competition and rivalry in a free market. All this has undermined the very foundation of socialist planned economy. Lenin said: Socialism . . . is inconceivable without planned state organization which subjects tens of millions of people to 1 Vladimir Bakaric, Report to the Fourth Congress of the League of Communists of Croatia, April 7, 1959. 2 Augustin Papié, ³Investment Financing in Yugoslavia², Annals of Collective Economy, Belgrade, April-November 1959. 160 the strictest observance of a single standard in production and distribution.1 He also said: . . . without all-sided state accounting and control of production and distribution of goods, the power of the toilers, the freedom of the toilers, cannot be maintained, and . . . a return to the yoke of capitalism is inevitable.2 Under the signboard of ³workers¹ self-government², all the economic departments and enterprises in Yugoslavia are locked in fierce capitalist competition. It is quite common for the enterprises under ³workers¹ self-government² to engage in embezzlement, speculation and hoarding, to inflate prices, bribe, hide technical secrets, grab technical personnel and even to attack one another in the press or over the radio in rivalry for markets and profits. The fierce competition among Yugoslav enterprises goes on not only in the home market but also in foreign trade. The Yugoslav press says that it is not unusual for twenty or thirty agents of Yugoslav foreign trade establishments to visit the same market abroad, compete among themselves for business, and take away the others¹ customers or suppliers. ³From selfish motives², these enterprises engaged in foreign trade seek to ³make profits at any cost² and ³is not choosy about their means². A result of this fierce competition is chaos in the Yugoslav market. Prices vary considerably not only in different cities or regions but also in different shops in the same place, and even for the same kind of goods from the same producer. In order to maintain high prices, some enterprises do not hesitate to destroy large quantities of farm produce. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³ ŒLeft-Wing¹ Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VII, p. 365. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³The Immediate Tasks Of the Soviet Government², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VII, p. 327. 161 Another result of this fierce competition is the closing down of large numbers of enterprises in Yugoslavia. According to information provided by the Official Bulletin of the FPRY, five hundred to six hundred enterprises closed down annually in recent years. All this shows that the ³public² economy of Yugoslavia is governed not by the laws of socialist planned economy but by those of capitalist competition and anarchy of production. The Tito clique¹s enterprises under ³workers¹ self-government² are not socialist but capitalist in nature. We would like to ask those who are bent on reversing the verdict on the Tito clique: Unless it is your intention to deceive, how can you describe the state capitalist economy controlled by the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie as a socialist economy? A DEPENDENCY OF U.S. IMPERIALISM The process of the restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia is interwoven with the process in which the Tito clique has become subservient towards U.S. imperialism and Yugoslavia has degenerated into a U.S. imperialist dependency. With its betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, the Tito clique embarked on the shameful course of selling out the sovereignty of the state and living off the alms of U.S. imperialism. According to incomplete statistics, from the conclusion of World War II to January 1963 the United States and other imperialist powers extended to the Tito clique ³aid² totalling some U.S. $5,460 million, of which more than 60 per cent, or about $3,500 million, was U.S. ³aid². The greatest part of this U.S. aid was granted after 1950. U.S. aid has been the mainstay of Yugoslavia¹s finances and economy. Official statistics show that in 1961 the loans the Tito clique obtained from the United States and U.S.-controlled international financial organizations totalled U.S. $346 million, 162 or 47.4 per cent of the federal budgetary income of Yugoslavia in that year. With the inclusion of aid from other Western countries, the money received by the Tito clique from Western countries in 1961 totalled U.S. $493 million, or 67.6 per cent of the federal budgetary income in that year. In order to obtain U.S. aid, the Tito clique has concluded a series of traitorous treaties with the United States. The notes exchanged between Yugoslavia and the United States in 1951 concerning the Agreement Relating to Mutual Defense Assistance stipulated that U.S. Government officials have the ³freedom . . . , without restriction², to observe and supervise the receipt and distribution in Yugoslavia of U.S. military aid material and has ³full access to communication and information facilities². The agreement also required Yugoslavia to provide the United States with strategic raw materials. The Agreement Regarding Military Assistance signed between Yugoslavia and the United States in 1951 stipulated that Yugoslavia should ³make the full contribution . . . to the development and maintenance of the defensive Strength of the free world² and should be ready to provide troops for the United Nations. Under this agreement the military mission sent by the United States was to directly supervise the training of Yugoslav troops. The Yugoslav-U.S. Economic Co-operation Agreement of 1952 stipulated that Yugoslavia must use U.S. aid for ³furthering fundamental individual human rights, freedoms and democratic institutions², that is, for furthering capitalism. In 1954 Yugoslavia concluded a Treaty of Alliance, Political Co-operation and Mutual Assistance with Greece and Turkey, both members of NATO. The treaty provided for military and diplomatic co-ordination among the three countries, thus making Yugoslavia a virtual member of the U.S.-controlled military bloc. Since 1954 Yugoslavia has concluded a series of agreements with the United States, selling out its sovereignty. More than 163 fifty such agreements were signed in the period between 1957 and 1962. Because of the conclusion of these treaties and agreements and because the Tito clique has made Yugoslavia dependent on U.S. imperialism, the United States enjoys the following rights in Yugoslavia: (1) to control its military affairs; (2) to control its foreign affairs; (3) to interfere in its internal affairs; (4) to manipulate and supervise its finance; (5) to control its foreign trade; (6) to plunder its strategic resources; and (7) to collect military and economic intelligence. The independence and sovereignty of Yugoslavia have thus been auctioned off by the Tito clique. In addition to selling out Yugoslavia¹s sovereign rights in a series of unequal treaties with the United States, the Tito clique, in order to secure U.S. aid, has taken one step after another in domestic and foreign policy to comply with Western monopoly capital¹s demand to penetrate Yugoslavia. Starting from 1950 the Tito clique abolished the monopoly of foreign trade by the state. The Act on Foreign Trade Activities promulgated in 1953 permitted enterprises to conduct foreign trade independently and to have direct transactions with Western monopoly capitalist enterprises. In 1961 the Tito regime introduced reforms in the systems of foreign exchange and foreign trade. Their main content was the further relaxation of restrictions on import and export trade. Complete liberalization was effected in the import of major semi-processed materials and certain consumers goods, and restrictions on the import of other commodities were relaxed in varying degrees. Restrictions were removed on the supply of foreign exchange needed for so-called unrestricted imports. 164 Everybody knows that state monopoly of foreign trade is a basic principle of socialism. Lenin said that the industrial proletariat ³is absolutely not in a position to recover our industry and to make Russia an industrial country without the protection of industry, which in no way refers to its protection by customs policy, but solely and exclusively refers to its protection by monopoly of foreign trade.²1 Stalin said that ³the monopoly of foreign trade is one of the unshakable foundations of the platform of the Soviet Government² and that the abolition of the monopoly of foreign trade would mean ³abandoning the industrialization of the country², ³flooding the U.S.S.R. with goods from capitalist countries², and ³transforming our country from an independent country into a semi-colonial one².2 To abolish the state monopoly of foreign trade, as the Tito regime has done, is to throw the door wide open to imperialist monopoly capital. What are the economic consequences of the fact that the Tito clique receives large amounts of U.S. aid and keeps Yugoslavia¹s door wide open to imperialism? First, Yugoslavia has become a market for imperialist dumping. Huge quantities of industrial goods and farm produce from the imperialist countries have flooded the Yugoslav market. In pursuit of profits the Yugoslav comprador capitalists, who make piles of money by serving foreign monopoly capital, keep on importing commodities even though they can be produced at home and even when stocks are huge. Politika admitted on July 25, 1961 that it ³was everywhere evident² that Yugoslav industry ³was suffering blows from the continuous and very complicated competition of foreign industry². 1 V. I. Lenin, ³On the Monopoly of Foreign Trade², Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 420. 2 J. V. Stalin, ³Interview with the First American Labour Delegation², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. X, pp. 115 and 116. 165 Secondly, Yugoslavia has become an outlet for imperialist investment. Many Yugoslav industrial enterprises have been built with ³aid² from the United States and other imperialist countries. A great deal of foreign private monopoly capital has penetrated into Yugoslavia. According to Augustin Papié, the general manager of the Yugoslav Investment Bank, in the period between 1952 and 1956 ³the participation of foreign funds reached 32.5 per cent of the total value of economic investments². U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said on February 5, 1962 that Yugoslavia¹s source of capital was ³largely in the West.² Thirdly, Yugoslavia has become a base from which imperialism extracts raw materials. In accordance with the Agreement Regarding Military Assistance, the Tito clique has since 1951 continually supplied the United States with large quantities of strategic raw materials. According to the Statistical Year-Book of the Federal People¹s Republic of Yugoslavia of 1961, about half of Yugoslavia¹s exports of important metals, such as magnesium, lead, zinc and antimony, have gone to the United States since 1957. Fourthly, the industrial enterprises of Yugoslavia have become assembly shops for Western monopoly capitalist companies. Many major Yugoslav industries produce under licence from Western countries and are dependent on imports of semiprocessed materials, parts, spare parts and semi-manufactured products. The production of these industries is under the control of Western monopoly capital. In fact, many of the industrial products sold as home products in Yugoslavia are assembled from imported ready-made parts and have Yugoslav trade marks attached. Vesnik u sredu of April 25, 1962 said that ³some of our industrial enterprises are becoming a special type of commercial organization, which does not produce but assembles, only sticking its own trade mark on the products of others². 166 In these circumstances, Yugoslavia has become an integral part of the world market of Western monopoly capital. In the financial and economic spheres it is tightly bound to the capitalist world market and has degenerated into a dependency of imperialism, and particularly of U.S. imperialism. When a socialist country sells out its independence and sovereign rights and becomes an imperialist appendage, the restoration of the capitalist system is the inevitable result. The special road of building ³socialism² by relying on U.S. aid advertised by the Tito clique is nothing but a road for turning a socialist system into a capitalist system to meet the needs of imperialism, a road of degeneration from an independent country into a semi-colony. Khrushchov insists that this dependency of U.S. imperialism is ³building socialism². This is fantastic. A self-styled socialism having U.S. aid as its trade mark is a new variety to be added to the bogus brands of socialism, which were criticized by Marx, Engels and Lenin, and this is presumably a great contribution on the part of Tito and Khrushchov in ³creatively developing the theory of Marxism-Leninism². A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY SPECIAL DETACHMENT OF U.S. IMPERIALISM Judging by the counter-revolutionary role played by the Tito clique in international relations and by its reactionary foreign policy, Yugoslavia is still farther from being a socialist country. In the international arena the Tito clique is a special detachment of U.S. imperialism for sabotaging the world revolution. By setting the example of restoring capitalism in Yugoslavia, the Tito clique is helping U.S. imperialism to push its policy of ³peaceful evolution² inside the socialist countries. Under the signboard of a socialist country, the Tito clique is frantically opposing and disrupting the socialist camp and 167 serving as an active agent in the anti-Chinese campaign. Under the cover of non-alignment and active coexistence the Tito clique is trying to wreck the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America and is serving U.S neo-colonialism. The Tito clique spares no effort to prettify U.S. imperialism and benumb the people of the world in their struggle against the imperialist policies of war and aggression. Under the pretext of opposing ³Stalinism², the Tito clique is peddling revisionist poison everywhere and opposing revolution by the people in all countries. The Tito clique has invariably played the role of a lackey of U.S. imperialism in the major international events of the past ten years and more. 1. The revolution in Greece. On July 10, 1949 Tito closed the border between Yugoslavia and Greece against the Greek people¹s guerrillas. At the same time, he allowed the Greek fascist royalist troops to pass through Yugoslav territory in order to attack the guerrillas from the rear. In this way the Tito clique helped the U.S.-British imperialists to strangle the Greek people¹s revolution. 2. The Korean War. In a statement issued on September 6, 1950, Edvard Kardelj, who was then foreign minister, brazenly slandered the Korean people¹s just war of resistance to aggression and defended U.S. imperialism. On December 1, speaking at the U.N. Security Council, the representative of the Tito clique attacked China for its ³active interference in the Korean War². The Tito clique also voted in the United Nations for the embargo on China and Korea. 3. The Vietnamese people¹s war of liberation. On the eve of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China in April 1954, the Tito clique violently slandered the just struggle of the Vietnamese people, asserting that they were being used by Moscow and Peking ³as a card in their post-war policy of cold war².1 1 Borba, April 23, 1954. 168 They said of the Vietnamese people¹s great battle to liberate Dien Bien Phu that it was ³not a gesture of goodwill².1 4. Subversion against Albania. The Tito clique has been carrying on subversive activities and armed provocations against socialist Albania for a long time. It has engineered four major cases of treason, in 1944, 1948, 1956 and 1960. Its armed provocations on the Yugoslav-Albanian border numbered more than 470 from 1948 to 1958. In 1960 the Tito clique and the Greek reactionaries planned an armed attack on Albania in co-ordination with the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. 5. The counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary. The Tito clique played a shameful role of an interventionist provocateur in the Hungarian counter-revolutionary rebellion in October 1956. After the outbreak of the rebellion, Tito published a letter supporting the counter-revolutionary measures of the traitor Nagy. On November 3 the Tito clique bade Nagy seek asylum in the Yugoslav Embassy in Hungary. In a speech on November 11, Tito characterized the counter-revolutionary rebellion as resistance by ³progressives² and impudently questioned whether the ³course of Yugoslavia² or the ³course of Stalinism² would win. 6. The Middle Eastern events. In 1958 troops were sent by U.S. imperialism to occupy Lebanon and by British imperialism to occupy Jordan. There arose a world-wide wave of protest demanding the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. and British troops. At the emergency session of the U.N. General Assembly on the Middle Eastern situation, Koca Popovic, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, said that ³it is not a question of whether we insist on condemning or approving the actions taken by the United States and Great Britain². He advocated intervention by the United Nations, an organization which is under the control of U.S. imperialism. 7. The event in the Taiwan Straits. In the autumn of 1958, the Chinese People¹s Liberation Army shelled Quemoy in 1 Borba, May 8, 1954. 169 order to counter the U.S. imperialist provocations in the Taiwan Straits and to punish the Chiang Kai-shek gang, which is a U.S. imperialist lackey. The Tito clique maligned China¹s just struggle as ³a danger to the whole world²1 and ³harmful to peace².2 8. The U-2 incident. In 1960 the United States sent a U-2 spy plane to intrude into the Soviet Union and sabotaged the four-power summit conference scheduled to be held in Paris. On May 17 Tito issued a statement attacking the correct stand then taken by the Soviet Government as creating ³such largescale disputes². 9. The Japanese people¹s patriotic struggle against the United States. In June 1960 the Japanese people waged a just and patriotic struggle against the United States, which was unprecedented in its scale. But the Tito clique defended U.S. imperialism, saying that the U.S. occupation of Japan ³promoted the democratization of political life in Japan².3 Subsequently, it attacked the statement of Inejiro Asanuma, the late President of the Japanese Socialist Party, that ³U.S. imperialism is the common enemy of the Japanese and Chinese peoples², accusing him of ³standing for an extremist line².4 10. The struggle of the Indonesian people. The Tito clique tried to sabotage the Indonesian people¹s struggle against imperialism. It engaged in base activities in an effort to prevent the establishment of a ³Nasakom² cabinet in Indonesia, that is, a government of national unity comprising the nationalists, religious circles and the Communists. 11. The Congo event. In the summer of 1960, when U.S. imperialism carried out armed aggression in the Congo under the flag of the United Nations, the Tito clique not only voted for U.S. imperialism in the United Nations but, in accordance with the desire of U.S. imperialism, sent air force personnel 1 Slobodni Dom, September 4, 1958. 2 Slovenski Porocevalec, September 9, 1958. 3 Komunist, Belgrade, June 2, 1960. 4 Foreign Political Bulletin, February 1, 1962. 170 to the Congo to take a direct part in the bloody suppression of the Congolese people. 12. The Laotian question. When U.S. imperialism stepped up its intervention in Laos in January 1961, the Tito clique spread the view that the United States ³is really concerned for the peace and neutralization of Laos².1 When U.S. imperialism engineered political assassinations and armed conflicts in Laos in May 1963, the Tito clique attacked the Laotian patriotic forces for ³putting all the blame on the United States².2 13. The U.S. Alliance for Progress programme. In August 1961 the United States forced various Latin American countries to sign the Alliance for Progress programme, which was a new U.S. imperialist instrument for the enslavement of the Latin American people. This programme of aggression was strongly opposed by the Latin American people but was praised by the Tito clique as ³meeting in a large measure the requirements of the Latin American countries².3 14. The Sino-Indian border conflict. Ever since the Indian reactionaries created tension on the Sino-Indian border in 1959, the Tito clique has consistently supported the expansionism, aggression and provocations of the Indian reactionaries against China. It openly spread the lie that ³the demarcation of the boundary was already completed at the beginning of the present century and put into the shape of the well-known McMahon Line²,4 and did its best to confuse right and wrong, making the slander that China ³permits itself to revise its border with India wilfully and by force²5 and ³committed aggression² against India.6 15. The Cuban revolution and the Caribbean crisis. The Tito clique has made numerous comments attacking Cuba, saying 1 Borba, January 13, 1961. 2 Politika, May 5, 1963. 3 Komunist, Belgrade, August 17, 1961. 4 Rad, September 12, 1959. 5 Borba, December 26, 1960. 6 Politika, September 3, 1959. 171 that Cuba ³believes only in revolution²1 and that the Cuban revolution is ³not so much a model as an exception to the road of revolution².2 During the Caribbean crisis in the autumn of 1962, the Tito clique defended U.S. imperialist aggression, saying that ³the difficulties started when the Cuban revolution trod on the pet corns of the U.S. companies²,3 and that ³if it is said that the United States was irritated by the establishment of rocket bases in Cuba, in its close neighbourhood, that would be understandable².4 From all this, people cannot fail to see that for the past ten years and more the Tito clique has desperately opposed the socialist countries, tried to sabotage the national liberation movement, maligned the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the people in all countries and actively served imperialism and especially U.S. imperialism. Khrushchov has said repeatedly that there is ³unanimity² and ³accord² between the leadership of the CPSU and the Tito clique in their positions on international problems.5 Well, then we would like to ask whether or not there is unanimity or accord between your activities and the counter-revolutionary crimes of the Tito clique. Please answer, if you have the courage. THE DEGENERATION OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT INTO THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE In the final analysis, the fact that capitalism has swamped Yugoslavia in both town and country, the degeneration of an 1 The Rebellion of Cuba, Belgrade, November 1962. 2 Politika, January 1, 1963. 3 Komunist, Belgrade, September 13, 1962. 4 Politika, November 13, 1962. 5 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Mass Rally in Split, Yugoslavia, August 24, 1963. 172 economy owned by the whole people into a state capitalist economy and the decline of Yugoslavia into a dependency of U.S. imperialism are all due to the degeneration of the Party and state power in Yugoslavia. Fighting heroically against the German and Italian fascist aggressors during World War II, the Communist Party and people of Yugoslavia overthrew the reactionary rule of imperialism and its lackey in Yugoslavia and established the people¹s democratic state power under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not long afterwards, the leading group of the Yugoslav Communist Party betrayed Marxism-Leninism and embarked on the path of revisionism, bringing about the gradual degeneration of the Party and state power in Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav Communist Party had a glorious tradition of revolutionary struggles. The betrayal of the Tito clique met first of all with strong resistance inside the Party. To suppress this resistance, the Tito clique used its power to expel and purge from the Party a great number of Communists loyal to Marxism-Leninism. In the period from 1948 to 1952 alone, more than 200,000 Party members, or half the original membership of the Yugoslav Communist Party, were expelled. Taking action against the so-called Cominform elements, it arrested and slaughtered large numbers of Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary cadres and people, the number of Communists and active revolutionaries arrested and imprisoned alone exceeding thirty thousand. At the same time, the Tito clique opened the door wide to counter-revolutionaries, bourgeois elements, all kinds of anti-socialist elements and careerists seeking position and wealth through their membership cards. In November 1952 the Tito clique declared that ³the appellation Party no longer fits² and changed the name, the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, into the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. In violation of the will of all honest Communists in Yugoslavia, it changed the character of the Yugoslav Communist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat and made 173 the L.C.Y. the virtual instrument for maintaining its dictatorial rule. In the socialist countries, state power is under the leadership of communist political parties. With the degeneration of a communist into a bourgeois political party, state power inevitably degenerates from the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The state power of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Yugoslavia was the fruit of the protracted and heroic struggle of the Yugoslav people. But as the Tito clique turned renegade, this state power changed its nature. The Tito clique has declared, ³The means of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., of the socialist state system, become increasingly unnecessary.²1 But is there no dictatorship in Yugoslavia any longer? Yes, there is. While the dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed no more, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie not only exists, but is a brutal fascist dictatorship at that. The Tito regime has set up many fascist prisons and concentration camps, where tens of thousands of revolutionaries have been tortured to death by every kind of inhuman punishment. At the same time, the Tito regime has pardoned large numbers of counter-revolutionaries and traitors in the anti-fascist war. Replying to a United Press correspondent on January 7, 1951, Tito admitted that 11,000 political prisoners had been pardoned in Yugoslavia. On March 13, 1962 another 150,000 counterrevolutionaries living in exile abroad were pardoned. The dictatorship over these enemies of the people was indeed abolished and they have obtained ³democracy². Whatever fine-sounding phrases the Tito clique may use, its ³democracy² is only a democracy for the small number of old and new bourgeois elements; for the working people it is out-and-out dictatorship. The Tito clique has transformed the revolutionary state machinery, which was built up to suppress the small 1 Edvard Kardelj, ³The New Constitution of Socialist Yugoslavia², Borba, September 29, 1962. 174 minority of exploiters, into a state machinery for suppressing the proletariat and the broad masses. The degeneration of the state power in Yugoslavia occurred not through the overthrow of the original state power by violence and the establishment of a new state power, but through ³peaceful evolution². In appearance, the same people remain in power, but in essence these people no longer represent the interests of the workers, peasants and the working people but those of imperialism and the old and new bourgeoisie of Yugoslavia. Utilizing state power and controlling the economic lifeline of the country, the Tito clique exploited the Yugoslav working people to the utmost extent and brought into being a bureaucrat-capitalist class. Being dependent on U.S. imperialism, this class is strongly comprador in character and is also a comprador capitalist class. The state power controlled by the Tito clique is that of the dictatorship of the bureaucratcomprador bourgeoisie. The above facts show from various aspects that the policy pursued by the Tito regime is one of restoring and developing capitalism, namely, of reducing Yugoslavia to a semi-colony or a dependency. The degeneration of the state power in Yugoslavia has led to the destruction of the socialist economic system and the restoration of a capitalist economic system. When a new bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie has gradually come into being with the re-establishment of the capitalist economic system in a new form, it demands the intensification of the bourgeois dictatorship and the development of a political system suited to the capitalist economic system so as to consolidate its ruling position. This is how the process from the degeneration of the Party and state power to the restoration of capitalism in the entire social and economic system has been realized step by step in Yugoslavia. The process of degeneration has gone on for fif 175 teen years. This is the record of how a socialist state ³peacefully evolves² into a capitalist state. The Tito clique maintains its rule in Yugoslavia by relying on U.S. imperialist support, the state machine of the dictatorship of the bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie, the labour aristocracy bought by it, and the rich peasants in the countryside. At the same time, it uses various cunning means to disguise its reactionary features and hoodwink the people. But its reactionary policies are extremely unpopular. The degeneration of the socialist state into a capitalist state, the degeneration of an independent country into a semi-colony or a dependency of imperialism, runs counter to the basic interests of the Yugoslav people, and cannot but be opposed by all the honest Communists and the overwhelming majority of the people of Yugoslavia. We are in deep sympathy with the people and Communists of Yugoslavia in their present predicament. Although the Tito clique can ride roughshod over the people for a time, we are confident that whatever high-handed measures and whatever tricks of deception it may resort to, no ruling group will come to a good end once it is against the people. The Tito clique is of course no exception. The deceived people will gradually wake up in the end. The people and Communists of Yugoslavia who have a glorious history will not submit to the renegade Tito clique for ever. The future of the Yugoslav people is bright. THE PRINCIPLED STAND OF THE CPC ON THE QUESTION OF YUGOSLAVIA The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU asserts that for a time ³the CPC leaders had no doubts as to the nature of the socialist system in Yugoslavia², and that now the Chinese leaders have ³changed their position on the Yugoslavian question so drastically². 176 True, Yugoslavia was once a socialist state. For a time the country advanced along the path of socialism. But soon after, owing to the Tito clique¹s betrayal, the Yugoslav social system began to degenerate step by step. In 1954, when Khrushchov proposed to improve relations with Yugoslavia, we agreed to treat it as a fraternal socialist country for the purpose of winning it back to the path of socialism and watching how the Tito clique would develop. We did not entertain very much hope for the Tito clique even then. In its letter of June 10, 1954 to the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Central Committee of the CPC pointed out that the fact should be taken into account that as the leaders of Yugoslavia had already gone quite far in their dealings with imperialism, they might reject our effort to win it over and refuse to return to the path of socialism; ³but even though this should occur, it would not involve any political loss to the camp of peace, democracy and socialism ‹ on the contrary, it would further expose the hypocrisy of the Yugoslav leaders before the people of Yugoslavia and of the world.² Unfortunately, our words have proved all too true! Indeed the Tito clique has flatly rejected our effort to win it over and gone farther and farther along the path of revisionism. After it refused to sign the 1957 Declaration, the Tito clique put forward its out-and-out revisionist programme in 1958 and set this banner of modern revisionism against the 1957 Declaration which is the common programme acknowledged by all Communist and Workers¹ Parties. The process of restoring capitalism in Yugoslavia has been realized step by step. And internationally, the Tito clique is serving more and more energetically as a counter-revolutionary special detachment of U.S. imperialism. In these circumstances, the attitude every Marxist-Leninist Party should take towards the Tito clique is no longer the one it should take towards a fraternal Party or a fraternal country, nor should it be that of winning the Tito clique over, but it should be one of thoroughly exposing and firmly combating 177 this gang of renegades. The 1960 Statement has given its clear conclusion on this point. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU has deliberately evaded the series of important events which occurred after the meeting of the fraternal Parties in November 1957 and also the conclusions unanimously reached at the meeting of the fraternal Parties in 1960, and tries to defend the erroneous stand of the leadership of the CPSU by quoting a sentence from the editorial on Yugoslavia in Renmin Ribao of September 12, 1957. This is futile. The facts prove that our position with regard to the Tito clique conforms with reality, is a principled position, and is in accord with the common agreement of the meeting of the fraternal Parties in 1960. On the other hand, the leaders of the CPSU have tried in a thousand and one ways to reverse the verdict on the Tito clique, which testifies to their betrayal of Marxism-Leninism, their abandonment of the 1960 Statement, and their rendering of assistance to the U.S. imperialists and their lackeys in deceiving the people of Yugoslavia and of the whole world. HAS TITO ³REMOVED HIS ERRORS²? OR DOES KHRUSHCHOV REGARD TITO AS HIS TEACHER? Khrushchov says that the Yugoslav leaders have removed very much of what was considered erroneous. But the Titoites do not admit that they have committed any errors, much less removed them. The Titoites say that they have ³no need² to correct any error1 and that ³it would just be a waste of time²2 and ³simply superfluous and ridiculous² to expect them to do so.3 1 J. B. Tito, Speech at the Belgrade Railway Station, December 20, 1962. 2 J. B. Tito, Speech at the Seventh Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, April 1958. 3 J. B. Tito, Speech at the Belgrade Railway Station, December 20, 1962. 178 Let us look at the facts. Have the Titoites changed their revisionist programme? No, they have not. Have they accepted the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement? No, they have not. Have they changed their revisionist domestic and foreign policies? Again, no. The new constitution adopted by the Yugoslav Federal People¹s Assembly in April 1963 most clearly shows that the Tito clique has not in the least changed its revisionist stand. The constitution is the legal embodiment of the out-and-out revisionist programme of the Tito clique. Edvard Kardelj said in his report on the draft of the new constitution that it is the ³legal-political and organizational embodiment² of the concepts of the programme of the L.C.Y. Khrushchov is warmly fraternizing with the Tito clique not because it has corrected any of its errors but because he is following in Tito¹s footsteps. Consider the following facts: 1. Tito denounces Stalin in order to oppose Marxism-Leninism in its very fundamentals. Khrushchov completely negates Stalin for the same purpose. 2. Both Tito and Khrushchov repudiate the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism, both malign as dogmatists the Chinese and other Communists who firmly uphold Marxism- Leninism, and both describe their own revision of Marxism- Leninism as a ³creative development² of Marxism-Leninism. 3. Both Tito and Khrushchov laud the chieftains of U.S. imperialism. Tito says that Eisenhower ³is a man who persistently defends peace²,1 and that Kennedy¹s effort ³will be helpful to the improvement of international relations and to the peaceful settlement of pressing world problems².2 Khrushchov says that Eisenhower ³has a sincere desire for peace²,3 1 J. B. Tito, Talk with a New York Times Commentator, February 28, 1958. 2 J. B. Tito, Message of Greetings to J. F. Kennedy, Borba, January 21, 1961. 3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, May 1960. 179 and that Kennedy ³shows solicitude for the preservation of peace².1 4. Both Tito and Khrushchov play up the horrors of nuclear war in order to intimidate the people of the world into abandoning revolutionary struggle. Tito says that once a nuclear war breaks out, it will be the ³annihilation of mankind².2 Likewise, Khrushchov says that once a nuclear war breaks out, ³we will destroy our Noah¹s Ark ‹ the globe².3 5. Both Tito and Khrushchov preach that a world without weapons, without armed forces and without wars can be brought into being while imperialism still exists. 6. The Tito clique proclaims that ³active peaceful coexistence² is the cornerstone of Yugoslavia¹s foreign policy,4 while Khrushchov declares that peaceful coexistence is the ³general line of the foreign policy² of the Soviet Union.5 7. Both Tito and Khrushchov proclaim that the possibility of peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism has increased. The Tito clique says that ³mankind is irresistibly entering a long way into the era of socialism through different ways².6 Khrushchov says that the road of the October Revolution can be replaced by the ³parliamentary road². 8. Tito advocates the introduction of ³political and economic integration7 of the world through ³peaceful competition². Khrushchov also advocates ³all-round co-operation² with imperialism through ³peaceful economic competition². 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Letter to J. F. Kennedy, October 27, 1962. 2 J. B. Tito, Report to the Session of the Federal People¹s Assembly of Yugoslavia, April 19, 1958. 3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at a Meeting of the Austro-Soviet Society, July 2, 1960. 4 Koca Popovic, Report on Foreign Policy to the Session of the Federal People¹s Assembly of Yugoslavia, Borba, February 27, 1957. 5 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 1956. 6 Programme of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. 7 J. B. Tito, Replies to Questions by Washington Post Correspondent Drew Pearson, Borba, August 12, 1962. 180 9. The Tito clique sabotages the national liberation movement and national liberation wars in every way. Khrushchov opposes the national liberation movement and national liberation wars on the pretext that ³any small Œlocal war¹ might spark off the conflagration of a world war².1 10. The Tito clique has renounced the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under the slogan of ³the state of the whole people², Khrushchov also renounces the dictatorship of the proletariat. 11. The Tito clique denies that the Communist Party should be the vanguard of the working class. Likewise, Khrushchov says that the CPSU ³has become a party of the entire people².2 12. The Tito clique, flaunting the ³non-bloc² label, is opposing the socialist camp. Khrushchov also says that ³expressions like blocs etc., are temporary phenomena².3 They both want to liquidate the socialist camp. From these facts one must conclude that, both in domestic and foreign policy, Khrushchov really regards Tito as his teacher and is sliding down the path of revisionism hard on Tito¹s heels. Khrushchov has abandoned Marxism-Leninism, scrapped the 1960 Statement and wallowed in the mire with the renegade Tito clique, in complete violation of the interests of the Soviet Union, the Soviet people and the people of the whole world. This will not be tolerated by the great Soviet people, the overwhelming majority of the members of the CPSU and cadres at various levels, all of whom have a glorious revolutionary tradition. The great Soviet people and the membership of the CPSU will never agree with Khrushchov¹s collusion with the Tito 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Statement at the Press Conference in Vienna, July 8, 1960. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, ³On the Programme of the CPSU², delivered at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 1961. 3 N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Correspondents at Brioni in Yugoslavia, August 28, 1963. 181 clique in opposition to the fraternal Parties which uphold Marxism-Leninism. The great Soviet people and the membership of the CPSU will never agree with Khrushchov¹s collusion with the Tito clique and collaboration with imperialism in opposing socialist China, Albania and other fraternal countries and in disrupting the socialist camp. The great Soviet people and the membership of the CPSU will never agree with Khrushchov¹s collusion with the Tito clique and collaboration with the reactionaries of all countries in opposition to the people of the world and to revolution. The great Soviet people and the membership of the CPSU will never agree with Khrushchov¹s efforts to follow the example of the Yugoslav revisionists, change the nature of the Party and the state and pave the way for the restoration of capitalism. Khrushchov has caused dark clouds to overcast the Soviet Union, the first socialist country in the world. But this can only be an interlude in the history of the CPSU and of the Soviet Union. People who are deceived and hoodwinked for a time will gradually wake up in the end. History has confirmed, and will continue to confirm, that whoever wants to turn back the Soviet people in their advance is like the grasshopper in the fable which wanted to stop the chariot. He will never succeed in his aim. BRIEF CONCLUSION The restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia provides a new historical lesson to the international communist movement. This lesson shows us that when the working class has seized power, struggle continues between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, struggle for victory continues between the two roads of capitalism and socialism, and there is a danger that 182 capitalism may be restored. Yugoslavia presents a typical example of the restoration of capitalism. It shows us that not only is it possible for a working-class party to fall under the control of a labour aristocracy, degenerate into a bourgeois party and become a flunkey of imperialism before it seizes power, but even after it seizes power it is possible for a working-class party to fall under the control of new bourgeois elements, degenerate into a bourgeois party and become a flunkey of imperialism. The League of Communists of Yugoslavia typifies such degeneration. It shows us that the restoration of capitalism in a socialist country can be achieved not necessarily through a counterrevolutionary coup d¹état or armed imperialist invasion and that it can also be achieved through the degradation of the leading group in that country. The easiest way to capture a fortress is from within. Yugoslavia provides a typical case in point. It shows us that revisionism is the product of imperialist policy. Old-line revisionism arose as a result of the imperialist policy of buying over and fostering a labour aristocracy. Modern revisionism has arisen in the same way. Sparing no cost, imperialism has now extended the scope of its operations and is buying over leading groups in socialist countries and pursues through them its desired policy of ³peaceful evolution². U.S. imperialism regards Yugoslavia as the ³bellwether² because it has set an example in this respect. The restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia will make all Marxist-Leninists see better and enable people to realize more keenly the necessity and urgency of combating modern revisionism. So long as imperialism exists, there is apparently no ground for saying that the danger of the restoration of capitalism in the socialist countries has been eliminated. The leaders of the CPSU proclaim that they have already eliminated the danger of the restoration of capitalism and are building communism. If this were true, it would of course be heartening. But we see that in fact they are imitating Yugoslavia in every way and have taken a most dangerous road. This deeply worries and pains us. Out of our warm love for the great Soviet Union and the great CPSU, we would like sincerely to appeal to the leaders of the CPSU: Comrades and friends! Do not follow the Yugoslav road. Turn back at once. Or it will be too late! APOLOGISTS OF NEO-COLONIALISM? Fourth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) (October 22, 1963) 187 great revolutionary storm has spread through Asia, A Africa and Latin America since World War II. Independence has been proclaimed in more than fifty Asian and African countries. China, Viet Nam, Korea and Cuba have taken the road of socialism. The face of Asia, Africa and Latin America has undergone a tremendous change. While revolution in the colonies and semi-colonies suffered serious setbacks after World War I owing to suppression by the imperialists and their lackeys, the situation after World War II is fundamentally different. The imperialists are no longer able to extinguish the prairie fire of national liberation. Their old colonial system is fast disintegrating. Their rear has become a front of raging anti-imperialist struggles. Imperialist rule has been overthrown in some colonial and dependent countries, and in others it has suffered heavy blows and is tottering. This inevitably weakens and shakes the rule of imperialism in the metropolitan countries. The victories of the people¹s revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America, together with the rise of the socialist camp, sound a triumphant paean to our day and age. The storm of the people¹s revolution in Asia, Africa and Latin America requires every political force in the world to take a stand. This mighty revolutionary storm makes the imperialists and colonialists tremble and the revolutionary people of the world rejoice. The imperialists and colonialists say, ³Terrible, terrible!² The revolutionary people say, ³Fine, fine!² The imperialists and colonialists say, ³It is rebellion, which is forbidden.² The revolutionary people say, ³It is revolution, which is the people¹s right and an inexorable current of history.² An important line of demarcation between the Marxist- Leninists and the modern revisionists is the attitude taken to 188 wards this extremely sharp issue of contemporary world politics. The Marxist-Leninists firmly side with the oppressed nations and actively support the national liberation movement. The modern revisionists in fact side with the imperialists and colonialists and repudiate and oppose the national liberation movement in every possible way. In their words, the leaders of the CPSU dare not completely discard the slogans of support for the national liberation movement, and at times, for the sake of their own interests, they even take certain measures which create the appearance of support. But if we probe into the essence and consider their views and policies over a number of years, we see clearly that their attitude towards the liberation struggles of the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America is a passive or scornful or negative one, and that they serve as apologists for neocolonialism. In the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU of July 14, 1963 and in a number of articles and statements, the comrades of the CPSU have worked hard at defending their wrong views and attacking the Chinese Communist Party on the question of the national liberation movement. But the sole outcome is to confirm the anti-Marxist-Leninist and antirevolutionary stand of the leaders of the CPSU on the subject. Let us now look at the theory and practice of the leaders of the CPSU on the question of the national liberation movement. ABOLITION OF THE TASK OF COMBATING IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM Victories of great historic significance have already been won by the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America. This no one can deny. But can anyone assert that the task of combating imperialism and colonialism and their agents has been completed by the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America? 189 Our answer is, no. This fighting task is far from completed. However, the leaders of the CPSU frequently spread the view that colonialism has disappeared or is disappearing from the present-day world. They emphasize that ³there are fifty million people on earth still groaning under colonial rule²,1 that the remnants of colonialism are to be found only in such places as Portuguese Angola and Mozambique in Africa, and that the abolition of colonial rule has already entered the ³final phase².2 What are the facts? Consider, first, the situation in Asia and Africa. There a whole group of countries have declared their independence. But many of these countries have not completely shaken off imperialist and colonial control and enslavement and remain objects of imperialist plunder and aggression as well as arenas of contention between the old and new colonialists. In some, the old colonialists have changed into neo-colonialists and retain their colonial rule through their trained agents. In others, the wolf has left by the front door, but the tiger has entered through the back door, the old colonialism being replaced by the new, more powerful and more dangerous U.S. colonialism. The peoples of Asia and Africa are seriously menaced by the tentacles of neo-colonialism, represented by U.S. imperialism. Next, listen to the voice of the people of Latin America. The Second Havana Declaration says, ³Latin America today is under a more ferocious imperialism, more powerful and ruthless than the Spanish colonial empire.² It adds: Since the end of the Second World War, . . . North American investments exceed 10 billion dollars. Latin America 1 Speech of Mirzo Tursun-Zade, Leader of the Soviet Delegation, at the Third Afro-Asian People¹s Solidarity Conference, February 5, 1963. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, ³Report on the Programme of the CPSU², delivered at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 1961. 190 moreover supplies cheap raw materials and pays high prices for manufactured articles. It says further: . . . there flows from Latin America to the United States a constant torrent of money: some $4,000 per minute, $5 million per day, $2 billion per year, $10 billion each five years. For each thousand dollars which leaves us, one dead body remains. $1,000 per death, that is the price of what is called imperialism. The facts are clear. After World War II the imperialists have certainly not given up colonialism, but have merely adopted a new form, neo-colonialism. An important characteristic of such neo-colonialism is that the imperialists have been forced to change their old style of direct colonial rule in some areas and to adopt a new style of colonial rule and exploitation by relying on the agents they have selected and trained. The imperialists headed by the United States enslave or control the colonial countries and countries which have already declared their independence by organizing military blocs, setting up military bases, establishing ³federations² or ³communities², and fostering puppet regimes. By means of economic ³aid² or other forms, they retain these countries as markets for their goods, sources of raw material and outlets for their export of capital, plunder the riches and suck the blood of the people of these countries. Moreover, they use the United Nations as an important tool for interfering in the internal affairs of such countries and for subjecting them to military, economic and cultural aggression. When they are unable to continue their rule over these countries by ³peaceful² means, they engineer military coups d¹etat, carry out subversion or even resort to direct armed intervention and aggression. The United States is most energetic and cunning in promoting neo-colonialism. With this weapon, the U.S. imperialists are trying hard to grab the colonies and spheres of influence of other imperialists and to establish world domination. 191 This neo-colonialism is a more pernicious and sinister form of colonialism. We would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU, under such circumstances how can it be said that the abolition of colonial rule has already entered the ³final phase²? In trying to bolster up such falsehoods, the leaders of the CPSU have the temerity to seek help from the 1960 Statement. They say, does not the 1960 Statement mention the vigorous process of disintegration of the colonial system? But this thesis about the rapid disintegration of old colonialism cannot possibly help their argument about the disappearance of colonialism. The Statement clearly points out that ³the United States is the mainstay of colonialism today², that ³the imperialists, headed by the U.S.A., make desperate efforts to preserve colonial exploitation of the peoples of the former colonies by new methods and in new forms² and that they ³try to retain their hold on the levers of economic control and political influence in Asian, African and Latin American countries². In these phrases the Statement exposes just what the leadership of the CPSU is trying so hard to cover up. The leaders of the CPSU have also created the theory that the national liberation movement has entered upon a ³new stage² having economic tasks as its core. Their argument is that, whereas ³formerly, the struggle was carried on mainly in the political sphere², today the economic question has become the ³central task² and ³the basic link in the further development of the revolution².1 The national liberation movement has entered a new stage. But this is by no means the kind of ³new stage² described by the leadership of the CPSU. In the new stage, the level of political consciousness of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples has risen higher than ever and the revolutionary movement is surging forward with unprecedented intensity. They 1 ³To the Detriment of the Struggle of the Peoples², Pravda, September 17, 1973. 192 urgently demand the thorough elimination of the forces of imperialism and its lackeys in their own countries and strive for complete political and economic independence. The primary and most urgent task facing these countries is still the further development of the struggle against imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys. This struggle is still being waged fiercely in the political, economic, military, cultural, ideological and other spheres. And the struggles in all these spheres still find their most concentrated expression in political struggle, which often unavoidably develops into armed struggle when the imperialists resort to direct or indirect armed suppression. It is important for the newly independent countries to develop their independent economy. But this task must never be separated from the struggle against imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys. Like ³the disappearance of colonialism², this theory of a ³new stage² advocated by the leaders of the CPSU is clearly intended to whitewash the aggression against and plunder of Asia, Africa and Latin America by neo-colonialism, as represented by the United States, to cover up the sharp contradiction between imperialism and the oppressed nations and to paralyse the revolutionary struggle of the people of these continents. According to this theory of theirs, the fight against imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys is, of course, no longer necessary, for colonialism is disappearing and economic development has become the central task of the national liberation movement. Does it not follow that the national liberation movement can be done away with altogether? Therefore, the kind of ³new stage² described by the leaders of the CPSU, in which economic tasks are in the centre of the picture, is clearly nothing but one of no opposition to imperialism, old and new colonialism, and their lackeys, a stage in which the national liberation movement is no longer desired. 193 PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ABOLISHING THE REVOLUTION OF THE OPPRESSED NATIONS In line with their erroneous theories the leaders of the CPSU have sedulously worked out a number of nostrums for all the ills of the oppressed nations. Let us examine them. The first prescription is labelled peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition. The leaders of the CPSU constantly attribute the great postwar victories of the national liberation movement won by the Asian, African and Latin American peoples to what they call ³peaceful coexistence² and ³peaceful competition². The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says: In conditions of peaceful co-existence, new important victories have been scored in recent years in the class struggle of the proletariat and in the struggle of the peoples for national freedom. The world revolutionary process is developing successfully. They also say that the national liberation movement is developing under conditions of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, and of economic competition between the two opposing social systems1 and that peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition ³assist the unfolding of a process of liberation on the part of peoples fighting to free themselves from the domination of foreign monopolies², 2 and can deliver ³a crushing blow² to ³the entire system of capitalist relationships².3 All socialist countries should practise the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social 1 ³The General Line of the International Communist Movement and the Schismatic Platform of the Chinese Leaders², editorial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 14, 1963. 2 Ibid. 3 B. N. Ponomaryov, ³Some Problems of the Revolutionary Movement², World Marxist Review, No. 12, 1962. 194 systems. But peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition cannot replace the revolutionary struggles of the people. The victory of the national revolution of all colonies and dependent countries must be won primarily through the revolutionary struggle of their own masses, which can never be replaced by that of any other countries. The leaders of the CPSU hold that the victories of the national liberation revolution are not due primarily to the revolutionary struggles of the masses, and that the people cannot emancipate themselves, but must wait for the natural collapse of imperialism through peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition. In fact, this is equivalent to telling the oppressed nations to put up with imperialist plunder and enslavement for ever, and not to rise up in resistance and revolution. The second prescription is labelled aid to backward countries. The leaders of the CPSU boast of the role played by their economic aid to the newly independent countries. Comrade Khrushchov has said that such aid can enable these countries ³to avoid the danger of a new enslavement², and that ³it stimulates their progress and contributes to the normal development and even acceleration of those internal processes which may take these countries onto the highway leading to socialism². 1 It is necessary and important for the socialist countries to give the newly independent countries economic aid on the basis of internationalism. But in no case can it be said that their national independence and social progress are due solely to the economic aid they receive from the socialist countries and not mainly to the revolutionary struggles of their own people. To speak plainly, the policy and the purpose of the leaders of the CPSU in their aid to newly independent countries in recent years are open to suspicion. They often take an attitude of great-power chauvinism and national egoism in matters concerning aid to newly independent countries, harm the eco- 1 N. S. Khrushchov, ³Vital Questions of the Development of the Socialist World System², World Marxist Review, No. 9, 1962. 195 nomic and political interests of the receiving countries, and as a result discredit the socialist countries. As for their aid to India, here their ulterior motives are especially clear. India tops the list of newly independent countries to which the Soviet Union gives economic aid. This aid is obviously intended to encourage the Nehru government in its policies directed against communism, against the people and against socialist countries. Even the U.S. imperialists have stated that such Soviet aid ³is very much to our [U.S.] interest².1 In addition, the leaders of the CPSU openly propose cooperation with U.S. imperialism in ³giving aid to the backward countries². Khrushchov said in a speech in the United States in September 1959: Your and our economic successes will be hailed by the whole world, which expects our two Great Powers to help the peoples who are centuries behind in their economic development to get on their feet more quickly. Look! The mainstay of modern colonialism [namely, U.S. imperialism] will help the oppressed nations ³to get on their feet more quickly²! It is indeed astonishing that the leaders of the CPSU are not only willing but even proud to be the partners of the neo-colonialists. The third prescription is labelled disarmament. Khrushchov has said: Disarmament means disarming the war forces, abolishing militarism, ruling out armed interference in the internal affairs of any country, and doing away completely and finally with all forms of colonialism.2 He has also said: Disarmament would create proper conditions for a tremendous increase in the scale of assistance to the newly 1W. A. Harriman, Radio and Television Interview, December 9, 1962. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the World Congress for General Disarmament and Peace, July 10, 1962. 196 established national states. If a mere 8-10 per cent of the 120,000 million dollars spent for military purposes throughout the world were turned to the purpose, it would be possible to end hunger, disease and illiteracy in the distressed areas of the globe within twenty years.1 We have always maintained that the struggle for general disarmament should be carried on in order to expose and oppose imperialist arms expansion and war preparations. But one cannot possibly say that colonialism will be eliminated through disarmament. Khrushchov here sounds like a preacher. Downtrodden people of the world, you are blessed! If only you are patient, if only you wait until the imperialists lay down their arms, freedom will descend upon you. Wait until the imperialists show mercy, and the poverty-stricken areas of the world will become an earthly paradise flowing with milk and honey! . . . This is not just the fostering of illusions, it is opium for the people. The fourth prescription is labelled elimination of colonialism through the United Nations. Khrushchov maintains that if the United Nations takes measures to uproot the colonial system, ³the peoples who are now suffering the humiliation arising out of foreign domination, would acquire a clear and immediate prospect of peaceful liberation from foreign oppression².2 In a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in September 1960, Khrushchov asked, ³Who, if not the United Nations Organization, should champion the abolition of the colonial system of government?² This is a strange question to ask. According to Khrushchov, the revolutionary people of Asia, Africa and Latin America should not and cannot themselves eliminate colonialism, but must look to the United Nations for help. 1 Ibid. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 23, 1960. 197 At the United Nations General Assembly, Khrushchov also said: This is why we appeal to the reason and far-sightedness of the peoples of the Western countries, to their governments and their representatives at this high assembly of the United Nations. Let us agree on measures for the abolition of the colonial system of government and thereby accelerate that natural historical process. It is apparent that what he really means by looking to the United Nations for help is looking to the imperialists for help. The facts show that the United Nations, which is still under the control of the imperialists, can only defend and strengthen the rule of colonialism but can never abolish it. In a word, the nostrums of the leaders of the CPSU for the national liberation movement have been concocted to make people believe that the imperialists will give up colonialism and bestow freedom and liberation upon the oppressed nations and peoples and that therefore all revolutionary theories, demands and struggles are outmoded and unnecessary and should and must be abandoned. OPPOSITION TO WARS OF NATIONAL LIBERATION Although they talk about supporting the movements and wars of national liberation, the leaders of the CPSU have been trying by every means to make the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America abandon their revolutionary struggle, because they themselves are sorely afraid of the revolutionary storm. The leaders of the CPSU have the famous ³theory² that ³even a tiny spark can cause a world conflagration²1 and that a world war must necessarily be a thermonuclear war, which 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, October 1959. 198 means the annihilation of mankind. Therefore, Khrushchov roars that ³¹local wars¹ in our time are very dangerous²,1 and that ³we will work hard . . . to put out the sparks that may set off the flames of war².2 Here Khrushchov makes no distinction between just and unjust wars and betrays the Communist stand of supporting just wars. The history of the eighteen years since World War II has shown that wars of national liberation are unavoidable so long as the imperialists and their lackeys try to maintain their brutal rule by bayonets and use force to suppress the revolution of oppressed nations. These large-scale and small-scale revolutionary wars against the imperialists and their lackeys, which have never ceased, have hit hard at the imperialist forces of war, strengthened the forces defending world peace and effectively prevented the imperialists from realizing their plan of launching a world war. Frankly speaking, Khrushchov¹s clamour about the need to ³put out² the sparks of revolution for the sake of peace is an attempt to oppose revolution in the name of safeguarding peace. Proceeding from these wrong views and policies, the leaders of the CPSU not only demand that the oppressed nations should abandon their revolutionary struggle for liberation and ³peacefully coexist² with the imperialists and colonialists, but even side with imperialism and use a variety of methods to extinguish the sparks of revolution in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Take the example of the Algerian people¹s war of national liberation. The leadership of the CPSU not only withheld support for a long period but actually took the side of French imperialism. Khrushchov used to treat Algeria¹s national independence as an ³internal affair² of France. Speaking on the Algerian question on October 3, 1955, he said, ³I had and 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Press Conference in Vienna, July 8, 1960. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Replies to Questions by Newsmen at the U.S. National Press Club in Washington, September 16, 1959. 199 have in view, first of all, that the USSR does not interfere in the internal affairs of other states.² Receiving a correspondent of Le Figaro on March 19, 1958, he said, ³We do not want France to grow weaker, we want her to become still greater.² To curry favour with the French imperialists, the leaders of the CPSU did not dare to recognize the provisional government of the Republic of Algeria for a long time; not until the victory of the Algerian people¹s war of resistance against French aggression was a foregone conclusion and France was compelled to agree to Algerian independence did they hurriedly recognize Algeria. This unseemly attitude brought shame on the socialist countries. Yet the leaders of the CPSU glory in their shame and assert that the victory the Algerian people paid for with their blood should also be credited to the policy of ³peaceful coexistence². Again, let us examine the part played by the leaders of the CPSU in the Congo question. Not only did they refuse to give active support to the Congolese people¹s armed struggle against colonialism, but they were anxious to ³co-operate² with U.S. imperialism in putting out the spark in the Congo. On July 13, 1960 the Soviet Union joined with the United States in voting for the Security Council resolution on the dispatch of U.N. forces to the Congo; thus it helped the U.S. imperialists use the flag of the United Nations in their armed intervention in the Congo. The Soviet Union also provided the U.N. forces with means of transportation. In a cable to Kasavubu and Lumumba on July 15, Khrushchov said that ³the United Nations Security Council has done a useful thing². Thereafter, the Soviet press kept up a stream of praise for the United Nations for ³helping the government of the Congolese Republic to defend the independence and sovereignty of the country²,1 and expressed the hope that the United Nations would adopt ³resolute measures².2 In its statements of August 1 Izvestia, July 21, 1960. 2 Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 30, 1960. 200 21 and September 10, the Soviet Government continued to praise the United Nations, which was suppressing the Congolese people. In 1961 the leaders of the CPSU persuaded Gizenga to attend the Congolese parliament, which had been convened under the ³protection² of U.N. troops, and to join the puppet government. The leadership of the CPSU falsely alleged that the convocation of the Congolese parliament was ³an important event in the life of the young republic² and ³a success of the national forces².1 Clearly these wrong policies of the leadership of the CPSU rendered U.S. imperialism a great service in its aggression against the Congo. Lumumba was murdered, Gizenga was imprisoned, many other patriots were persecuted, and the Congolese struggle for national independence suffered a setback. Does the leadership of the CPSU feel no responsibility for all this? THE AREAS IN WHICH CONTEMPORARY WORLD CONTRADICTIONS ARE CONCENTRATED It is only natural that the revolutionary people of Asia, Africa and Latin America have rejected the words and deeds of the leaders of the CPSU against the movements and wars of national liberation. But the leaders of the CPSU have failed to draw the appropriate lesson and change their wrong line and policies. Instead, angry at their humiliation, they have launched a series of slanderous attacks on the Chinese Communist Party and the other Marxist-Leninist Parties. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU accuses the Chinese Communist Party of putting forward a ³new theory². It says: 1 Pravda, July 18, 1961. 201 . . . according to which [the new theory] the chief contradiction of our time is not, we are told, between socialism and imperialism, but between the national-liberation movement and imperialism. In the Chinese comrades¹ opinion, the decisive force in the battle against imperialism is not the socialist world system, and not the international working- class struggle but, again we are told, the nationalliberation movement. In the first place, this is a fabrication. In our letter of June 14, we pointed out that the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world are the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries, the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism, and the contradictions among imperialist countries and among monopoly capitalist groups. We also pointed out: The contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp is a contradiction between two fundamentally different social systems, socialism and capitalism. It is undoubtedly very sharp. But Marxist- Leninists must not regard the contradictions in the world as consisting solely and simply of the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp. Our view is crystal clear. In our letter of June 14, we explained the revolutionary situation in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the significance and role of the national liberation movement. This is what we said: 1. ³The various types of contradictions in the contemporary world are concentrated in the vast areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under imperialist rule and the storm centres of world revolution dealing direct blows at imperialism.² 2. ³The national democratic revolutionary movement in these areas and the international socialist revolutionary movement are the two great historical currents of our time.² 202 3. ³The national democratic revolution in these areas is an important component of the contemporary proletarian world revolution.² 4. ³The anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America are pounding and undermining the foundations of the rule of imperialism and colonialism, old and new, and are now a mighty force in defence of world peace.² 5. ³In a sense, therefore, the whole cause of the international proletarian revolution hinges on the outcome of the revolutionary struggles of the people of these areas, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the world¹s population.² 6. ³Therefore, the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America is definitely not merely a matter of regional significance but one of overall importance for the whole cause of proletarian world revolution.² These are Marxist-Leninist theses, conclusions drawn by scientific analysis from the realities of our time. No one can deny that an extremely favourable revolutionary situation now exists in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Today the national liberation revolutions in Asia, Africa and Latin America are the most important forces dealing imperialism direct blows. The contradictions of the world are concentrated in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The centre of world contradictions of world political struggles, is not fixed but shifts with changes in the international struggles and the revolutionary situation. We believe that, with the development of the contradiction and struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in Western Europe and North America, the momentous day of battle will arrive in these homes of capitalism and heartlands of imperialism. When that day comes, Western Europe and North America will undoubtedly become the centre of world political struggles, of world contradictions. 203 Lenin said in 1913, ³. . . a new source of great world storms opened up in Asia. . . . It is in this era of storms and their Œrepercussion¹ on Europe that we are now living.²1 Stalin said in 1925: The colonial countries constitute the principal rear of imperialism. The revolutionisation of this rear is bound to undermine imperialism not only in the sense that imperialism will be deprived of its rear, but also in the sense that the revolutionisation of the East is bound to give a powerful impulse to the intensification of the revolutionary crisis in the West.2 Is it possible that these statements of Lenin and Stalin are wrong? The theses they enunciated have long been elementary Marxist-Leninist knowledge. Obviously, now that the leaders of the CPSU are bent on belittling the national liberation movement, they are completely ignoring elementary Marxism- Leninism and the plain facts under their noses. DISTORTION OF THE LENINIST VIEW OF LEADERSHIP IN THE REVOLUTION In its Open Letter of July 14, the Central Committee of the CPSU also attacks the standpoint of the Chinese Communist Party on the question of proletarian leadership in the national liberation movement. It says: . . . the Chinese comrades want to ³correct² Lenin and prove that hegemony in the world struggle against imperialism should go not to the working class, but to the petty 1 V. I. Lenin, ³The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. XI, p. 51. 2 J. V. Stalin, ³The Revolutionary Movement in the East², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. VII, pp. 235-36. 204 bourgeoisie or the national bourgeoisie, even to ³certain patriotically-minded kings, princes and aristocrats.² This is a deliberate distortion of the views of the Chinese Communist Party. In discussing the need for the proletariat to insist on leading the national liberation movement, the letter of the Central Committee of the CPC of June 14 says: History has entrusted to the proletarian parties in these areas [Asia, Africa and Latin America] the glorious mission of holding high the banner of struggle against imperialism, against old and new colonialism and for national independence and people¹s democracy, of standing in the forefront of the national democratic revolutionary movement and striving for a socialist future. . . . . . . . . . . . . On the basis of the worker-peasant alliance the proletariat and its party must unite all the strata that can be united and organize a broad united front against imperialism and its lackeys. In order to consolidate and expand this united front it is necessary that the proletarian party should maintain its ideological, political and organizational independence and insist on the leadership of the revolution. In discussing the need for establishing a broad antiimperialist united front in the national liberation movement, the letter of the Central Committee of the CPC says: The oppressed nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America are faced with the urgent task of fighting imperialism and its lackeys. . . . . . . . . . . . . In these areas, extremely broad sections of the population refuse to be slaves of imperialism. They include not only the workers, peasants, intellectuals and petty bour 205 geoisie, but also the patriotic national bourgeoisie and even certain kings, princes and aristocrats who are patriotic. Our views are perfectly clear. In the national liberation movement it is necessary both to insist on leadership by the proletariat and to establish a broad anti-imperialist united front. What is wrong with these views? Why should the leadership of the CPSU distort and attack these correct views? It is not we, but the leaders of the CPSU, who have abandoned Lenin¹s views on proletarian leadership in the revolution. The wrong line of the leaders of the CPSU completely abandons the task of fighting imperialism and colonialism and opposes wars of national liberation; this means it wants the proletariat and the Communist Parties of the oppressed nations and countries to roll up their patriotic banner of opposing imperialism and struggling for national independence and surrender it to others. In that case, how could one even talk about an anti-imperialist united front or of proletarian leadership? Another idea often propagated by the leaders of the CPSU is that a country can build socialism under no matter what leadership, including even that of a reactionary nationalist like Nehru. This is still farther removed from the idea of proletarian leadership. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU misinterprets the proper relationship of mutual support which should exist between the socialist camp and the working-class movement in the capitalist countries on the one hand and the national liberation movement on the other, asserting that the national liberation movement should be ³led² by the socialist countries and the working-class movement in the metropolitan countries. It has the audacity to claim that this is ³based² on Lenin¹s views on proletarian leadership. Obviously this is a gross distortion and revision of Lenin¹s thinking. It shows that the leaders of the CPSU want to impose their line of abolishing revolution on the revolutionary movement of the oppressed nations. 206 THE PATH OF NATIONALISM AND DEGENERATION In their Open Letter of July 14, the leaders of the CPSU attempt to pin on the Chinese Communist Party the charge of ³isolating the national-liberation movement from the international working class and its creation, the socialist world system². They also accuse us of ³separating² the national liberation movement from the socialist system and the working-class movement in the Western capitalist countries and ³counterposing² the former to the latter. There are other Communists, like the leaders of the French Communist Party, who loudly echo the leaders of the CPSU. But what are the facts? Those who counterpose the national liberation movement to the socialist camp and the workingclass movement in the Western capitalist countries are none other than the leaders of the CPSU and their followers, who do not support, and even oppose, the national liberation movement. The Chinese Communist Party has consistently maintained that the revolutionary struggles of all peoples support each other. We always consider the national liberation movement from the viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, from the viewpoint of the proletarian world revolution as a whole. We believe the victorious development of the national liberation revolution is of tremendous significance for the socialist camp, the working-class movement in the capitalist countries and the cause of defending world peace. But the leaders of the CPSU and their followers refuse to acknowledge this significance. They talk only about the support which the socialist camp gives the national liberation movement and ignore the support which the latter gives the former. They talk only about the role of the working-class movement in the Western capitalist countries in dealing blows at imperialism and belittle or ignore the role of the national liberation movement in the same connection. Their stand con 207 tradicts Marxism-Leninism and disregards the facts, and is therefore wrong. The question of what attitude to take towards the relationship between the socialist countries and the revolution of the oppressed nations, and towards the relationship between the working-class movement in the capitalist countries and the revolution of the oppressed nations, involves the important principle of whether Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism are to be upheld or abandoned. According to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, every socialist country which has achieved victory in its revolution must actively support and assist the liberation struggles of the oppressed nations. The socialist countries must become, base areas for supporting and developing the revolution of the oppressed nations and peoples throughout the world, form the closest alliance with them and carry the proletarian world revolution through to completion. But the leaders of the CPSU virtually regard the victory of socialism in one country or several countries as the end of the proletarian world revolution. They want to subordinate the national liberation revolution to their general line of peaceful coexistence and to the national interests of their own country. When in 1925 Stalin fought the liquidationists, represented by the Trotskyites and Zinovievites, he pointed out that one of the dangerous characteristics of liquidationism was: . . . lack of confidence in the international proletarian revolution; lack of confidence in its victory; a sceptical attitude towards the national-liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries . . . failure to understand the elementary demand of internationalism, by virtue of which the victory of socialism in one country is not an end in itself, but a means of developing and supporting the revolution in other countries.1 1 J. V. Stalin, ³Questions and Answers², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. VII, p. 169. 208 He added: That is the path of nationalism and degeneration, the path of the complete liquidation of the proletariat¹s international policy, for people afflicted with this disease regard our country not as a part of the whole that is called the world revolutionary movement, but as the beginning and the end of that movement, believing that the interests of all other countries should be sacrificed to the interests of our country.1 Stalin depicted the line of thinking of the liquidationists as follows: Support the liberation movement in China? But why? Wouldn¹t that be dangerous? Wouldn¹t it bring us into conflict with other countries? Wouldn¹t it be better if we established ³spheres of influence² in China in conjunction with other ³advanced² powers and snatched something from China for our own benefit? That would be both useful and safe. . . . And so on and so forth.2 He concluded: Such is the new type of nationalist ³frame of mind,² which is trying to liquidate the foreign policy of the October Revolution and is cultivating the elements of degeneration. 3 The present leaders of the CPSU have gone farther than the old liquidationists. Priding themselves on their cleverness, they only take up what is ³both useful and safe². Mortally afraid of being involved in conflict with the imperialist countries, they have set their minds on opposing the national liberation movement. They are intoxicated with the idea of the two ³super-powers² establishing spheres of influence throughout the world. 1 Ibid., pp. 169-70. 2 Ibid., p. 170. 3 Ibid. 209 Stalin¹s criticism of the liquidationists is a fair description of the present leaders of the CPSU. Following in the footsteps of the liquidationists, they have liquidated the foreign policy of the October Revolution and taken the path of nationalism and degeneration. Stalin warned: . . . it is obvious that the first country to be victorious can retain the role of standard-bearer of the world revolutionary movement only on the basis of consistent internationalism, only on the basis of the foreign policy of the October Revolution, and that the path of least resistance and of nationalism in foreign policy is the path of the isolation and decay of the first country to be victorious.1 This warning by Stalin is of serious, practical significance for the present leaders of the CPSU. AN EXAMPLE OF SOCIAL-CHAUVINISM Similarly, according to proletarian internationalism, the proletariat and the Communists of the oppressor nations must actively support both the right of the oppressed nations to national independence and their struggles for liberation. With the support of the oppressed nations, the proletariat of the oppressor nations will be better able to win its revolution. Lenin hit the nail on the head when he said: The revolutionary movement in the advanced countries would actually be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle against capital, the workers of Europe and America were not closely and completely united with the hundreds upon hundreds of millions of ³colonial² slaves who are oppressed by capital.2 1 Ibid., p. 171. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³The Second Congress of the Communist International², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 472-73. 210 However, some self-styled Marxist-Leninists have abandoned Marxism-Leninism on this very question of fundamental principle. The leaders of the French Communist Party are typical in this respect. Over a long period of time, the leaders of the CPF have abandoned the struggle against U.S. imperialism, refusing to put up a firm fight against U.S. imperialist control over and restrictions on France in the political, economic and military fields and surrendering the banner of French national struggle against the United States to people like de Gaulle; on the other hand, they have been using various devices and excuses to defend the colonial interests of the French imperialists, have refused to support, and indeed opposed, the national liberation movements in the French colonies, and particularly opposed national revolutionary wars; they have sunk into the quagmire of chauvinism. Lenin said, ³Europeans often forget that colonial peoples are also nations, but to tolerate such Œforgetfulness¹ is to tolerate chauvinism.²1 Yet the leadership of the French Communist Party, represented by Comrade Thorez, has not only tolerated this ³forgetfulness², but has openly regarded the peoples of the French colonies as ³naturalized Frenchmen²,2 refused to acknowledge their right to national independence in dissociation from France and publicly supported the policy of ³national assimilation² pursued by the French imperialists. For the past ten years and more, the leaders of the French Communist Party have followed the colonial policy of the French imperialists and served as an appendage of French monopoly capital. In 1946, when the French monopoly capitalist rulers played a neo-colonialist trick by proposing to form a French Union, they followed suit and proclaimed that ³we have always envisaged the French Union as a Œfree union of 1 V. I. Lenin, ³A Caricature of Marxism and ŒImperialist Economism¹ ², Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1942, Vol. XIX, p. 250. 2 Maurice Thorez, Speech in Algiers, February 1939. 211 free peoples¹ ²1 and that ³the French Union will permit the regulation, on a new basis, of the relations between the people of France and the overseas peoples who have in the past been attached to France².2 In 1958, when the French Union collapsed and the French Government proposed the establishment of a French Community to preserve its colonial system, the leaders of the CPF again followed suit and proclaimed, ³We believe that the creation of a genuine community will be a positive event.²3 Moreover, in opposing the demand of the people in the French colonies for national independence, the leaders of the CPF have even tried to intimidate them, saying that ³any attempt to break away from the Union of France will only lead to the strengthening of imperialism; although independence may be won, it will be temporary, nominal and false². They further openly declared: The question is whether this already unavoidable independence will be with France, or without France and against France. The interest of our country requires that this independence should be with France.4 On the question of Algeria, the chauvinist stand of the leaders of the CPF is all the more evident. They have recently tried to justify themselves by asserting that they had long recognized the correct demand of the people of Algeria for freedom. But what are the facts? For a long time the leaders of the CPF refused to recognize Algeria¹s right to national independence; they followed the 1 Léon Feix, Speech at the 15th Congress of the Communist Party of France, June 1959. 2 Maurice Thorez, Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the New Term at the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of France, October 10, 1955. 3 Léon Feix, Speech at the 15th Congress of the Communist Party of France, June 1959. 4 Raymond Barbé, ³Black Africa in the Age of Guinea?², Démocratie Nouvelle of the French Communist Party, No. 11, 1958. 212 French monopoly capitalists, crying that ³Algeria is an inalienable part of France²1 and that France ³should be a great African power, now and in the future².2 Thorez and others were most concerned about the fact that Algeria could provide France with ³a million head of sheep² and large quantities of wheat yearly to solve her problem of ³the shortage of meat² and ³make up our deficit in grain².3 Just see! What feverish chauvinism on the part of the leaders of the CPF! Do they show an iota of proletarian internationalism? Is there anything of the proletarian revolutionary in them? By taking this chauvinistic stand they have betrayed the fundamental interests of the international proletariat, the fundamental interests of the French proletariat and the true interests of the French nation. AGAINST THE ³THEORY OF RACISM² AND THE ³THEORY OF THE YELLOW PERIL² Having used up all their wonder-working weapons for opposing the national liberation movement, the leaders of the CPSU are now reduced to seeking help from racism, the most reactionary of all imperialist theories. They describe the correct stand of the CPC in resolutely supporting the national liberation movement as ³creating racial and geographical barriers², ³replacing the class approach with the racial approach², and ³playing upon the national and even racial prejudices of the Asian and African peoples². If Marxism-Leninism did not exist, perhaps such lies could deceive people. Unfortunately for the manufacturers of these 1 Documents of the September 24, 1946 Session of the Constituent National Assembly of France, Appendix II, No. 1013. 2 Florimond Bonte, Speech at the Constituent Assembly of France, 1944. 3 Maurice Thorez, Report to the Tenth Congress of the Communist Party of France, 1945. 213 lies, they live in the wrong age, for Marxism-Leninism has already found its way deep into people¹s hearts. As Stalin rightly pointed out, Leninism ³broke down the wall between whites and blacks, between Europeans and Asiatics, between the Œcivilised¹ and Œuncivilised¹ slaves of imperialism².1 It is futile for the leaders of the CPSU to try and rebuild this wall of racism. In the last analysis, the national question in the contemporary world is one of class struggle and anti-imperialist struggle. Today the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, anti-imperialist and patriotic bourgeois elements and other patriotic and anti-imperialist enlightened people of all races ‹ white, black, yellow or brown ‹ have formed a broad united front against the imperialists, headed by the United States, and their lackeys. This united front is expanding and growing stronger. The question here is not whether to side with the white people or the coloured people, but whether to side with the oppressed peoples and nations or with the handful of imperialists and reactionaries. According to the Marxist-Leninist class stand, oppressed nations must draw a clear line of demarcation between themselves and the imperialists and colonialists. To blur this line represents a chauvinist view serving imperialism and colonialism. Lenin said: . . . the central point in the Social-Democratic programme must be the distinction between oppressing and oppressed nations, which is the essence of imperialism, which is falsely evaded by the social-chauvinists, and by Kautsky.2 By slandering the unity of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America in the anti-imperialist struggle as being ³based on 1 J. V. Stalin, ³The Foundations of Leninism², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 144. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. V, p. 284. 214 the geographical and racial principles², the leaders of the CPSU have obviously placed themselves in the position of the social-chauvinists and of Kautsky. When they peddle the ³theory of racism², describing the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America as one of the coloured against the white race, the leaders of the CPSU are clearly aiming at inciting racial hatred among the white people in Europe and North America, at diverting the people of the world from the struggle against imperialism and at turning the international working-class movement away from the struggle against modern revisionism. The leaders of the CPSU have raised a hue and cry about the ³Yellow Peril² and the ³imminent menace of Genghis Khan². This is really not worth refuting. We do not intend in this article to comment on the historical role of Genghis Khan or on the development of the Mongolian, Russian and Chinese nations and the process of their formation into states. We would only remind the leaders of the CPSU of their need to review their history lessons before manufacturing such tales. Genghis Khan was a Khan of Mongolia, and in his day both China and Russia were subjected to Mongolian aggression. He invaded part of northwestern and northern China in 1215 and Russia in 1223. After his death, his successors subjugated Russia in 1240 and thirty-nine years later, in 1279, conquered the whole of China. Lu Hsun, the well-known Chinese writer, has a paragraph about Genghis Khan in an article he wrote in 1934. We include it here for your reference as it may be useful to you. He wrote that, as a young man of twenty, I had been told that ³our² Genghis Khan had conquered Europe and ushered in the most splendid period in ³our² history. Not until I was twenty-five did I discover that this so-called most splendid period of ³our² history was actually the time when the Mongolians conquered China and we became slaves. And not until last August, when browsing 215 through three books on Mongolian history, looking for history stories, did I find out that the conquest of ³Russia² by the Mongolians and their invasion of Hungary and Austria actually preceded their conquest of China, and that the Genghis Khan of that time was not yet our Khan. The Russians were enslaved before we were, and presumably it is they who ought to be able to say, ³When our Genghis Khan conquered China, he ushered in the most splendid period of our history.²1 Anyone with a little knowledge of modern world history knows that the ³theory of the Yellow Peril² about which the CPSU leadership has been making such a noise is a legacy of the German Kaiser William II. Half a century ago, William II stated, ³I am a believer in the Yellow Peril.² The Kaiser¹s purpose in propagating the ³theory of the Yellow Peril² was to carry the partition of China further, to invade Asia, to suppress revolution in Asia, to divert the attention of the European people from revolution and to use it as a smokescreen for his active preparations for the imperialist world war and for his attempt to gain world hegemony. When William II spread this ³theory of the Yellow Peril², the European bourgeoisie was in deep decline and extremely reactionary, and democratic revolutions were sweeping through China, Turkey and Persia and affecting India, around the time of the 1905 Russian Revolution. That was the period, too, when Lenin made his famous remark about ³backward Europe and advanced Asia². William II was a bigwig in his day. But in reality he proved to be only a snow man in the sun. In a very short time this reactionary chieftain vanished from the scene, together with the reactionary theory he invented. The great Lenin and his brilliant teachings live on for ever. 1 Lu Hsun, Collected Works, Chin. ed., People¹s Literature Publishing House, Peking, 1958, Vol. VI, p. 109. 216 Fifty years have gone by; imperialism in Western Europe and North America has become still more moribund and reactionary, and its days are numbered. Meanwhile, the revolutionary storm raging over Asia, Africa and Latin America has grown many times stronger than in Lenin¹s time. It is hardly credible that today there are still people who wish to step into the shoes of William II. This is indeed a mockery of history. RESURRECTING THE OLD REVISIONISM IN A NEW GUISE The policy of the leadership of the CPSU on the nationalcolonial question is identical with the bankrupt policy of the revisionists of the Second International. The only difference is that the latter served the imperialists¹ old colonialism, while the modern revisionists serve the imperialists¹ neo-colonialism. The old revisionists sang to the tune of the old colonialists, and Khrushchev sings to the tune of the neo-colonialists. The heroes of the Second International, represented by Bernstein and Kautsky, were apologists for the old colonial rule of imperialism. They openly declared that colonial rule was progressive, that it brought a high civilization to the colonies and developed the productive forces there. They even asserted that the ³abolition of the colonies would mean barbarism². 1 In this respect Khrushchov is somewhat different from the old revisionists. He is bold enough to denounce the old colonial system. How is it that Khrushchev is so bold? Because the imperialists have changed their tune. After World War II, under the twin blows of the socialist revolution and the national liberation revolution, the im- 1 Eduard David, Speech on the Colonial Question at the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart, Internationaler Sozialistenkongress, Stuttgart, 1907, Verlag Buchhandlung Vorwärts, Berlin, 1907, p. 30. 217 perialists were forced to recognize that ³if the West had attempted to perpetuate the status quo of colonialism, it would have made violent revolution inevitable and defeat inevitable². 1 The old colonialist forms of rule ³on the contrary, . . . are likely to prove Œrunning sores¹ which destroy both the economic and the moral vigour of a nation¹s life².2 Thus it became necessary to change the form and practise neocolonialism. Thus, too, Khrushchov singing to the tune of the neocolonialists flaunts the ³theory of the disappearance of colonialism² in order to cover up the new colonialism. What is more, he tries to induce the oppressed nations to embrace this new colonialism. He actively propagates the view that ³peaceful coexistence² between the oppressed nations and civilized imperialism will make ³the national economy grow rapidly² and bring about an ³uplift of their productive forces², enable the home market in the oppressed countries to ³become incomparably greater² and ³furnish more raw materials, and various products and goods required by the economy of the industrially developed countries²3 and, at the same time, will ³considerably raise the living standard of the inhabitants in the highly developed capitalist countries².4 Nor has Khrushchov forgotten to collect certain worn-out weapons from the arsenal of the revisionists of the Second International. Here are some examples. The old revisionists opposed wars of national liberation and held that the national question ³can be settled only through 1 J. F. Dulles, War or Peace, Eng. ed., the MacMillan Company, New York, 1957, p. 76. 2 John Strachey, The End of Empire, Eng. ed., London 1959, p. 194. 3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 23, 1960. 4 ³Liquidation of Colonialism ‹ Command of the Times², Kommunist, Moscow, No. 2, 1961. 218 international agreements².1 On this question, Khrushchov has taken over the line of the revisionists of the Second International; he advocates a ³quiet burial of the colonial system².2 The old revisionists attacked the revolutionary Marxists, hurling at them the slander that ³Bolshevism is in essence a warlike type of socialism²3 and that ³the Communist International harbours the illusion that the liberation of the workers can be achieved by means of the bayonets of the victorious Red Army and that a new world war is necessary for the world revolution². They also spread the story that this position had ³created the greatest danger of a new world war².4 The language Khrushchov uses today to slander the Chinese Communist Party and other fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties is exactly the language used by the old revisionists in slandering the Bolsheviks. It is hard to find any difference. It must be said that in serving the imperialists¹ neocolonialism, Khrushchov is not a whit inferior to the old revisionists in their service of the imperialists¹ old colonialism. Lenin showed how the policy of imperialism caused the international workers¹ movement to split into two sections, the revolutionary and the opportunist. The revolutionary section sided with the oppressed nations and opposed the imperialists and colonialists. On the other hand, the opportunist section fed on crumbs from the spoils which the imperialists and colonialists squeezed out of the people of the colonies and semicolonies. It sided with the imperialists and colonialists and opposed the revolution of the oppressed nations for liberation. 1 ³Resolution on the Territorial Question², adopted by the International Socialist Conference in Berne, 1919, Material on the First and Second Internationals, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 380. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 23, 1960. 3 Otto Bauer, Speech on the Oriental Question at the International Socialist Congress in Marseilles, 1925, Material on the First and Second Internationals, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, pp. 468. 4 ³Resolution on the Oriental Question², adopted by the International Socialist Congress in Marseilles, 1925, Material on the First and Second Internationals, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 474. 219 The same kind of division between revolutionaries and opportunists in the international working-class movement as that described by Lenin is now taking shape not only in the working-class movement in capitalist countries but also in socialist countries where the proletariat wields state power. The experience of history shows that if the national liberation movement is to achieve complete victory it must form a solid alliance with the revolutionary working-class movement, draw a clear line of demarcation between itself and the revisionists who serve the imperialists and colonialists, and firmly eradicate their influence. The experience of history shows that if the working-class movement of the capitalist countries in Western Europe and North America is to achieve complete victory, it must form a close alliance with the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America, draw a clear line of demarcation between itself and the revisionists, and firmly eradicate their influence. The revisionists are agents of imperialism who have hidden themselves among the ranks of the international working-class movement. Lenin said, ³. . . the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.²1 Thus it is clear that the present fight against imperialism and old and new colonialism must be linked closely with the fight against the apologists of neo-colonialism. However hard the imperialists disguise their intentions and bestir themselves, however hard their apologists whitewash and help neo-colonialism, imperialism and colonialism cannot escape their doom. The victory of the national liberation revolution is irresistible. Sooner or later the apologists of neocolonialism will go bankrupt. Workers of the world and the oppressed nations, unite! 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 560. TWO DIFFERENT LINES ON THE QUESTION OF WAR AND PEACE Fifth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) (November 19, 1964) 223 HE whole world is discussing the question of war and T peace. The criminal system of imperialism has brought upon the people of the world numerous wars, including two disastrous world wars. Wars launched by imperialism have caused the people heavy suffering, but have also educated them. Since World War II, people everywhere have been vigorously demanding world peace. More and more people have come to understand that to defend world peace it is imperative to wage struggles against the imperialist policies of aggression and war. Marxist-Leninists throughout the world are duty bound to treasure the peace sentiments of the people and to stand in the forefront of the struggle for world peace. They are duty bound to struggle against the imperialists¹ policies of aggression and war, to expose their deceptions and defeat their plans for war. They are duty bound to educate the people, raise their political consciousness and guide the struggle for world peace in the proper direction. In contrast to the Marxist-Leninists, the modern revisionists help the imperialists to deceive the people, divert the people¹s attention, weaken and undermine their struggle against imperialism and cover up the imperialists¹ plans for a new world war, thus meeting the needs of imperialist policy. The Marxist-Leninist line on the question of war and peace is diametrically opposed to the revisionist line. The Marxist-Leninist line is the correct line conducive to the winning of world peace. It is the line consistently upheld by all Marxist-Leninist Parties, including the Communist Party of China, and by all Marxist-Leninists. 224 The revisionist line is a wrong line which serves to increase the danger of a new war. It is the line gradually developed by the leaders of the CPSU since its 20th Congress. On the question of war and peace many lies slandering the Chinese Communists have been fabricated in the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU and in numerous statements by the leaders of the CPSU, but these cannot conceal the essence of the differences. In what follows we shall analyse the main differences between the Marxist-Leninist and the modern revisionist lines on the question of war and peace. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY Ever since capitalism evolved into imperialism, the question of war and peace has been a vital one in the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. Imperialism is the source of wars in modern times. The imperialists alternately use a deceptive policy of peace and a policy of war. They often cover their crimes of aggression and their preparations for a new war with lies about peace. Lenin and Stalin tirelessly called upon the people of all countries to combat the peace frauds of the imperialists. Lenin said that the imperialist governments ³pay lip service to peace and justice, but in fact wage annexationist and predatory wars².1 Stalin said that the imperialists ³have only one aim in resorting to pacifism: to dupe the masses with high-sounding phrases about peace in order to prepare for a new war².2 He also said: 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Report on Peace², Delivered at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers¹ and Soldiers¹ Deputies, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part I, p. 332. 2 J. V. Stalin, ³Concerning the International Situation², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 297. 225 Many think that imperialist pacifism is an instrument of peace. That is absolutely wrong. Imperialist pacifism is an instrument for the preparation of war and for disguising this preparation by hypocritical talk of peace. Without this pacifism and its instrument, the League of Nations, preparation for war in the conditions of today would be impossible. 1 In contrast to Lenin and Stalin, the revisionists of the Second International, who were renegades from the working class, helped the imperialists to deceive the people and became their accomplices in unleashing the two World Wars. Before World War I, the revisionists represented by Bernstein and Kautsky endeavoured by hypocritical talk about peace to paralyse the revolutionary fighting will of the people and cover up the imperialist plans for a world war. As World War I was breaking out, the old revisionists speedily shed their peace masks, sided with their respective imperialist governments, supported the imperialist war for the redivision of the world, voted for military appropriations in parliament, and incited the working class of their own countries to plunge into the war and slaughter their class brothers in other countries under the hypocritical slogan of ³defending the motherland². When the imperialists needed an armistice in their own interests, the revisionists typified by Kautsky tried to poison people¹s minds and to oppose revolution by such glib talk as ³nothing would make me happier than a conciliatory peace based on the principle, ŒLive and let live¹ ².2 After World War I, the renegade Kautsky and his successors became still more brazen trumpeters of the imperialists¹ peace frauds. 1 J. V. Stalin, ³Results of the July Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.)², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, p. 209. 2 Karl Kautsky, National Problems, Russ. ed., Petrograd, 1918, p. 88. 226 The revisionists of the Second International spread a pack of lies on the question of war and peace. 1. They prettified imperialism and turned the minds of the people away from their struggles. Kautsky said: . . . the danger to world peace from imperialism is only slight. The greater danger appears to come from the national strivings in the East and from the various dictatorships. 1 Thus people were asked to believe that the source of war was not imperialism but the oppressed nations of the East and the Soviet state, the great bulwark of peace. 2. They helped the imperialists cover up the danger of a new war and blunted the fighting will of the people. Kautsky said in 1928, ³If today you keep on talking loudly about the dangers of imperialist war, you are relying on a traditional formula and not on present-day considerations.²2 Old revisionists of his brand described those believing in the inevitability of imperialist wars as ³committed to a fatalistic conception of history².3 3. They intimidated the people with the notion that war would destroy mankind. Kautsky said: . . . the next war will not only bring want and misery, but will basically put an end to civilisation and, at least in Europe, will leave behind nothing but smoking ruins and putrefying corpses.4 These old revisionists said: 1 Karl Kautsky, The Question of Defence and Social-Democracy, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1928, p. 37. 2 Ibid., p. 28. 3 Hugo Haase, Speech on the Question of Imperialism at the Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in Chemnitz, 1912, published in the Handbook of the Congress of the Social-Democratic Party in 1910-1913, Ger. ed., Munich, Vol. II, p. 234. 4 Karl Kautsky, Preface to War and Democracy, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1932, p. xii. 227 The last war brought the entire world to the brink of the precipice; the next one would destroy it completely. The mere preparation for a new war would ruin the world.1 4. They made no distinction between just and unjust wars and forbade revolution. Kautsky said in 1914: . . . in present-day conditions, there is no such thing as a war which is not a misfortune for nations in general and for the proletariat in particular. What we discussed was the means by which we could prevent a threatening war, and not which wars are useful and which harmful.2 He also said: The yearning for perpetual peace increasingly inspires the majority of cultured nations. It temporarily pushes the essentially great problem of our times into the background. . . .3 5. They propagated the theory that weapons decide everything and they opposed revolutionary armed struggle. Kautsky said: As has been often stated, one of the reasons why the coming revolutionary struggles will more rarely be fought out by military means lies in the colossal superiority in armaments of the armies of modern states over the arms which are at the disposal of ³civilians² and which usually render any resistance on the part of the latter hopeless from the very outset.4 1 ³Resolution on the League of Nations², adopted by the International Socialist Conference in Berne, 1919, Material on the First and Second Internationals, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1926, p. 378. 2 Karl Kautsky, ³Social-Democracy in War², Die Neue Zeit, October 2, 1914. 3 Karl Kautsky, Preface to War and Democracy, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1932, p. xii. 4 Karl Kautsky, ³A Catechism of Social-Democracy², Die Neue Zeit, December 13, 1893. 228 6. They spread the absurd theory that world peace can be safeguarded and equality of nations achieved through disarmament. Bernstein said: Peace on earth and good will to all men! We should not pause or rest and must attend to the unhindered advance of society towards prosperity in the interests of all, towards equality of rights among nations through international agreement and disarmament.1 7. They spread the fallacy that the money saved from disarmament can be used to assist backward countries. Kautsky said: . . . the lighter the burden of military expenditures in Western Europe, the greater the means available for building railways in China, Persia, Turkey, South America, etc., and these public works are a far more effective means of promoting industrial development than the building of dreadnoughts.2 8. They submitted schemes for the ³peace strategy² of the imperialists. Kautsky said: The nations of civilised Europe (and likewise the Americans) can maintain peace in the Near and Far East more effectively through their economic and intellectual resources than through ironclads and planes.3 9. They extolled the League of Nations which was controlled by the imperialists. Kautsky said: The mere existence of the League of Nations is itself already a great achievement for the cause of peace. It rep- 1 Eduard Bernstein, Speech on the Question of Disarmament at the Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in Chemnitz, 1912, published in the Handbook of the Congress of the Social-Democratic Party in 1910-1913, Ger. ed., Munich, Vol. II, p. 9. 2 Karl Kautsky, ³Once More on Disarmament², Die Neue Zeit, September 6, 1912. 3 Karl Kautsky, The Question of Defence and Social-Democracy, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1928, p. 32. 229 resents a lever for the preservation of peace such as no other institution can offer.1 10. They spread the illusion that reliance could be placed on U.S. imperialism to defend world peace. Kautsky said: Today the United States is the strongest power in the world and will make the League of Nations irresistible as soon as it works inside it or with it to prevent war.2 Lenin ruthlessly exposed the ugly features of Kautsky and his ilk. He pointed out that the pacifist phrases of the revisionists of the Second International served only ³as a means of consoling the people, as a means of helping the governments to keep the masses in submission in order to continue the imperialist slaughter!²3 Stalin pointed out: And the most important thing in all this is that Social- Democracy is the main channel of imperialist pacifism within the working class ‹ consequently, it is capitalism¹s main support among the working class in preparing for new wars and intervention.4 Even a cursory comparison of Comrade Khrushchov¹s statements on the question of war and peace with those of Bernstein, Kautsky and others shows that there is nothing new in his views, which are a mere reproduction of the revisionism of the Second International. On the question of war and peace, which has a vital bearing on the destiny of mankind, Khrushchov is following in 1 Ibid., p. 25. 2 Karl Kautsky, Socialists and War, Ger. ed., Prague, 1937, p. 639. 3 V. I. Lenin, ³To the Workers Who Support the Struggle Against the War and Against the Socialists Who Have Deserted to the Side of Their Governments², Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1942, Vol. XIX, p. 435. 4 J. V. Stalin, ³Results of the July Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U. (B.)², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, p. 210. 230 the footsteps of Bernstein and Kautsky. As history shows, this is a road extremely dangerous to world peace. In order effectively to defend world peace and prevent a new world war, Marxist-Leninists and peace-loving people all over the world must reject and oppose Khrushchov¹s erroneous line. THE GREATEST FRAUD There is no bigger lie than the designation of the arch enemy of world peace as a peace-loving angel. Since World War II, U.S. imperialism, stepping into the shoes of the German, Italian and Japanese fascists, has been endeavouring to set up a vast world empire such as has never been known before. The ³global strategy² of U.S. imperialism has been to grab and dominate the intermediate zone lying between the United States and the socialist camp, put down the revolutions of the oppressed peoples and nations, proceed to destroy the socialist countries, and thus to dominate the whole world. In the eighteen years since the end of World War II, in order to realize its ambition of world domination, U.S. imperialism has been carrying on aggressive wars or counterrevolutionary aimed interventions in various parts of the world and has been actively preparing for a new world war. It is obvious that imperialism remains the source of modern wars and that U.S. imperialism is the main force of aggression and war in the contemporary world. This has been clearly affirmed in both the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. Yet the leaders of the CPSU hold that the chief representatives of U.S. imperialism love peace. They say that a ³reasonable² group has emerged capable of soberly assessing the situation. And Eisenhower and Kennedy are representatives of this ³reasonable² group. 231 Khrushchov praised Eisenhower as one who ³enjoys the absolute confidence of his people², who ³has a sincere desire for peace² and who ³also worries about ensuring peace just as we do². Now Khrushchov praises Kennedy as even better qualified to shoulder the responsibility of preserving world peace than was Eisenhower. He showed ³solicitude for the preservation of peace²,1 and it is reasonable to expect him to ³create reliable conditions for a peaceful life and creative labour on earth².2 Khrushchov works as hard as the revisionists of the Second International at telling lies about imperialism and prettifying it. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU asks those who do not believe in these lies: ³Do they really think that all bourgeois governments, in all their doings, lack reason?² Obviously, the leaders of the CPSU ignore the ABC of Marxism-Leninism. In a class society there is no reason that can transcend class. The proletariat has proletarian reason and the bourgeoisie bourgeois reason. Reason connotes that one must be good at formulating policies in the fundamental interests of one¹s own class and at taking actions according to one¹s basic class stand. The reason of Kennedy and his like lies in acting according to the fundamental interests of U.S. monopoly capital, and it is imperialist reason. At a time when the international balance of class forces is becoming increasingly unfavourable to imperialism and the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war are meeting with constant setbacks, the U.S. imperialists have to disguise themselves more frequently under the cloak of peace. It is true that Kennedy is rather clever at spinning words about peace and employing peace tactics. But as with his 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Letter to J. F. Kennedy, October 27, 1962. 2 New Year Message of Greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. Brezhnev to J. F. Kennedy, Izvestia, January 3, 1963. 232 war policy, Kennedy¹s deceptive peace policy serves the ³global strategy² of U.S. imperialism. Kennedy¹s ³strategy of peace² aims at unifying the whole world into the ³world community of free nations² rooted in U.S. imperialist ³law and justice². The main points of Kennedy¹s ³strategy of peace² are: To promote U.S. neo-colonialism in Asia, Africa and Latin America by peaceful means; To penetrate and dominate other imperialist and capitalist countries by peaceful means; To encourage by peaceful means the socialist countries to take the Yugoslav road of ³peaceful evolution²; To weaken and undermine by peaceful means the struggle of the people of the world against imperialism. In his recent speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Kennedy arrogantly announced the following conditions for peace between the United States and the Soviet Union: (1) The German Democratic Republic must be incorporated into West Germany. (2) Socialist Cuba must not be allowed to exist. (3) The socialist countries in Eastern Europe must be given ³free choice², by which he means that capitalism must be restored in these countries. (4) The socialist countries must not support the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. To attain their aims by ³peaceful means² wherever possible has been a customary tactic of imperialists and colonialists. Reactionary classes always rely on two tactics to maintain their rule and to carry out foreign aggrandizement. One is the tactic of priest-like deception, the other that of butcherlike suppression. Imperialism always employs its deceptive policy of peace and its policy of war to reinforce each other, and they are complementary. The reason of Kennedy, who 233 is the representative of U.S. monopoly capital, can express itself only in a more cunning use of these two tactics. Violence is always the main tactic of reactionary ruling classes. Priest-like deception plays only a supplementary role. Imperialists always rely on positions of strength to carve out their spheres of influence. Kennedy has made this point very clear. He said, ³In the end, the only way to maintain the peace is to be prepared in the final extreme to fight for our country ‹ and to mean it.²1 Since Kennedy took office, he has followed the ³strategy of flexible response², which requires the speedy building of ³versatile military forces² and the strengthening of ³all-round power² so that the United States will be able to fight any kind of war it pleases, whether a general war or a limited war, whether a nuclear war or a conventional war, and whether a large war or a small war. This mad plan of Kennedy¹s has pushed U.S. arms expansion and war preparations to an unprecedented peak. Let us look at the following facts published by official U.S. sources: 1. The military expenditures of the U.S. Government have increased from 46,700 million dollars in the fiscal year 1960 to an estimated 60,000 million dollars in the fiscal year 1964, the highest total ever in peace time and greater than during the Korean War. 2. Kennedy recently declared that in the past two years and more there has been a 100 per cent increase in the number of nuclear weapons of the U.S. strategic alert forces and a 45 per cent increase in the number of combat-ready army divisions, the procurement of airlift aircraft has been increased by 175 per cent and there has been an increase by nearly five times in the ³special guerrilla and counter-insurgency forces².2 1 J. F. Kennedy, Speech at the Eighth Annual Veteran¹s Day Ceremony, November 11, 1961. 2 J. F. Kennedy, Speech at a Democratic Party Fund-Raising Dinner, October 30, 1963. 234 3. The U.S. Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff has mapped out plans for nuclear war against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Robert McNamara, the U.S. Secretary of Defence, declared at the beginning of this year: . . . we have provided, throughout the period under consideration, a capability to destroy virtually all of the ³soft-² [above-ground] and ³semi-hard² [semi-protected] military targets in the Soviet Union and a large number of their fully hardened missile sites, with an additional capability in the form of a protected force to be employed or held in reserve for use against urban and industrial areas.1 The United States has strengthened its network of nuclear missile bases directed against the socialist camp and has greatly strengthened the disposition of its missile-equipped nuclear submarines abroad. At the same time, the troops of the NATO bloc under U.S. command have pushed eastward this year and approached the borders of the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia. 4. The Kennedy Administration has reinforced its military dispositions in Asia, Latin America and Africa and made great efforts to expand the ³special forces² of its land, sea and air services in order to cope with the people¹s revolutionary movement in those areas. The United States has turned southern Viet Nam into a proving ground for ³special warfare² and increased its troops there to more than 16,000. 5. It has strengthened its war commands. It has set up a ³U.S. Strike Command² which controls a combined land and air force maintaining high combat readiness in peace time, so that it can be readily sent to any place in the world to provoke wars. It has also set up national military command centres both above and below ground, and organized an Emer- 1 R. S. McNamara, Statement Before the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, January 30, 1963. 235 gency Airborne Command Post operating from aircraft and an Emergency Sea Command Post operating from warships. These facts demonstrate that the U.S. imperialists are the wildest militarists of modern times, the wildest plotters of a new world war, and the most ferocious enemy of world peace. It is thus clear that the U.S. imperialists have not become beautiful angels in spite of Khrushchov¹s bible-reading and psalm-singing; they have not turned into compassionate Buddhas in spite of Khrushchov¹s prayers and incense-burning. However hard Khrushchov tries to serve the U.S. imperialists, they show not the slightest appreciation. They continue to expose their own peace camouflage by fresh and numerous activities of aggression and war, and thus they continue to slap Khrushchov in the face and reveal the bankruptcy of his ridiculous theories prettifying imperialism. The lot of the willing apologists of U.S. imperialism is indeed a sorry one. THE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF PREVENTING A NEW WORLD WAR It is a fact that the imperialists headed by the United States are actively preparing a new world war and that the danger of such a war does exist. We should make this fact clear to the people. But can a new world war be prevented? The views of the Chinese Communists on this question have always been quite explicit. After the conclusion of World War II, Comrade Mao Tsetung scientifically analysed the post-war international situation and advanced the view that a new world war can be prevented. Back in 1946, in his well-known talk with the American correspondent Anna Louise Strong, he said: 236 But the fact that the U.S. reactionaries are now trumpeting so loudly about a U.S.-Soviet war and creating a foul atmosphere, so soon after the end of World War II, compels us to take a look at their real aims. It turns out that under the cover of anti-Soviet slogans they are frantically attacking the workers and democratic circles in the United States and turning all the countries which are the targets of U.S. external expansion into U.S. dependencies. I think the American people and the peoples of all countries menaced by U.S. aggression should unite and struggle against the attacks of the U.S. reactionaries and their running dogs in these countries. Only by victory in this struggle can a third world war be avoided; otherwise it is unavoidable.1 Comrade Mao Tse-tung¹s remarks were directed against a pessimistic appraisal of the international situation at the time The imperialists headed by the United States, together with the reactionaries in various countries, were daily intensifying their anti-Soviet, anti-Communist and anti-popular activities and trumpeting that ³war between the United States and the Soviet Union is inevitable² and that ³the outbreak of a third world war is inevitable². The Chiang, Kai-shek reactionaries gave this great publicity in order to intimidate the Chinese people. Frightened by such blackmail, some comrades became faint-hearted in the face of the armed attacks launched by the Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries with U.S. imperialist support and dared not firmly oppose the counter-revolutionary war with a revolutionary war. Comrade Mao Tse-tung held different views. He pointed out that a new world war could be prevented provided resolute and effective struggles were waged against world reaction. His scientific proposition was confirmed by the great victory of the Chinese Revolution. 1 Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 100. 237 The victory of the Chinese Revolution brought about a tremendous change in the international balance of class forces. Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out in June 1950: The menace of war by the imperialist camp still exists the possibility of a third world war still exists. But the forces thwarting the danger of war and preventing a third world war are rapidly developing, and the political consciousness of the broad masses of the people of the world is rising. A new world war can be prevented provided the Communist Parties of the world keep on uniting and strengthening all the forces of peace and democracy that can be united.1 In November 1957, at the meeting of fraternal Parties, Comrade Mao Tse-tung made a detailed analysis of the changes in international relations since the end of World War II and showed that the international situation had reached a new turning point. He vividly depicted the situation with a metaphor from a classical Chinese novel ‹ ³The east wind prevails over the west wind². He said: It is characteristic of the situation today, I believe, that the East wind is prevailing over the West wind. That is to say, the forces of socialism are overwhelmingly superior to the forces of imperialism.2 He arrived at this conclusion by an analysis of international class relations. He explicitly placed on the side of ³the East wind² the socialist camp, the international working class, the Communist Parties, the oppressed peoples and nations and the peace-loving people and countries, while confining ³the West wind² to the war forces of imperialism and reaction. 1 Mao Tse-tung, ³Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better in the Financial and Economic Situation in China², Renmin Ribao, June 13, 1950. 2 Comrade Mao Tse-tung on ³Imperialism and All Reactionaries Are Paper Tigers², Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p. 35. 238 The political meaning Of this metaphor is very lucid and definite. The fact that the leaders of the CPSU and their followers are twisting this metaphor into a geographical or ethnical or meteorological concept only shows that they want to squeeze themselves into the ranks of the ³West² in order to please the imperialists and to stir up chauvinism in Europe and North America. Comrade Mao Tse-tung¹s main aim in stating that ³the East wind prevails over the West wind² was to point to the growing possibility that a new world war could be prevented and that the socialist countries would be able to carry on their construction in a peaceful environment. These propositions of Comrade Mao Tse-tung¹s have been and are the consistent views of the Communist Party of China. It is thus clear that the leaders of the CPSU are deliberately concocting a lie in alleging that the Chinese Communist Party does ³not believe in the possibility of preventing a new world war.²1 Again, it is clear that the thesis on the possibility of preventing a third world war was advanced by Marxist-Leninists long ago; it was not first put forward at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, nor is it Khrushchov¹s ³creation². Is it then true that Khrushchov has created nothing at all? No. He has created something. Unfortunately, these ³creations² are by no means Marxist-Leninist, but revisionist. First, Khrushchev has wilfully interpreted the possibility of preventing a new world war as the only possibility, holding that there is no possibility of a new world war. Marxist-Leninists hold that while pointing to the possibility of preventing a new world war, we must also call attention to the possibility that imperialism may unleash a world war. Only by pointing to both possibilities, pursuing correct policies and preparing for both eventualities can we effectively 1 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 239 mobilize the masses to wage struggles in defence of world peace. Only thus will the socialist countries and people and other peace-loving countries and people not be caught unawares and utterly unprepared should imperialism force a world war on the people of the world. However, Khrushchov and others are against exposing the danger of a new war which the imperialists are plotting. According to them, imperialism has actually become peaceloving. This is helping the imperialists to lull the masses and sap their fighting will so that they will lose their vigilance against the danger of the new war the imperialists are plotting. Second, Khrushchov has wilfully interpreted the possibility of preventing a new world war as the possibility of preventing all wars, holding that the Leninist axiom that war is inevitable so long as imperialism exists is outmoded. The possibility of preventing a new world war is one thing; the possibility of preventing all wars, including revolutionary wars, is another. And it is completely wrong to confuse the two. There is soil for wars so long as imperialism and the system of exploitation of man by man exist. This is an objective law discovered by Lenin after abundant scientific study. Stalin said in 1952 after indicating the possibility of preventing a new world war, ³To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is necessary to abolish imperialism.²1 Lenin and Stalin are right and Khrushchov is wrong. History shows that while the imperialists have succeeded in launching two world wars, they have waged numerous wars of other kinds. Since World War II, by their policies of aggression and war the imperialists headed by the United States have brought about ceaseless local wars and armed conflicts of every description in many places, and especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 1 J. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, p. 41. 240 It is clear that national liberation wars are inevitable when the imperialists, and the U.S. imperialists in particular, send their troops or use their lackeys to carry out sanguinary suppression of the oppressed nations and countries fighting for or upholding national independence. Lenin said: To deny all possibility of national wars under imperialism is wrong in theory, obviously mistaken historically, and in practice is tantamount to European chauvinism.1 It is equally clear that revolutionary civil wars are inevitable when the bourgeois reactionaries suppress the people in their oven countries by force of arms. Lenin said: . . . civil wars are also wars. Whoever recognizes the class struggle cannot fail to recognize civil wars, which in every class society are the natural, and under certain conditions, inevitable continuation, development and intensification of the class struggle. All the great revolutions prove this. To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, would mean sinking into extreme opportunism and renouncing the socialist revolution.2 Nearly all the great revolutions in history were made through revolutionary wars. The American War of Independence and Civil War are cases in point. The French Revolution is another example. The Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution are of course examples too. The revolutions in Viet Nam, Cuba, Algeria, etc. are also well-known examples. In 1871, summing up the lessons of the Paris Commune in his speech commemorating the seventh anniversary of the founding of the First International, Marx mentioned the conditions for the elimination of class domination and class oppression. He said: 1 V. I. Lenin, ³The War Program of the Proletarian Revolution², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 571. 2 Ibid. 241 . . . before such a change can be consummated, a dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, and its first premiss is an army of the proletariat. The working class must win the right to its emancipation on the battlefield.1 In accordance with Marxist-Leninist theory, Comrade Mao Tse-tung advanced the celebrated thesis that ³political power grows out of the barrel of a gun², when discussing the lessons of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions in 1938. This thesis, too, has now become a target of attack by the leaders of the CPSU. They say it is evidence of China¹s being ³warlike². Respected friends, slanders like yours were refuted by Comrade Mao Tse-tung as far back as twenty-five years ago: According to the Marxist theory of the state, the army is the chief component of state power. Whoever wants to seize and retain state power must have a strong army. Some people ridicule us as advocates of the ³omnipotence of war². Yes, we are advocates of the omnipotence of revolutionary war; that is good, not bad, it is Marxist.2 What is wrong with Comrade Mao Tse-tung¹s remark? Only those who reject all the historical experience gained in the bourgeois and proletarian revolutions over the last few hundred years would reject this view of his. With their guns, the Chinese people have created socialist political power. All except imperialists and their lackeys can readily understand that this is a fine thing and that it is an important factor in safeguarding world peace and preventing a third world war. Marxist-Leninists never conceal their views. We wholeheartedly support every people¹s revolutionary war. As Lenin said of such revolutionary war, ³Of all the wars known in 1 Works of Marx and Engels, Ger. ed., Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962, Vol. XVII, p. 433. 2 Mao Tse-tung, ³Problems of War and Strategy², Selected Military Writings, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p. 273. 242 history it is the only lawful, rightful, just, and truly great war.²1 If we are accused of being warlike simply because of this, it only goes to prove that we genuinely side with the oppressed peoples and nations and are true Marxist-Leninists. The imperialists and revisionists always denounced the Bolsheviks and revolutionary leaders like Lenin and Stalin as being ³warlike². The very fact that today we are likewise abused by imperialists and revisionists shows that we have been holding aloft the revolutionary banner of Marxism- Leninism. Khrushchov and others vigorously propagate the view that all wars can be prevented and ³a world without weapons, without armed forces and without wars² can be brought into being while imperialism still exists. This is nothing but Kautsky¹s theory of ³ultra-imperialism² which has long been bankrupt. Their purpose is all too clear; it is to make the people believe that permanent peace can be realized under imperialism and thereby to abolish revolution and national liberation wars and revolutionary civil wars against imperialism and its lackeys, and in fact to help the imperialists in their preparations for a new war. NUCLEAR FETISHISM AND NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL ARE THE THEORETICAL BASIS AND GUIDING POLICY OF MODERN REVISIONISM The heart of the theory of the leaders of the CPSU on war and peace is their thesis that the emergence of nuclear weapons has changed everything including the laws of class struggle. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says, ³The nuclear and rocket weapons created in the middle of this century have changed former conceptions of war.² In what way were they changed? 1 V. I. Lenin. ³Revolutionary Days², Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1969, Vol. VIII, p. 107. 243 The leaders of the CPSU hold that with the appearance of nuclear weapons there is no longer any difference between just and unjust wars. They say that ³the atomic bomb does not draw class distinctions² and that ³the atomic bomb does not distinguish between imperialists and working people, it strikes at areas, so that millions of workers would be killed for every monopolist destroyed².1 They hold that with the appearance of nuclear weapons the oppressed peoples and nations must abandon revolution and refrain from waging just popular revolutionary wars and wars of national liberation, or else such wars would lead to the destruction of mankind. They say, ³. . . any small Œlocal war¹ might spark off the conflagration of a world war² and ³Today, any sort of war, though it may break out as an ordinary non-nuclear war, is likely to develop into a destructive nuclear-missile conflagration.²2 Thus, ³We will destroy our Noah¹s Ark ‹ the globe². The leaders of the CPSU hold that the socialist countries must not resist but must yield to imperialist nuclear blackmail and war threats. Khrushchov said: There can be no doubt that a world nuclear war, if started by the imperialist maniacs, would inevitably result in the downfall of the capitalist system, a system breeding wars. But would the socialist countries and the cause of socialism all over the world benefit from a world nuclear disaster? Only people who deliberately shut their eyes to the facts can think so. As regards Marxist-Leninists, they cannot propose to establish a Communist civilisation on the ruins of centres of world culture, on land laid waste and contaminated by nuclear fall-out. We need hardly add that in the case of many peoples, the question of socialism would be 1 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, Radio and Television Speech, June 15, 1961. 244 eliminated altogether because they would have disappeared bodily from our planet.1 In short, according to the leaders of the CPSU, with the emergence of nuclear weapons, the contradiction between the socialist and the imperialist camps, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries, and the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism have all disappeared. The world no longer has any class contradictions. They regard the contradictions in the contemporary world as boiling down to a single contradiction, that is, their fictitious contradiction between the so-called common survival of imperialism and the oppressed classes and nations on the one hand and their total destruction on the other. As far as the leaders of the CPSU are concerned, Marxism- Leninism, the Declaration and the Statement, and socialism and communism have all been cast to the winds. How frankly Pravda puts it! ³What is the use of principles if one¹s head is chopped off?²2 This is tantamount to saying that the revolutionaries who died under the sabres of the reactionaries for the victory of the Russian Revolutions and the October Revolution, the warriors who bravely gave up their lives in the anti-fascist war, the heroes who shed their blood in the struggle against imperialism and for national independence and the martyrs to the revolutionary cause through the ages were all fools. Why should they have given up their heads for adherence to principle? This is the philosophy of out-and-out renegades. It is a shameless statement, to be found only in the confessions of renegades. 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Sixth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, January 16, 1963. 2 ³Left of Common Sense², Pravda, August 16, 1963. 245 Guided by this theory of nuclear fetishism and nuclear blackmail, the leaders of the CPSU maintain that the way to defend world peace is not for all existing peace forces to unite and form the broadest united front against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys but for the two nuclear powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, to co-operate in settling the world¹s problems. Khrushchov has said: We [the Soviet Union and the United States] are the strongest countries in the world and if we unite for peace there can be no war. Then if any madman wanted war, we would but have to shake our fingers to warn him off.1 It is thus apparent to everybody how far the leaders of the CPSU have gone in regarding the enemy as their friend. In order to cover up their error, the leaders of the CPSU have not hesitated to attack the correct line of the CPC by lies and slanders. They assert that by advocating support for the peoples¹ wars of national liberation and revolutionary civil wars the Communist Party of China wants to provoke a nuclear world war. This is a curious lie. The Communist Party of China has always held that the socialist countries should actively support the peoples¹ revolutionary struggles, including wars of national liberation and revolutionary civil wars. To fail to do so would be to renounce their proletarian internationalist duty. At the same time, we hold that the oppressed peoples and nations can achieve liberation only by their own resolute revolutionary struggle and that no one else can do it for them. We have always maintained that socialist countries must not use nuclear weapons to support the peoples¹ wars of national liberation and revolutionary civil wars and have no need to do so. 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with the U.S. Correspondent C. L. Sulzberger on September 5, 1961, Pravda, September 10, 1961. 246 We have always maintained that the socialist countries must achieve and maintain nuclear superiority. Only this can prevent the imperialists from launching a nuclear war and help bring about the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons. We consistently hold that in the hands of a socialist country, nuclear weapons must always be defensive weapons for resisting imperialist nuclear threats. A socialist country absolutely must not be the first to use nuclear weapons, nor should it in any circumstances play with them or engage in nuclear blackmail and nuclear gambling. We are opposed both to the wrong practice on the part of the leaders of the CPSU of withholding support from the revolutionary struggles of the peoples and to their wrong approach to nuclear weapons. Instead of examining their own errors, they accuse us of hoping for a ³head-on clash²1 between the Soviet Union and the United States and trying to push them into a nuclear war. Our answer is: No, friends. You had better cut out your sensation mongering calumny. The Chinese Communist Party is firmly opposed to a ³head-on clash² between the Soviet Union and the United States, and not in words only. In deeds too it has worked hard to avert direct armed conflict between them. Examples of this are the Korean War against U.S. aggression in which we fought side by side with the Korean comrades and our struggle against the United States in the Taiwan Straits. We ourselves preferred to shoulder the heavy sacrifices necessary and stood in the first line of defense of the socialist camp so that the Soviet Union might stay in the second line. Have the leaders of the CPSU any sense of proletarian morality when they concoct such lies? In fact, it is not we but the leaders of the CPSU who have frequently boasted that they would use nuclear weapons to help the anti-imperialist struggle of one country or another. 1 ³The General Line of the International Communist Movement and the Schismatic Platform of the Chinese Leaders², editorial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No. 14, 1963. 247 As everyone knows, the oppressed peoples and nations have no nuclear weapons and they cannot use them to make revolutions, nor is there any need for them to do so. The leaders of the CPSU admit that there is often no clear battle line between the two sides in national liberation wars and civil wars, and therefore the use of nuclear weapons is out of the question. We should then like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: What need is there for a socialist country to support the peoples¹ revolutionary struggles by nuclear weapons? We should also like to ask them: How would a socialist country use nuclear weapons to support the revolutionary struggle of an oppressed people or nation? Would it use nuclear weapons on an area where a war of national liberation or a revolutionary civil war was in progress, thereby subjecting both the revolutionary people and the imperialists to a nuclear strike? Or would it be the first to use nuclear weapons against an imperialist country which was waging a conventional war of aggression elsewhere? Obviously, in either case it is absolutely impermissible for a socialist country to use nuclear weapons. The fact is that when the leaders of the CPSU brandish their nuclear weapons, it is not really to support the people¹s anti-imperialist struggles. Sometimes, in order to gain cheap prestige, they just publish empty statements which they never intend to honour. At other times, during the Caribbean crisis for instance, they engage in speculative, opportunistic and irresponsible nuclear gambling for ulterior motives. As soon as their nuclear blackmail is seen through and is countered in kind, they retreat one step after another, switch from adventurism to capitulationism and lose all by their nuclear gambling. We wish to point out that the great Soviet people and Red Army have been and remain a great force safeguarding world 248 peace. But Khrushchov¹s military ideas based on nuclear fetishism and nuclear blackmail are entirely wrong. Khrushchov sees only nuclear weapons. According to him, ³The present level of military technique being what it is, the Air Force and the Navy have lost their former importance. These arms are being replaced and not reduced.²1 Of course, those units and men having combat duties on the ground are even less significant. According to him, ³In our time, a country¹s defensive capacity is not determined by the number of men under arms, of men in uniform. . . . a country¹s defense potential depends in decisive measure on the fire-power and the means of delivery that country commands.² 2 As for the militia and the people, they are still more inconsequential. Khrushchov has made the well-known remark that for those now having modern weapons at their disposal, the militia is not an army but just human flesh.3 Khrushchov¹s whole set of military theories runs completely counter to Marxist-Leninist teachings on war and the army. To follow his wrong theories will necessarily involve disintegrating the army and disarming oneself morally. Obviously, if any socialist country should accept Khrushchov¹s erroneous military strategy, it would inevitably place itself in a most dangerous position. Khrushchov may confer on himself such titles as ³a great peace champion², award himself a peace prize and pin heroes¹ medals on himself, but no matter how much he may praise himself, he will not be able to cover up his dangerous practice of recklessly playing with nuclear weapons or his fawning before imperialist nuclear blackmail. 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, January 1960. 2 Ibid. 3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Meeting of Representatives of Fraternal Parties in Bucharest, June 24, 1960. 249 FIGHT OR CAPITULATE? World peace can be won only through struggle by the people of all countries and not by begging the imperialists for it. Peace can be effectively safeguarded only by relying on the masses of the people and waging a tit-for-tat struggle against the imperialist policies of aggression and war. This is the correct policy. Tit-for-tat struggle is an important conclusion drawn by the Chinese people from their prolonged struggle against imperialism and its lackeys. Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: Chiang Kai-shek always tries to wrest every ounce of power and every ounce of gain from the people. And we? Our policy is to give him tit for tat and to fight for every inch of land. We act after his fashion.1 He added: He always tries to impose war on the people, one sword in his left hand and another in his right. We take up swords, too, following his example.2 Analysing the domestic political situation in 1945, Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: How to give ³tit for tat² depends on the situation. Sometimes, not going to negotiations is tit-for-tat; and sometimes, going to negotiations is also tit-for-tat. . . . If they start fighting, we fight back, fight to win peace. Peace will not come unless we strike hard blows at the reactionaries who dare to attack the Liberated Areas.3 1 Mao Tse-tung, ³The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 14. 2 Ibid. 3 Mao Tse-tung, ³On the Chungking Negotiations², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 56. 250 He drew the following historical lesson from the failure of China¹s Revolution of 1924-27: Confronted by counter-revolutionary attacks against the people, Chen Tu-hsiu did not adopt the policy of giving tit for tat and fighting for every inch of land; as a result, in 1927, within the space of a few months, the people lost all the rights they had won.1 The Chinese Communists understand and adhere to the policy of giving tit for tat. We oppose both capitulationism and adventurism. This correct policy ensured the victory of the Chinese Revolution and the Chinese people¹s subsequent great successes in their struggle against imperialism. All revolutionary people approve and welcome this correct fighting policy put forward by the Chinese Communists. All imperialists and reactionaries fear and hate it. The policy of giving tit for tat as put forward by the CPC is virulently attacked by the leaders of the CPSU. This only goes to show that they do not in the least want to oppose imperialism. Their sole purpose in attacking and smearing the policy of tit for tat is to cover up their wrong line of catering to the needs of imperialism and surrendering to it. The leaders of the CPSU assert that a tit-for-tat struggle against imperialism will lead to international tension. How terrible! According to their logic, the imperialists are allowed to commit aggression and make threats against others but the victims of imperialist aggression are not allowed to fight, the imperialists are allowed to oppress others but the oppressed are not allowed to resist. This is a naked attempt to absolve the imperialists of their crimes of aggression. This is a philosophy of the jungle, pure and simple. 1 Mao Tse-tung, ³The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 16. 251 International tension is the product of the imperialist policies of aggression and war. The peoples should of course wage a firm struggle against imperialist aggression and threats. Facts have shown that only through struggle can imperialism be compelled to retreat and a genuine relaxation of international tension be achieved. Constant retreat before the imperialists cannot lead to genuine relaxation but will only encourage their aggression. We have always opposed the creation of international tension by imperialism and stood for the relaxation of such tension. But the imperialists are bent on committing aggression and creating tension everywhere, and that can only lead to the opposite of what they desire. Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: The U.S. imperialists believe that they will always benefit from tense situations, but the fact is that tension created by the United States has led to the opposite of what they desire. It serves to mobilize the people of the whole world against the U.S. aggressors.1 Further, ³If the U.S. monopoly groups persist in their policies of aggression and war, the day is bound to come when the people of the world will hang them by the neck.²2 The Declaration of 1957 rightly says, ³By this policy these anti-popular, aggressive imperialist forces are courting their own ruin, creating their own grave-diggers.² This is the dialectic of history. Those who revere the imperialists can hardly understand this truth. The leaders of the CPSU assert that by advocating a titfor- tat struggle the Chinese Communist Party has rejected negotiations. This again is nonsense. 1 Mao Tse-tung, Speech at the Supreme State Conference, Renmin Ribao, September 9, 1958. 2 Ibid. 252 We consistently maintain that those who refuse negotiations under all circumstances are definitely not Marxist- Leninists. The Chinese Communists conducted negotiations with the Kuomintang many times during the revolutionary civil wars. They did not refuse to negotiate even on the eve of nationwide liberation. Comrade Mao Tse-tung said in March 1949: Whether the peace negotiations are overall or local, we should be prepared for such an eventuality. We should not refuse to enter into negotiations because we are afraid of trouble and want to avoid complications, nor should we enter into negotiations with our minds in a haze. We should be firm in principle; we should also have all the flexibility permissible and necessary for carrying out our principles.1 Internationally, in struggling against imperialism and reaction, the Chinese Communists take the same correct attitude towards negotiations. In October 1951, Comrade Mao Tse-tung had this to say about the Korean armistice negotiations. We have long said that the Korean question should be settled by peaceful means. This still holds good now. So long as the U.S. Government is willing to settle the question on a just and reasonable basis, and will stop using every shameless means possible to wreck and obstruct the progress of the negotiations, as it has done in the past, success in the Korean armistice negotiation is possible; otherwise it is impossible.2 1 Mao Tse-tung, ³Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 372. 2 Mao Tse-tung, ³Opening Speech at the Third Session of the First National Committee of the Chinese People¹s Political Consultative Conference², Renmin Ribao, October 24, 1951. 253 Resolute struggle against the U.S. imperialists compelled them to accept the Korean armistice agreement in the course of negotiations. We took an active part in the 1954 Geneva Conference and contributed to the restoration of peace in Indo-China. We are in favour of negotiations even with the United States, which has occupied our territory of Taiwan. The Sino-U.S. ambassadorial talks have been going on for more than eight years now. We took an active part in the 1961 Geneva Conference on the Laotian question and promoted the signing of the Geneva agreements respecting the independence and neutrality of Laos. Do the Chinese Communists allow themselves alone to negotiate with imperialist countries while opposing negotiations by the leaders of the CPSU with the leaders of the imperialist countries? No, of course not. In fact, we have always actively supported all such negotiations by the Soviet Government with imperialist countries as are beneficial and not detrimental to the defence of world peace. Comrade Mao Tse-tung said on May 14, 1960: We support the holding of the summit conference whether or not this sort of conference yields achievements, or whether the achievements are big or small. But the winning of world peace should depend primarily on resolute struggle by the people of all countries.1 We favour negotiations with imperialist countries. But it is absolutely impermissible to pin hopes for world peace on negotiations, spread illusions about them and thereby paralyse the fighting will of the peoples, as Khrushchov has done. 1 Chairman Mao Tse-tung¹s Talk with Guests from Asia and Latin America², Renmin Ribao, May 15, 1960. 254 Actually Khrushchov¹s wrong approach to negotiations is itself harmful to negotiations. The more Khrushchov retreats before the imperialists and the more he begs, the more the appetite of the imperialists will grow. Khrushchov, who poses as the greatest devotee of negotiations in history, is always an unrequited lover and too often a laughing-stock. Countless historical facts have shown that the imperialists and reactionaries never care to save the face of the capitulationists. THE ROAD IN DEFENCE OF PEACE AND THE ROAD LEADING TO WAR To sum up, our difference with the leaders of the CPSU on the question of war and peace is one between two different lines ‹ whether or not to oppose imperialism, whether or not to support revolutionary struggles, whether or not to mobilize the people of the world against the imperialist war plots and whether or not to adhere to Marxism-Leninism. Like all other genuine revolutionary parties, the Communist Party of China has always been in the forefront of the struggle against imperialism and for world peace. We hold that to defend world peace it is necessary constantly to expose imperialism and to arouse and organize the people in struggle against the imperialists headed by the United States, and it is necessary to place reliance on the growth of the strength of the socialist camp, on the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and working people of all countries, on the liberation struggles of the oppressed nations, on the struggles of all peace-loving peoples and countries and on the broad united front against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. This line of ours is in keeping with the common line for all Communist Parties laid down in the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. 255 With this line, it is possible ceaselessly to raise the political consciousness of the people and to expand the struggle for world peace in the right direction. With this line, it is possible constantly to strengthen the forces for world peace with the socialist camp as their core and strike at and weaken the imperialist forces for war. With this line, it is possible constantly to expand the peoples¹ revolutions and manacle imperialism. With this line, it is possible to turn to account all available factors, including the contradictions between U.S. imperialism and the other imperialist powers, and to isolate U.S. imperialism to the fullest extent. With this line, it is possible to smash the nuclear blackmail practised by U.S. imperialism and defeat its plan for launching a new world war. This is the line for the people of all countries to win both victory in revolution and world peace. It is the sure and effective road in defence of world peace. But the line pursued by the leaders of the CPSU is diametrically opposed to our line, to the common line of all Marxist- Leninists and revolutionary people. The leaders of the CPSU direct the edge of their struggle not at the enemy of world peace but at the socialist camp, thus weakening and undermining the very core of strength which defends world peace. They use nuclear blackmail to intimidate the people of the socialist countries and forbid them to support the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations, thus helping U.S. imperialism to isolate the socialist camp and suppress peoples¹ revolutions. They use nuclear blackmail to intimidate the oppressed peoples and nations and to prohibit them from making revolution, and they collaborate with U.S. imperialism in stamping out the ³sparks² of revolution, thus enabling it freely to carry on its policies of aggression and war in the intermediate zone lying between the United States and the socialist camp. 256 They also intimidate the allies of the United States and forbid them to struggle against the control it has imposed on them, thus helping U.S. imperialism to enslave these countries and consolidate its position. By this line of action the leaders of the CPSU have altogether relinquished the struggle against the imperialist policies of aggression and war. This line of action denies the united front against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys and in defence of world peace. It tries to impose the greatest isolation not on the arch enemy of world peace but on the peace forces. It means the liquidation of the fighting task of defending world peace. This is a line that serves the ³global strategy² of U.S. imperialism. It is not the road to world peace but the road leading to greater danger of war and to war itself. Today the world is no longer what it was on the eve of World War II. There is the powerful socialist camp. The national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America is surging forward. The political consciousness of the people of the world has been very much raised. The strength of the revolutionary peoples has been very much enhanced. The people of the Soviet Union, of the socialist countries and of the whole world will never allow their own destiny to be manipulated by the imperialist forces for war and their trumpeters. The aggression and war activities of the imperialists and reactionaries are teaching the people of the world gradually to raise their political consciousness. Social practice is the sole criterion of truth. We are confident that as a result of such teaching by the imperialists and reactionaries, many people now holding wrong views on the question of war and peace will change their minds. We have high hopes on this score. We firmly believe that the Communists and the people of the world will surely smash the imperialist plan for launching a new world war and safeguard world peace provided they expose the imperialist frauds, see through the revisionist lies and shoulder the task of defending world peace. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE ‹ TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED POLICIES Sixth Comment on the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag) (December 12, 1964) 261 INCE the 20th Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov and S other comrades have talked more about the question of peaceful coexistence than about anything else. Again and again the leaders of the CPSU claim that they have been faithful to Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence and have creatively developed it. They ascribe to their policy of ³peaceful coexistence² all the credit for the victories won by the peoples of the world in prolonged revolutionary struggles. They advertise the notion that imperialism, and U.S. imperialism in particular, supports peaceful coexistence, and they wantonly malign the Chinese Communist Party and all Marxist-Leninist Parties as being opponents of peaceful coexistence. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU even slanders China as favouring ³competition in unleashing war² with the imperialists. They describe the words and deeds by which they have betrayed Marxism-Leninism, the proletarian world revolution and the revolutionary cause of the oppressed peoples and nations as being in conformity with Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence. But can the words ³peaceful coexistence² really serve as a talisman for the leaders of the CPSU in their betrayal of Marxism-Leninism? No, absolutely not. We are now confronted with two diametrically opposed policies of peaceful coexistence. One is Lenin and Stalin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence, which all Marxist-Leninists, including the Chinese Communists, stand for. The other is the anti-Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence, the so-called general line of peaceful coexistence advocated by Khrushchov and others. 262 Let us now examine Lenin and Stalin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence and the stuff Khrushchov and others call the general line of peaceful coexistence. LENIN AND STALIN¹S POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE It was Lenin who advanced the idea that the socialist state should pursue a policy of peaceful coexistence towards countries with different social systems. This correct policy was long followed by the Communist Party and the Government of the Soviet Union under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin. The question of peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist countries could not possibly have arisen prior to the October Revolution, since there was no socialist country in existence. Nevertheless, on the basis of his scientific analysis of imperialism, Lenin foresaw in 1915-16 that ³socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time².1 In other words, within a certain period of time, socialist countries would exist side by side with capitalist or pre-capitalist countries. The very nature of the socialist system determines that socialist countries must pursue a foreign policy of peace. Lenin said, ³Only the working class, when it wins power, can pursue a policy of peace not in words . . . but in deeds.²2 These views of Lenin¹s can be said to constitute the theoretical basis of the policy of peaceful coexistence. After the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin proclaimed to the world on many occasions that the foreign policy of the Soviet state was one of peace. But the imperialists 1 V. I. Lenin, ³The War Program of the Proletarian Revolution², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1950, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 571. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³Draft Resolution on the Current Moment in Politics², Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXV, pp. 291-92. 263 were bent on strangling the new-born socialist republic in its cradle. They launched armed intervention against the Soviet state. Lenin rightly pointed out that confronted with this situation ³unless we defended the socialist republic by force of arms, we could not exist².1 By 1920 the great Soviet people had defeated the imperialist armed intervention. A relative equilibrium of forces had come into being between the Soviet state and the imperialist countries. After trials of strength over several years, the Soviet state had stood its ground. It began to turn from war to peaceful construction. It was in these circumstances that Lenin advanced the idea of a policy of peaceful coexistence. In fact, from that time onwards the imperialists had no choice but to ³coexist² with the Soviet state. During Lenin¹s lifetime, this equilibrium was always highly unstable and the Soviet Socialist Republic was subject to stringent capitalist encirclement. Time and again Lenin pointed out that owing to the aggressive nature of imperialism there was no guarantee that socialism and capitalism would live in peace for long. In the prevailing conditions, it was not yet possible for him to define at length the content of the policy of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. But the great Lenin laid down the correct foreign policy for the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat and advanced the basic ideas of the policy of peaceful coexistence. What were Lenin¹s basic ideas on this policy? First, Lenin pointed out that the socialist state existed in defiance of the imperialists¹ will. Although it adhered to the foreign policy of peace, the imperialists had no desire to live in peace with it and would do everything possible and seize every opportunity to oppose or even destroy the socialist state. 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Report of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party Congress², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, pp. 33. 264 Lenin said: International imperialism . . . could not . . . live side by side with the Soviet Republic, both because of its objective position and because of the economic interests of the capitalist class which are embodied in it. . . .1 Further: . . . the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable.2 He therefore stressed time and again that the socialist state should maintain constant vigilance against imperialism. . . . the lesson all workers and peasants must master is that we must be on our guard and remember that we are surrounded by men, classes anti- governments openly expressing their extreme hatred for us. We must remember that we are always at a hair¹s breadth from all kinds of invasions.3 Secondly. Lenin pointed out that it was only through struggle that the Soviet state was able to live in peace with the imperialist countries. This was the result of repeated trials of strength between the imperialist countries and the Soviet state, which adopted a correct policy, relied on the 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Report on War and Peace, Delivered to the Seventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), March 7, 1918², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 422. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³Report of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party Congress, March 18, 1919², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, p. 33. 3 V. I. Lenin. ³On the Domestic and Foreign Policies of the Republic, Report Delivered at the Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets², Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, SPPL, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 122. 265 support of the proletariat and oppressed nations of the world and utilized the contradictions among 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 told these gentlemen, the imperialists of Europe, time and again that we agree to make peace, but they continued to dream of enslaving Russia. Now they have realized that their dreams are not fated to come true.1 He pointed out in 1921: . . . the imperialist powers, with all their hatred of Soviet Russia and desire to throw themselves upon her, have had to reject this thought, because the decay of the capitalist world is increasingly advancing, its unity is becoming less and less, and the pressure of the forces of the oppressed colonial peoples, with a population of over 1,000 million, is becoming stronger with each year, each month and even each week.2 Thirdly, in carrying out the, policy of peaceful coexistence. Lenin adopted different principles with regard to the different types of countries in the capitalist world. He attached particular importance to establishing friendly relations with countries which the imperialists were bullying and oppressing. He pointed out that ³the fundamental interests of all peoples suffering from the yoke of imperialism coincide² and that the ³world policy of imperialism is leading to the establishment of closer relations, alliance and friendship among all the oppressed nations². He said that the peace 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Speech Delivered at the First All-Russian Conference on Party Work in the Countryside², Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 326. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³Speech at the Conclusion of the Tenth National Conference of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)², Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, pp. 412-13. 266 policy of the Soviet state ³will increasingly compel the establishment of closer ties between the R.S.F.S.R. [Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic] and a growing number of neighbouring states².1 Lenin also said: We now set as the main task for ourselves: to defeat the exploiters and win the waverers to our side ‹ this task is a world-wide one. The waverers include a whole series of bourgeois states, which as bourgeois states hate us, but on the other hand, as oppressed states, prefer peace with us.2 As for the basis for peace with the imperialist countries, such as the United States, he said, ³Let the U.S. capitalists refrain from touching us.² ³ ŒThe obstacle to such a peace?¹ From our side, there is none. From the side of the American (and all the other) capitalists, it is imperialism.²3 Fourthly, Lenin advanced the policy of peaceful coexistence as a policy to be pursued by the proletariat in power towards countries with different social systems. He never made it the sum total of a socialist country¹s foreign policy. Time and again Lenin made it clear that the fundamental principle of this foreign policy was proletarian internationalism. He said. ³Soviet Russia considers it her greatest pride to help the workers of the whole world in their difficult struggle for the overthrow of capitalism.²4 1 V. I. Lenin. ³The Work of the Council of People¹s Commissars, Report Delivered at the Eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets², Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, pp. 251 and 252. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³Report on the Work of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People¹s Commissars², Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 299. 3 V. I. Lenin, ³Reply to Questions by the Correspondent of the American Newspaper, New York Evening Journal², Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 340. 4 V. I. Lenin, ³To the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and Red Army Deputies², Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 379. 267 In the Decree on Peace issued after the October Revolution, while proposing an immediate peace without annexation or indemnities to all the belligerent countries, Lenin called upon the class-conscious workers in the capitalist countries to help, by comprehensive, determined, and supremely vigorous action ³to bring to a successful conclusion the cause of peace, and at the same time the cause of the emancipation of the toiling and exploited masses of the population from all forms of slavery and all forms of exploitation².1 The Draft Programme of the Party which Lenin drew up for the Seventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party laid down explicitly that ³support of the revolutionary movement of the socialist proletariat in the advanced countries and ³support of the democratic and revolutionary movement in all countries in general, and particularly in the colonies and dependent countries² constituted the important aspects of the Party¹s international policy.2 Fifthly, Lenin consistently held that it was impossible for the oppressed classes and nations to coexist peacefully with the oppressor classes and nations. In the ³Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International², he pointed out: . . . the bourgeoisie, even the most educated and democratic, now no longer hesitates to resort to any fraud or crime, to massacre millions of workers and peasants in order to save the private ownership of the means of production.²3 Lenin¹s conclusions were: 1 V. I. Lenin, ³Report on Peace², delivered at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers¹ and Soldiers¹ Deputies, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 331. 2 V. I. Lenin, ³Rough Draft of a Programme², delivered at the Seventh Congress of Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, p. 334. 3 V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. X, p 164. 268 . . . the very thought of peacefully subordinating the capitalists to the will of the majority of the exploited, of the peaceful, reformist transition to Socialism is not only extreme philistine stupidity, but also downright deception of the workers, the embellishment of capitalist wage slavery, concealment of the truth.1 He repeatedly pointed to the hypocrisy of what the imperialists called the equality of nations. He said: The League of Nations and the whole postwar policy of the Entente reveal this truth more clearly and distinctly than ever; they are everywhere intensifying the revolutionary struggle both of the proletariat in the advanced countries and of the masses of the working people in the colonial and dependent countries, and are hastening the collapse of the petty-bourgeois national illusion that nations can live together in peace and equality under capitalism.2 The above constitute Lenin¹s basic ideas on the policy of peaceful coexistence. Stalin upheld Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence. In the thirty years during which he was the leader of the Soviet Union, he consistently pursued this policy. It was only when the imperialists and reactionaries made armed provocations or launched aggressive wars against the Soviet Union that she had to wage the Great Patriotic War and to fight back in selfdefence. Stalin pointed out that ³our relations with the capitalist countries are based on the assumption that the coexistence of two opposite systems is possible² and that ³the maintenance 1 Ibid. 2 V. I. Lenin. ³Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 464. 269 of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries is an obligatory task for us².1 He also pointed out: The peaceful coexistence of capitalism and communism is quite possible provided there is a mutual desire to cooperate, readiness to carry out undertaken commitments, and observance of the principle of equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.2 While upholding Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence, Stalin firmly opposed withholding support from other people¹s revolutions in order to curry favour with imperialism. He forcefully pointed out two opposite lines in foreign policy, ³either one or the other² of which must be followed. One line was that ³we continue to pursue a revolutionary policy, rallying the proletarians and the oppressed of all countries around the working class Of the U.S.S.R. ‹ in which case international capital will do everything it can to hinder our advance². The other was that ³we renounce our revolutionary policy and agree to make a number of fundamental concessions to international capital ‹ in which case international capital, no doubt, will not be averse to Œassisting¹ us in converting our socialist country into a Œgood¹ bourgeois republic². Stalin cited an example. ³America demands that we renounce in principle the policy of supporting the emancipation movement of the working class in other countries, and says that if we made this concession everything would go smoothly. . . . perhaps we should make this concession?² 1 J. V. Stalin, ³Political Report of the Central Committee², delivered at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. X, p. 296. 2 J. V. Stalin, ³Replies to Questions of American Editors², Pravda, April 2, 1952. 270 And he answered in the negative, ³. . . we cannot agree to these or similar concessions without being false to ourselves. . . .²1 These remarks of Stalin¹s are still of great practical significance. There are indeed two diametrically opposed foreign policies, two diametrically opposed policies of peaceful coexistence. It is an important task for all Marxist-Leninists to distinguish between them, uphold Lenin and Stalin¹s policy and firmly oppose the policy of betrayal, capitulation and withholding support from revolution as well as the policy which converts a socialist country into a ³good² bourgeois republic ‹ policies which Stalin denounced. THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA UPHOLDS LENIN¹S POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU alleges that the Chinese Communist Party ³disbelieves in the possibility of peaceful coexistence² and slanderously accuses it of opposing Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence. Is this true? No. Of course not. Anyone who respects facts can see clearly that the Chinese Communist Party and the Government of the People¹s Republic of China have unswervingly pursued Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence with great success. Since World War II, a fundamental change has taken place in the international balance of class forces. Socialism has triumphed in a number of countries and the socialist camp has come into being. The national liberation movement is growing apace and there have emerged many nationalist states which have newly acquired political independence. The imperialist camp has been greatly weakened and the contradic- 1 J. V. Stalin, ³The Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, pp. 58, 59 and 60. 271 tions among the imperialist countries are becoming increasingly acute. This situation provides more favourable conditions for the socialist countries to carry out the policy of peaceful coexistence towards countries with different social systems. In these new historical conditions, the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government have enriched Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence in the course of applying it. On the eve of the birth of the People¹s Republic of China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: . . . we proclaim to the whole world that what we oppose is exclusively the imperialist system and its plots against the Chinese people. We are willing to discuss with any foreign government the establishment of diplomatic relations on the basis of the principles of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, provided it is willing to sever relations with the Chinese reactionaries, stops conspiring with them or helping them and adopts an attitude of genuine, and not hypocritical, friendship towards People¹s China. The Chinese people wish to have friendly co-operation with the people of all countries and to resume and expand international trade in order to develop production and promote economic prosperity.1 In accordance with these principles set forth by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, we laid down our foreign policy of peace in explicit terms first in the Common Programme adopted by the Chinese People¹s Political Consultative Conference in September 1949 and subsequently in the Constitution of the People¹s Republic of China adopted by the National People¹s Congress in September 1954. In 1954 the Chinese Government initiated the celebrated Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. They are mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non- 1 Mao Tse-tung, ³Address to the Preparatory Committee of the New Political Consultative Conference², Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 408. 272 aggression, non-interference in each other¹s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. Together with other Asian and African countries, we formulated the Ten Principles on the basis of the Five Principles at the Banding Conference of 1955. In 1956 Comrade Mao Tse-tung summed up our country¹s practical experience in international affairs and further explained the general principles of our foreign policy. To achieve a lasting world peace, we must further develop our friendship and co-operation with the fraternal countries in the camp of socialism and strengthen our solidarity with all peace-loving countries. We must endeavour to establish normal diplomatic relations on the basis of mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty and of equality and mutual benefit with all countries willing to live together with us in peace. We must give active support to the national independence and liberation movement in countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as to the peace movement and to just struggles in all countries throughout the world.1 In 1957 he said: To strengthen our unity With the Soviet Union, to strengthen our unity with all socialist countries ‹ this is our fundamental policy, herein lies our basic interest. Then, there are the Asian and African countries, and all the peace-loving countries and peoples ‹ we must strengthen and develop our unity with them. As for the imperialist countries, we should also unite with their peoples and strive to coexist in peace with these countries, do business with them and prevent any possible war, but under no circumstances should we harbour any unrealistic notions about them.2 1 Mao Tse-tung, ³Opening Address to the Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of China². 2 Mao Tse-tung, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People. 273 In our foreign affairs over the past fourteen years, we have adopted different policies towards different types of countries and varied our policies according to the different conditions in countries of the same type. 1. We differentiate between socialist and capitalist countries. We persevere in the proletarian internationalist principle of mutual assistance with regard to socialist countries. We take the upholding and strengthening of the unity of all the countries in the socialist camp as the fundamental policy in our foreign relations. 2. We differentiate between the nationalist countries which have newly attained political independence and the imperialist countries. Although fundamentally different from the socialist countries in their social and political systems, the nationalist countries stand in profound contradiction to imperialism. They have common interests with the socialist countries ‹ opposition to imperialism, the safeguarding of national independence and the defense of world peace. Therefore, it is quite possible and feasible for the socialist countries to establish relations of peaceful coexistence and friendly co-operation with these countries. The establishment of such relations is of great significance for the strengthening of the unity of the antiimperialist forces and for the advancement of the common struggle of the peoples against imperialism. We have consistently adhered to the policy of consolidating and further developing peaceful coexistence and friendly cooperation with countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. At the same time, we have waged appropriate and necessary struggles against countries such as India which have violated or wrecked the Five Principles. 3. We differentiate between the ordinary capitalist countries and the imperialist countries and also between different imperialist countries. As the international balance of class forces grows increasingly favourable to socialism and as the imperialist forces become 274 daily weaker and the contradictions among them daily sharper, it is possible for the socialist countries to compel one imperialist country or another to establish some sort of peaceful coexistence with them by relying on their own growing strength, the expansion of the revolutionary forces of the peoples, the unity with the nationalist countries and the struggle of all the peace-loving people, and by utilizing the internal contradictions of imperialism. While persevering in peaceful coexistence with countries having different social systems, we unswervingly perform our proletarian internationalist duty. We actively support the national liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin America, the working-class movements of Western Europe, North America and Oceania, the people¹s revolutionary struggles, and the people¹s struggles against the imperialist policies of aggression and war and for world peace. In all this we have but one objective in view, that is, with the socialist camp and the international proletariat as the nucleus, to unite all the forces that can be united in order to for a broad united front against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. On the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the Chinese Government over the past ten years and more has established friendly relations with many countries having different social systems and promoted economic and cultural exchanges with them. China has concluded treaties of friendship, of peace and friendship or of friendship, mutual assistance and mutual non-aggression with the Yemen, Burma, Nepal, Afghanistan, Guinea, Cambodia, Indonesia and Ghana. She has successfully settled her boundary questions with Burma, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc., questions which were left over by history. No one can obliterate the great achievements of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government in upholding Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence. 275 In manufacturing the lie that China opposes peaceful coexistence, the leaders of the CPSU are prompted by ulterior motives. To put it bluntly, their aim is to draw a veil over their own ugliness in betraying proletarian internationalism and colluding with imperialism. THE GENERAL LINE OF ³PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE² OF THE CPSU LEADERS It is not we, but the leaders of the CPSU, who in fact violate Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence. The leaders of the CPSU have lauded their concept of peaceful coexistence in superlative terms. What are their main views on the question of peaceful coexistence? 1. The leaders of the CPSU maintain that peaceful coexistence is the overriding and supreme principle for solving contemporary social problems. They assert that it is ³the categorical imperative of modern times² and ³the imperious demand of the epoch².1 They say that ³peaceful coexistence alone is the best and the sole acceptable way to solve the vitally important problems confronting society²2 and that the principle of peaceful coexistence should be made the ³basic law of life for the whole of modern society².3 2. They hold that imperialism has become willing to accept peaceful coexistence and is no longer the obstacle to it. They say that ³not a few government and state leaders of Western countries are now also coming out for peace and peaceful coexistence²,4 and that they ³understand more and 1 B. N. Ponomaryov, ³Victorious Banner of the Communists of the World², Pravda, November 18, 1962. 2 A. Rumyantsev, ³Our Common Ideological Weapon², World Marxist Review, No. 1, 1962. 3 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 23, 1960. 4 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Gadjah Mada University, Djokjakarta, Indonesia, February 21, 1960. 276 more clearly the necessity of peaceful coexistence².1 In particular they have loudly announced a U.S. President¹s ³admission of the reasonableness and practicability of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems².2 3. They advocate ³all-round co-operation² with imperialist countries, and especially with the United States. They say that the Soviet Union and the United States ³will be able to find a basis for concerted actions and efforts for the good of all humanity²3 and can ³march hand in hand for the sake of consolidating peace and establishing real international cooperation between all states².4 4. They assert that peaceful coexistence is ³the general line of foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the countries of the socialist camp².5 5. They also assert that ³the principle of peaceful coexistence determines the general line of foreign policy of the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist Parties²,6 that it is ³the basis of the strategy of communism² in the world today, and that all Communists ³have made the struggle for peaceful coexistence the general principle of their policy².7 6. They regard peaceful coexistence as the prerequisite for victory in the peoples¹ revolutionary struggles. They hold that the victories won by the people of different countries have 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, January 1960. 2 ³On the Interview of the U.S. President J. Kennedy², editorial board article in Izvestia, December 4, 1961. 3 Telegram of Greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. Brezhnev to J. F. Kennedy, December 30, 1961. 4 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 23, 1960. 5 N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Reception Given by the Embassy of the Democratic People¹s Republic of Korea in the Soviet Union, July 5, 1961. 6 B. N. Ponomaryov, ³Some Problems of the Revolutionary Movement², World Marxist Review, No. 12, 1962. 7 ³Peaceful Coexistence and Revolution², Kommunist, Moscow, No. 2, 1962. 277 been achieved under ³conditions of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems².1 They assert that ³it was precisely in conditions of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems that the socialist revolution triumphed in Cuba, that the Algerian people gained national independence, that more than forty countries won national independence, that the fraternal Parties grew in number and strength, and that the influence of the world communist movement increased².2 7. They hold that peaceful coexistence is ³the best way of helping the international revolutionary labour movement achieve its basic class aims².3 They declare that under peaceful coexistence the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in capitalist countries has grown. They believe, moreover, that the victory of socialism in economic competition ³will mean delivering a crushing blow to the entire system of capitalist relationships².4 They state that ³when the Soviet people enjoy the blessings of communism, new hundreds of millions of people on earth will say: ŒWe are for communism!¹ ²5 and that by then even capitalists may ³go over to the Communist Party². Just consider. What do these views have in common with Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence? Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence is one followed by a socialist country in its relations with countries having different social systems, whereas Khrushchov describes peaceful coexistence as the supreme principle governing the life of modern society. 1 B. N. Ponomaryov, ³A New Stage in the General Crisis of Capitalism², Pravda, February 8, 1961. 2 Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the Central Committee of the CPC, March 30, 1963. 3 Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963. 4 B. N. Ponomaryov, ³Some Problems of the Revolutionary Movement², World Marxist Review, No. 12, 1962. 5 Programme of the CPSU, adopted by the 22nd Congress of the CPSU. 278 Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence constitutes one aspect of the international policy of the proletariat in power, whereas Khrushchev stretches peaceful coexistence into the general line of foreign policy for the socialist countries and even further into the general line for all Communist Parties. Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence was directed against the imperialist policies of aggression and war, whereas Khrushchov¹s peaceful coexistence caters to imperialism and abets the imperialist policies of aggression and war. Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence is based on the standpoint of international class struggle, whereas Khrushchov¹s peaceful coexistence strives to replace international class struggle with international class collaboration. Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence proceeds from the historical mission of the international proletariat and therefore requires the socialist countries to give firm support to the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations while pursuing this policy, whereas Khrushchov¹s peaceful coexistence seeks to replace the proletarian world revolution with pacifism and thus renounces proletarian internationalism. Khrushchov has changed the policy of peaceful coexistence into one of class capitulation. In the name of peaceful coexistence, he has renounced the revolutionary principles of the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960, robbed Marxism-Leninism of its revolutionary soul, and distorted and mutilated it beyond recognition. This is a brazen betrayal of Marxism-Leninism! THREE DIFFERENCES OF PRINCIPLE On the question of peaceful coexistence the difference between the leaders of the CPSU, on the one hand, and ourselves and all Marxist-Leninist Parties and indeed all Marxist-Leninists, on the other, is not whether socialist countries should 279 pursue the policy of peaceful coexistence. It is an issue of principle concerning the correct attitude towards Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence. It manifests itself mainly in three questions. The first question is: In order to attain peaceful coexistence, is it necessary to ravage struggles against imperialism and bourgeois reaction? Is it possible through peaceful coexistence to abolish the antagonism and struggle between socialism and imperialism? Marxist-Leninists consistently maintain that as far as the socialist countries are concerned, there is no obstacle to the practice of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. The obstacles always come from the imperialists and the bourgeois reactionaries. The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence were advanced to combat the imperialist policies of aggression and war. Under these principles, it is impermissible in international relations to encroach upon the territory and sovereignty of other countries, interfere in their internal affairs, impair their interests and equal status or wage aggressive wars against them. But it is in the very nature of imperialism to commit aggression against other countries and nations and to desire to enslave them. As long as imperialism exists, its nature will never change. That is why intrinsically the imperialists are unwilling to accept the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Whenever possible, they try to disrupt and destroy the socialist countries and they commit aggression against other countries and nations and try to enslave them. History shows that it is only owing to unfavourable objective causes that the imperialists dare not risk starting a war against the socialist countries, or are forced to agree to an armistice and to accept some sort of peaceful coexistence. History also shows that there have always been sharp and complex struggles between the imperialist and socialist countries, which have sometimes culminated in direct military conflicts or wars. When hot wars are not in progress, the 280 imperialists wage cold wars, which they have been ceaselessly waging ever since the end of World War II. In fact, the imperialist and the socialist countries have been in a state of cold-war coexistence. At the same time as they actively expand their armaments and prepare for war, the imperialist countries use every means to oppose the socialist countries politically, economically and ideologically, and even make military provocations and war threats against them. The imperialists¹ cold war against the socialist countries and the latter¹s resistance to it are manifestations of the international class struggle. The imperialists push on with their plans of aggression and war not only against the socialist countries but throughout the world. They try to suppress the revolutionary movements of the oppressed peoples and nations. In these circumstances, the socialist countries, together with the people of all other countries, must resolutely combat the imperialist policies of aggression and war and wage a tit-fortat struggle against imperialism. This class struggle inevitably goes on, now in an acute and now in a relaxed form. But Khrushchev is impervious to these inexorable facts. He proclaims far and wide that imperialism has already admitted the necessity of peaceful coexistence, and he regards the antiimperialist struggles of the socialist countries and of the people of the world as incompatible with the policy of peaceful coexistence. In Khrushchov¹s opinion, a socialist country has to make one concession after another and keep on yielding to the imperialists and the bourgeois reactionaries even when they subject it to military threats and armed attack or make humiliating demands which violate its sovereignty and dignity. By this logic, Khrushchov describes his incessant retreats, his bartering away of principles and docile acceptance of the U.S. imperialists¹ humiliating demands during the Caribbean crisis as ³a victory of peaceful coexistence². 281 By the same logic, Khrushchov describes China¹s adherence to correct principles on the Sino-Indian boundary question and her counter-attack against the military onslaught of the Indian reactionaries, an act of self-defence by China when the situation became intolerable, as ³a violation of peaceful coexistence². At times, Khrushchov also talks about struggle between the two different social systems. But how does he see this struggle? He has said, ³The inevitable struggle between the two systems must be made to take the form exclusively of a struggle of ideas. . . .²1 Here the political struggle has disappeared! He has also said: The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of states with differing socio-economic and political systems does not mean just an absence of war, a temporary state of unstable ceasefire. It presupposes the maintenance between these states of friendly economic and political relations, it envisages the establishment and development of various forms of peaceful international co-operation.2 Here, struggle has disappeared altogether! Like a conjurer, Khrushchov plays one trick after another, first reducing major issues to minor ones, and then minor issues to naught. He denies the basic antagonism between the socialist and capitalist systems, he denies the fundamental contradiction between the socialist and the imperialist camps, and he denies the existence of international class struggle. And so he transforms peaceful coexistence between the two systems and the two camps into ³all-round co-operation². 1 N. S. Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, January 1960. 2 N. S. Khrushchov, ³Answers to the Questions of the Austrian Professor Hans Thirring², Pravda, January 3, 1962. 282 The second question is: Can peaceful coexistence be made the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries? We hold that the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries must embody the fundamental principle of their foreign policy and comprise the fundamental content of this policy. What is this fundamental principle? It is proletarian internationalism. Lenin said, ³The foreign policy of the proletariat is alliance with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries and with all the oppressed nations against all and any imperialists.²1 This principle of proletarian internationalism advanced by Lenin should be the guide for the foreign policy of socialist countries. Since the formation of the socialist camp, every socialist country has had to deal with three kinds of relations in its foreign policy, namely, its relations with other socialist countries, with countries having different social systems, and with the oppressed peoples and nations. In our view, the following should therefore be the content of the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries: to develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and cooperation among the countries of the socialist camp in accordance with the principle of proletarian internationalism; to strive for peaceful coexistence on the basis of the Five Principles with countries having different social systems and oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war; and to support and assist the revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations. These three aspects are interrelated and not a single one can be omitted. The leaders of the CPSU have one-sidedly reduced the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries to 1 V. I. Lenin, ³The Foreign Policy of the Russian Revolution², Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXV, p. 87. 283 peaceful coexistence. We would like to ask: How should a socialist country handle its relations with other socialist countries? Should it merely maintain relations of peaceful coexistence with them? Of course, socialist countries, too, must abide by the Five Principles in their mutual relations. It is absolutely impermissible for any one of them to undermine the territorial integrity of another fraternal country, to impair its independence and sovereignty, interfere in its internal affairs, carry on subversive activities inside it, or violate the principle of equality and mutual benefit in its relations with another fraternal country. But merely to carry out these principles is far from enough. The 1957 Declaration states: These are vital principles. However, they do not exhaust the essence of relations between them. Fraternal mutual aid is part and parcel of these relations. This aid is a striking expression of socialist internationalism. In making peaceful coexistence the general line of foreign policy, the leaders of the CPSU have in fact liquidated the proletarian internationalist relations of mutual assistance and co-operation among socialist countries and put the fraternal socialist countries on a par with the capitalist countries. This amounts to liquidating the socialist camp. The leaders of the CPSU have one-sidedly reduced the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries to peaceful coexistence. We would like to ask: How should a socialist country handle its relations with the oppressed peoples and nations? Should the relationship between the proletariat in power and its class brothers who have not yet emancipated themselves or between it and all oppressed peoples and nations be one of peaceful coexistence alone and not of mutual help? After the October Revolution, Lenin repeatedly stressed that the land of socialism, which had established the dictatorship 284 of the proletariat, was a base for promoting the proletarian world revolution. Stalin, too, said: The revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in all countries.1 He added that ³it constitutes . . . a mighty base for its further development [i.e., of the world revolution]².2 In their foreign policy, therefore, socialist countries can in no circumstances confine themselves to handling relations with countries having different social systems, but must also correctly handle the relations among themselves and their relations with the oppressed peoples and nations. They must make support of the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations their internationalist duty and an important component of their foreign policy. In contrast with Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchov makes peaceful coexistence the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries and, in so doing, excludes from this policy the proletarian internationalist task of helping the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. So far from being a ³creative development² of the policy of peaceful coexistence, this is a betrayal of proletarian internationalism on the pretext of peaceful coexistence. The third question is: Can the policy of peaceful coexistence of the socialist countries be the general line for all Communist Parties and for the international communist movement? Can it be substituted for the people¹s revolution? We maintain that peaceful coexistence connotes a relationship between countries with different social systems, between independent sovereign states. Only after victory in the revolution is it possible and necessary for the proletariat to 1 J. V. Stalin, ³The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists², Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 415. 2 Ibid., p. 419. 285 pursue the policy of peaceful coexistence. As for oppressed peoples and nations, their task is to strive for their own liberation and overthrow the rule of imperialism and its lackeys. They should not practise peaceful coexistence with the imperialists and their lackeys, nor is it possible for them to do so. It is therefore wrong to apply peaceful coexistence to the relations between oppressed and oppressor classes and between oppressed and oppressor nations, or to stretch the socialist countries¹ policy of peaceful coexistence so as to make it the policy of the Communist Parties and the revolutionary people in the capitalist world, or to subordinate the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations to it. We have always held that the correct application of Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries helps to develop their power, to expose the imperialist policies of aggression and war and to unite all the anti-imperialist peoples and countries, and it therefore helps the people¹s struggles against imperialism and its lackeys. At the same time, by directly hitting and weakening the forces of aggression, war and reaction, the people¹s revolutionary struggles against imperialism and its lackeys help the cause of world peace and human progress, and therefore help the socialist countries¹ struggle for peaceful coexistence with countries having different social systems. Thus, the correct application of Lenin¹s policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries is in harmony with the interests of the people¹s revolutionary struggles in all countries. However, the socialist countries¹ struggle for peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems and the people¹s revolution in various countries are two totally different things. In its letter of June 14 replying to the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Central Committee of the CPC states: 286 . . . it is one thing to practise peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. It is absolutely impermissible and impossible for countries practising peaceful coexistence to touch even a hair of each other¹s social system. The class struggle, the struggle for national liberation and the transition from capitalism to socialism in various countries are quite another thing. They are all bitter, life-and-death revolutionary struggles which aim at changing the social system. Peaceful coexistence cannot replace the revolutionary struggles of the people. The transition from capitalism to socialism in any country can only be brought about through the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat in that country. In a class society it is completely wrong to regard peaceful coexistence as ³the best and the sole acceptable way to solve the vitally important problems confronting society² and as the ³basic law of life for the whole of modern society². This is social pacifism which repudiates class struggle. It is an outrageous betrayal of Marxism-Leninism. Back in 1946, Comrade Mao Tse-tung differentiated between the two problems and explicitly stated that compromise between the Soviet Union and the United States, Britain and France on certain issues ³does not require the people in the countries of the capitalist world to follow suit and make compromises at home. The people in those countries will continue to wage different struggles in accordance with their different conditions.²1 This is a correct Marxist-Leninist policy. Guided by this correct policy of Comrade Mao Tse-tung¹s, the Chinese people firmly and determinedly carried the revolution through to the end and won the great victory of their revolution. Acting against this Marxist-Leninist policy, the leaders of the CPSU equate one aspect of the policy to be pursued by 1 Mao Tse-tung, ³Some Points in Appraisal of the Present International Situation, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 87. 287 the proletariat in power in its state relations with countries having different social systems with the general line of all the Communist Parties, and they try to substitute the former for the latter, demanding that Communist Parties and revolutionary peoples should all follow what they call the general line of peaceful coexistence. Not desiring revolution themselves, they forbid others to make it. Not opposing imperialism themselves, they forbid others to oppose it. This the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU and Khrushchov¹s recent remarks have strenuously denied. It has been asserted that it is ³a monstrous slander² to accuse the leaders of the CPSU of extending peaceful coexistence to relations between the oppressed and oppressor classes and between the oppressed and oppressor nations. They have even hypocritically stated that peaceful coexistence ³cannot be extended to the class struggle against capital within the capitalist countries and to national liberation movement². But such prevarication is futile. We should like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since the policy of peaceful coexistence constitutes only one aspect of the foreign policy of socialist countries, why have you asserted until recently that it represents ³the strategic line for the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism on a world scale²?1 In requiring the Communist Parties of all the capitalist countries and of the oppressed nations to make peaceful coexistence their general line, are you not aiming at replacing the revolutionary line of the Communist Parties with your policy of ³peaceful coexistence² and wilfully applying that policy to the relations between oppressed and oppressor classes and between oppressed and oppressor nations? We should also like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since the peoples win victory in their revolutions by relying primarily on their own struggles, how can such victory be attrib- 1 ³For the Unity and Solidarity of the International Communist Movement², editorial board article in Pravda, December 6, 1963. 288 uted to peaceful coexistence or described as its outcome? Do not such allegations of yours mean the subordination of the revolutionary struggles of the peoples to your policy of peaceful coexistence? We should further like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Economic successes in socialist countries and the victories they score in economic competition with capitalist countries undoubtedly play an exemplary role and are an inspiration to oppressed peoples and nations. But how can it be said that socialism will triumph on a worldwide scale through peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition instead of through the revolutionary struggles of the peoples? The leaders of the CPSU advert