Forgot your password?
Seventh Comment by the CPC
Communist Party of China
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
by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao
(People's
Daily ) and Hongqi (Red Flag )
(February 4, 1964)
From the collection
The Polemic on the General Line of
the
International Communist Movement
FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS
PEKING 1965
pp. 303-58.
Prepared © for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, djr@cruzio.com (March 1998)
[Transcriber's Note: In the printed edition, quoted
passages of any length appear in the same
size type, but are indented as a
block. In the following on-line version, these passages are NOT indented as a
block, but appear in a smaller point font.-- DJR]
|
THE LEADERS OF
THIS CPSU ARE THE GREATEST SPLITTERS | |||
|
|
Seventh Comment on the Open Letter of the
Central Committee of |
||
|
|
A REVIEW OF HISTORY |
||
page 303
by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao page 304 [blank]
page 305
It is the urgent task of the Communists, the proletariat and
the revolutionary people of the world to defend the unity of the socialist
camp and of the international communist movement.
The Communist Party of China has made consistent and
unremitting efforts to defend and strengthen the unity of the socialist camp
and the international communist movement in accordance with Marxism-Leninism
and the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960
Statement. It has been and remains the unswerving position of the Chinese
Communist Party to uphold principle, uphold unity, eliminate differences and
strengthen the struggle against our common enemy.
Ever since they embarked on the path of revisionism, the
leaders of the CPSU have tirelessly professed their devotion to the unity of
the international communist movement. Of late, they have been particularly
active in crying for "unity". This calls to mind what Engels said ninety years
ago. "One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for page 304
While presenting themselves as champions of unity, the
leaders of the CPSU are trying to pin the label of splittism on the Chinese
Communist Party. In its Open Letter the Central
Committee of the CPSU says:
The Chinese leaders are undermining the unity not only of the
socialist camp but of the entire world communist movement, trampling on the
principles of proletarian internationalism and grossly violating accepted
standards of relations between fraternal parties. And the subsequent articles published in the Soviet press have been
condemning the Chinese Communists as "sectarians" and "splitters". But what
are the facts? Who is undermining the unity of the socialist camp? Who is
undermining the unity of the international communist movement? Who is
trampling on the principles of proletarian internationalism? And who is
grossly violating the accepted standards of relations between fraternal
Parties? In other words, who are the real, out-and-out splitters?
Only when these questions are properly answered can we find
the way to defend and strengthen the unity of the socialist camp and the
international communist movement and overcome the danger of a split.
In order to gain a clear understanding of the nature of
splittism in the present international communist movement and to struggle
against it in the correct way, let us look back on the history of the
international communist movement over the past century or so.
The struggle between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism and
between the forces defending unity and those creating splits runs through the
history of the development of the
page 307
communist movement. This is the case both in individual countries and on
the international plane. In this prolonged struggle, Marx, Engels and Lenin
expounded the true essence of proletarian unity on a theoretical level and, by
their deeds, set brilliant examples in combating opportunism, revisionism and
splittism.
In 1847 Marx and Engels founded the earliest international
working-class organization -- the Communist League. In the Communist Manifesto,
which they wrote as the programme of the League, Marx and Engels advanced the
militant call, "Workers of All Countries, Unite!" and gave a systematic and
profound exposition of scientific communism, thus laying the ideological basis
for the unity of the international proletariat.
Throughout their lives Marx and Engels worked unremittingly
for this principled unity of the international proletariat.
In 1864 they established the First International, the
International Working Men's Association, to unite the workers' movements of
all countries. Throughout the period of the First International they waged
principled struggles against the Bakuninists, Proudhonists, Blanquists,
Lassalleans, etc., the fiercest struggle being that against the Bakuninist
splitters.
The Bakuninists attacked Marx's theory from the very
beginning. They charged Marx with wanting to make his "particular programme
and personal doctrine dominant in the International". In fact, however, it was
they who tried to impose the dogmas of their sect on the International and to
replace the programme of the International with Bakunin's opportunist
programme. They resorted to one intrigue after another, lined up a "majority"
by hook or by crook and engaged in sectarian and divisive activities.
To defend the genuine unity of the international proletariat,
Marx and Engels took an uncompromising and principled stand against the open
challenge of the Bakuninist splitters to the First International. In 1872 the
Bakuninists who persisted in their splitting activities were expelled from the
Interna-
page 308
tional at its Hague Congress, in which Marx personally participated.
Engels said that if the Marxists had adopted an unprincipled
and conciliatory attitude towards the divisive activities of the Bakuninists
at the Hague, it would have had grave consequences for the international
working-class movement. He stated, "Then the International would indeed have
gone to pieces -- gone to pieces through Led by Marx and Engels, the First International fought
against opportunism and splittism and laid the basis for the supremacy of
Marxism in the international working-class movement.
With the announcement of the end of the First-International
in 1876 there began the successive establishment of mass socialist workers'
parties in many countries. Marx and Engels followed the establishment and
development of these parties with close attention in the hope that they would
be established and developed on the basis of scientific communism.
Marx and Engels devoted particular attention and concern to
the German Social-Democratic Party which then occupied an important position
in the working-class movement in Europe. On many occasions, they sharply
criticized the German Party for its rotten spirit of compromise with
opportunism in the pursuit of "unity".
In 1875 they criticized the German Social-Democratic Party
for its union with the Lassalleans at the expense of principle and for the
resultant Gotha Programme. Marx pointed out that this union was "bought too
dearly" and that the Gotha Programme was "a thoroughly objectionable programme
that demoralizes the Party".[2] Engels pointed out that
it was a "bending of the knee to Lassalleanism on the part of the whole
page 309
German socialist proletariat", adding, "I am convinced that a union on
this basis will not last a year."[1]
In criticizing the Gotha Programme, Marx put forward the
well-known principle that for Marxists "there would be no haggling about
principles".[2]
Later Marx and Engels again sharply criticized the leaders of
the German Party for tolerating the activities of the opportunists inside the
Party. Marx said that these opportunists tried "to replace its materialistic
basis . . . by modern mythology with its goddesses of Justice, Liberty,
Equality, and Fraternity"[3] and that
this was a "vulgarization of Party and theory".[4] In their
"Circular Letter" to the leaders of the German Party, Marx and Engels wrote:
For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as
the immediate driving power of history, and in particular the class struggle
between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the great lever of the modern social
revolution; it is, therefore, impossible for us to co-operate with people who
wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement.[5] Founded under Engels' influence in 1889, the Second
International existed in a period when capitalism was developing "peacefully".
While Marxism became widespread and the Communist Manifesto became the
common programme of tens of millions of workers everywhere during this period,
the socialist parties in many countries blindly worshipped
page 310
bourgeois legality instead of utilizing it and became legalists, thus
opening the floodgates for opportunism.
Hence, throughout the period of the Second International, the
international working-class movement was divided into two main groups, the
revolutionary Marxists and the pseudo-Marxian opportunists.
Engels waged irreconcilable struggles against the
opportunists. He refuted with particular sharpness their fallacies on the
peaceful evolution of capitalism into socialism. He said of those opportunists
who posed as Marxists that Marx "would repeat to these gentlemen what Heine
had said of his imitators: I sowed dragons but I reaped fleas".[1]
After the death of Engels in 1895, these fleas came out for
the open and systematic revision of Marxism and gradually took over the
leadership of the Second International.
As the outstanding revolutionary in the international
working-class movement after Engels, the great Lenin shouldered the heavy
responsibility of defending Marxism and opposing the revisionism of the Second
International.
When the revisionists of the Second International howled that
Marxism was "incomplete" and "outmoded", Lenin solemnly declared, "We take our
stand entirely on the Marxist theoretical position", because revolutionary
theory "unites all socialists".[2]
Above all, Lenin fought to create a Marxist party in Russia.
In order to build a party of the new type, differing fundamentally from the
opportunist parties of the Second International, he waged uncompromising
struggles against the various anti-Marxist factions inside the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party.
page 311
Like other parties of the Second International the Russian
SocialDemocratic Labour Party had a revolutionary as well as an opportunist
group. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin constituted the former and the Mensheviks
the latter.
The Bolsheviks led by Lenin conducted prolonged theoretical
and political struggles against the Mensheviks in order to safeguard the unity
of the proletarian party and the purity of its ranks, and finally in 1912
expelled the Mensheviks for their persistence in opportunism and splitting
activities.
All the opportunist factions abused Lenin in the most vicious
language. They tried by every means to label him a splitter. Lining up with
all the anti-Leninist factions and raising the banner of "non-factionalism",
Trotsky wantonly attacked the Bolshevik Party and Lenin, whom he called a
"usurper" and "splitter". Lenin replied that Trotsky, who paraded as
"non-factional", was "a representative of the 'worst remnants of
factionalism'"[1] and "the
worst splitters".[2]
Lenin put it clearly, "Unity is a great thing and a great
slogan. But what the workers' cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity
between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism."[3]
Lenin's struggle against the Mensheviks was of great
international significance, for Menshevism was a Russian form and variant of
the revisionism of the Second International and was supported by the
revisionist leaders of the Second International.
While combating the Mensheviks, Lenin also waged a series of
struggles against the revisionism of the Second International.
Before World War I, Lenin criticized the revisionists of the
Second International on the theoretical and political plane
page 312
and fought them face to face at the Stuttgart and Copenhagen Congresses.
When World War I broke out, the leaders of the Second
International openly betrayed the proletariat. Serving the imperialists'
interests, they urged the proletarians of different countries to slaughter
each other and thus brought about a most serious split in the international
proletariat. As Rosa Luxemburg said, the revisionists turned the previous
proud slogan of "Workers of All Countries, Unite!" into the command on the
battlefield, "Workers of All Countries, Slay One Another!"[1]
The Social-Democratic Party of Germany, Marx's native land,
was then the most powerful and influential party in the Second International.
It was the first to side with the imperialists of its own country, and thus
became the arch-criminal splitting the international working-class movement.
At this critical juncture, Lenin stepped forward to fight
resolutely in defence of the unity of the international proletariat.
In his article "The Tasks of Revolutionary Social-Democracy
in the European War" circulated in August 1914, Lenin proclaimed the collapse
of the Second International and sternly condemned most of its leaders, and in
particular those of the German Social-Democratic Party, for their overt
betrayal of socialism.
In view of the fact that the revisionists of the Second
International had turned their secret alliance with the bourgeoisie into an
open alliance and that they had made the split in the international
working-class movement irrevocable, Lenin stated:
It is impossible to carry out the tasks of Socialism at the
present time, it is impossible to achieve real international unity of the
workers, without a determined rupture with
page 313
opportunism and explaining to the masses the inevitability of its
bankruptcy.[1]
For this reason, Lenin staunchly supported the Marxists in
breaking with the opportunists in many European countries and boldly called
for the establishment of a third International to replace the bankrupt Second
International so as to rebuild the revolutionary unity of the international
proletariat.
The Third International was founded in March 1919. It
inherited the positive achievements of the Second International and discarded
its opportunist, social chauvinist, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois rubbish.
Thus it enabled the revolutionary cause of the international proletariat to
grow both in breadth and depth.
Lenin's theory and practice carried Marxism to a new stage in
its development -- the stage of Leninism. On the basis of Marxism-Leninism,
the unity of the international proletariat and the international communist
movement was further strengthened and expanded.
What does the history of the development of the international
communist movement demonstrate?
First, it demonstrates that like everything else, the
international working-class movement tends to divide itself in two. The class
struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is inevitably reflected
in the communist ranks. It is inevitable that opportunism of one kind or
another should arise in the course of the development of the communist
movement, that opportunists should engage in anti-Marxist-Leninist splitting
activities and that Marxist-Leninists should wage struggles against
opportunism and splittism. It is precisely through
page 314
this struggle of opposites that Marxism-Leninism and the international
working-class movement have developed. And it is also through this struggle
that the international working-class movement has strengthened and
consolidated its unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.
Engels said:
The movement of the proletariat necessarily passes through
different stages of development; at every stage part of the people get stuck
and do not join in the further advance; and this alone explains why it is that
actually the "solidarity of the proletariat" is everywhere being realized in
different party groupings, which carry on life-and-death feuds with one
another. . . .[1] This is exactly what happened. The Communist League, the
First International and the Second International, all of which were originally
unified, divided in two in the course of their development and became two
conflicting parts. Each time the international struggle against opportunism
and splittism carried the international working-class movement forward to a
new stage and enabled it to forge a firmer and broader unity on a new basis.
The victory of the October Revolution and the founding of the Third
International were the greatest achievements in the struggle against the
Second International's revisionism and splittism.
Unity, struggle or even splits, and a new unity on a new
basis -- such is the dialectics of the development of the international
working-class movement.
Secondly, the history of the international communist movement
demonstrates that in every period the struggle between the defenders of unity
and the creators of splits is in essence one between Marxism-Leninism and
opportunism-revisionism, between the upholders of Marxism and the traitors to
Marxism.
page 315
Both internationally and in individual countries, genuine proletarian unity
is possible only on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.
Both internationally and in individual countries, wherever
opportunism and revisionism are rampant, a split becomes inevitable in the
proletarian ranks. Every split in the communist movement is invariably caused
by the opportunist-revisionist opposition to and betrayal of Marxism-Leninism. What is splittism?
It means a split with Marxism-Leninism. Anyone who opposes
and betrays Marxism-Leninism and undermines the basis of proletarian unity is
a splitter.
It means a split with the revolutionary proletarian party.
Anyone who persists in a revisionist line and turns a revolutionary
proletarian party into a reformist bourgeois party is a splitter.
It means a split with the revolutionary proletariat and the
broad masses of the working people. Anyone who follows a programme and line
running counter to the revolutionary will and fundamental interests of the
proletariat and the working people is a splitter.
Lenin said, "Where the majority of the class-conscious
workers have rallied around precise and definite decisions there is unity of
opinion and action,"[1] while opportunism "is, in fact
schism, in that it most unblushingly thwarts the will of the majority of the
workers."[2]
By disrupting proletarian unity, splittism serves the
bourgeoisie and meets its needs. It is the consistent policy of the
bourgeoisie to create splits within the ranks of the proletariat. Its most
sinister method of doing so is to buy over or cultivate agents within the
proletarian ranks. And agents of the bourgeoisie are exactly what the
opportunists and revisionists are. So far from seeking to unite the
proletariat in the fight against
page 316
the bourgeoisie, they want the proletariat to co-operate with it. This was
what the revisionists of the Second International, such as Bernstein and
Kautsky, did. At a time when the imperialists were most afraid that the
proletariat of all countries would unite to turn the imperialist war into
civil wars, they came forward to create a split in the international
working-class movement and advocate co-operation between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie.
The splitters in the communist ranks are those who, to meet
the needs of the bourgeoisie, split with Marxism-Leninism, with the
revolutionary proletarian party and with the revolutionary proletariat and the
broad masses of the labouring people; and they remain splitters even when for
a time they are in the majority or hold the leading posts.
In the days of the Second International, the revisionists
represented by Bernstein and Kautsky were in the majority, and the Marxists
represented by Lenin were in the minority. Yet obviously it was Bernstein,
Kautsky and other opportunists who were the splitters, and not revolutionaries
like Lenin.
In 1904 the Mensheviks were the splitters although they held
leading positions which they had usurped in the central organs of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party. Lenin pointed out at the time, "The leading
centres (the Central Organ, the Central Committee, and the Council) have
broken with the Party,"[1] and "the centres have
put themselves outside the Party. There is no middle ground; one is either
with the centres or with the Party."[2]
In brief, opportunism and revisionism are the political and
ideological roots of splittism. And splittism is the organizational
manifestation of opportunism and revisionism. It can also be said that
opportunism and revisionism are splittism as well as sectarianism. The
revisionists are the greatest and, vilest splitters and sectarians in the
communist movement.
page 317
Thirdly, the history of the international communist movement
demonstrates that proletarian unity has been consolidated and has developed
through struggle against opportunism, revisionism and splittism. The struggle
for unity is inseparably connected with the struggle for principle.
The unity the proletariat requires is class unity,
revolutionary unity, unity against the common enemy and for the great goal of
communism. The unity of the international proletariat has its theoretical and
political basis in Marxism-Leninism. Only when it has theoretical and
political unity can the international proletariat have organizational cohesion
and unity of action.
The genuine revolutionary unity of the proletariat can be
attained only by upholding principle and upholding Marxism-Leninism. Unity
bought by forsaking principles and by wallowing in the mire with opportunists
ceases to be proletarian unity; instead, as Lenin said, it "means in practice
unity of the proletariat with the national bourgeoisie and a split in the
international proletariat, unity of lackeys and a split among the
revolutionists".[1]
He also pointed out that "as the bourgeoisie will not die
until it is overthrown", so the opportunist current bribed and supported by
the bourgeoisie "will not die if it is not Faced with the challenge of the opportunist-revisionists who
are openly splitting the international communist movement, the
Marxist-Leninists must make no compromise in matters of principle, but must
resolutely combat this splittism. This is an invaluable behest of Marx, Engels
and Lenin, as
page 318
well as the only correct way to safeguard the unity of the international
communist movement.
The events of recent years show that the leaders of the CPSU
headed by Khrushchov have become the chief representatives of modern
revisionism as well as the greatest splitters in the international communist
movement.
Between the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU, the leaders
of the CPSU developed a rounded system of revisionism. They put forward a
revisionist line which contravenes the proletarian revolution and the
dictatorship of the proletariat, a line which consists of "peaceful
coexistence", "peaceful competition", "peaceful transition", "a state of the
whole people" and "a party of the entire people". They have tried to impose
this revisionist line on all fraternal Parties as a substitute for the common
line of the international communist movement which was laid down at the
meetings of fraternal Parties in 1957 and 1960. And they have attacked anyone
who perseveres in the Marxist-Leninist line and resists their revisionist
line.
The leaders of the CPSU have themselves undermined the basis
of the unity of the international communist movement and created the present
grave danger of a split by betraying Marxism-Leninism and proletarian
internationalism and pushing their revisionist and divisive line.
Far from working to consolidate and expand the socialist
camp, the leaders of the CPSU have endeavoured to split and disintegrate it.
They have thus made a mess of the splendid socialist camp.
They have violated the principles guiding relations among
fraternal countries as laid down in the Declaration and the Statement, pursued
a policy of great-power chauvinism and
page 319
national egoism towards fraternal socialist countries and thus disrupted
the unity of the socialist camp.
They have arbitrarily infringed the sovereignty of fraternal
countries, interfered in their internal affairs, carried on subversive
activities and striven in every way to control fraternal countries.
In the name of the "international division of labour", the
leaders of the CPSU oppose the adoption by fraternal countries of the policy
of building socialism by their own efforts and developing their economies on
an independent basis, and at tempt to turn them into economic appendages. They
have tried to force those fraternal countries which are comparatively backward
economically to abandon industrialization and become their sources of raw
materials and markets for surplus products.
The leaders of the CPSU are quite unscrupulous in their
pursuit of the policy of great-power chauvinism. They have constantly brought
political, economic and even military pressure to bear on fraternal countries. The leaders of the CPSU have openly called for the overthrow
of the Party and government leaders of Albania, brashly severed all economic
and diplomatic relations with her and tyrannically deprived her of her
legitimate rights as a member of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the
Council of Economic Mutual Assistance.
The leaders of the CPSU have violated the Sino-Soviet Treaty
of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, made a unilateral decision to
withdraw 1,390 Soviet experts working in China, to tear up 343 contracts and
supplementary contracts on the employment of experts and to cancel 257
projects of scientific and technical co-operation, and pursued a restrictive
and discriminatory trade policy against China. They have provoked incidents on
the Sino-Soviet border and carried on large-scale subversive activities in
Sinkiang. On more than one occasion, Khrushchov went so far as to tell leading
comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC that certain anti-
page 320
Party elements in the Chinese Communist Party were his "good friends". He
has praised Chinese anti-Party elements for attacking the Chinese Party's
general line for socialist construction, the big leap forward and the people's
communes, describing their action as a "manly act".
Such measures which gravely worsen state relations are rare
even between capitalist countries. But again and again the a leaders of the
CPSU have adopted shocking and extreme measures of this kind against fraternal
socialist countries. Yet they go on grating about being "faithful to
proletarian internationalism". We would like to ask, is there a shred of
internationalism in all these deeds of yours?
The great-power chauvinism and splittism of the leaders of
the CFSU are equally glaring in their conduct vis-a-vis fraternal Parties.
Since the 20th Congress of the CPSU its leaders have tried,
on the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to change the leadership
of other fraternal Parties to comform to their will. Right up to the present
they have insisted on "combating the personality cult" as a precondition for
the restoration of unity and as a "principle" which is "obligatory on every
Communist Party".[1]
Contrary to the principles guiding relations among fraternal
Parties laid down in the Declaration and the Statement, the leaders of the
CPSU ignore the independent and equal status of fraternal Parties, insist on
establishing a kind of feudal patriarchal domination over the international
communist movement and turn the relations between brother Parties into those
between a patriarchal father and his sons. Khrushchov has more than once
described a fraternal Party as a "silly boy" and called himself its
"mother".[2] With his feudal psychology of
self-exaltation, he has absolutely no sense of shame.
page 321
The leaders of the CPSU have completely ignored the principle
of achieving unanimity through consultation among fraternal Parties and
habitually make dictatorial decisions and order others about. They have
recklessly torn up joint agreements with fraternal Parties, taken arbitrary
decisions on important matters of common concern to fraternal Parties and
forced faits accomplis on them.
The leaders of the CPSU have violated the principle that
differences among fraternal Parties should be settled through inter-Party
consultation; they first used their own Party Congress and then the Congresses
of other fraternal Parties as rostrums for large-scale public attacks against
those fraternal Parties which firmly uphold Marxism-Leninism.
The leaders of the CPSU regard fraternal Parties as pawns on
their diplomatic chessboard. Khrushchov plays fast and loose, he blows hot and
cold, he talks one way one day and another the next, and yet he insists on the
fraternal Parties dancing to his every tune without knowing whence or whither. The leaders of the CPSU have stirred up trouble and created
splits in many Communist Parties by encouraging the followers of their
revisionist line in these Parties to attack the leadership, or usurp leading
positions, persecute Marxist-Leninists and even expel them from the Party. It
is this divisive policy of the leaders of the CPSU that has given rise to
organizational splits in the fraternal Parties of many capitalist countries.
The leaders of the CPSU have turned the magazine Problems
of Peace and Socialism, originally the common journal of fraternal
Parties, into an instrument for spreading revisionism, sectarianism and
splittism and for making unscrupulous attacks on Marxist-Leninist fraternal
Parties in violation of the agreement reached at the meeting at which the
magazine was founded.
In addition, they are imposing the revisionist line on the
international democratic organizations, changing the correct line
page 322
pursued by these organizations and trying to create splits in them.
The leaders of the CPSU have completely reversed enemies and
comrades. They have directed the edge of struggle, which should be against
U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, against the Marxist-Leninist fraternal
Parties and countries.
The leaders of the CPSU are bent on seeking Soviet-U.S.
co-operation for the domination of the world, they regard U.S. imperialism,
the most ferocious enemy of the people of the world, as their most reliable
friend, and they treat the fraternal Parties and countries adhering to
Marxism-Leninism as their enemy. They collude with U.S. imperialism, the
reactionaries of various countries, the renegade Tito clique and the
Right-wing social democrats in a partnership against the socialist fraternal
countries, the fraternal Parties, the Marxist-Leninists and the revolutionary
people of all countries.
When they snatch at a straw from Eisenhower or Kennedy or
others like them, or think that things are going smoothly for them, the
leaders of the CPSU are beside themselves with joy, hit out wildly at the
fraternal Parties and countries adhering to Marxism-Leninism, and endeavour to
sacrifice fraternal Parties and countries on the altar of their political
dealings with U.S. imperialism.
When their wrong policies come to grief and they find
themselves in difficulties, the leaders of the CPSU become angrier and more
red-faced than ever, again hit out wildly at the fraternal Parties and
countries adhering to Marxism-Leninism, and try to make others their
scapegoats.
These facts show that the leaders of the CPSU have taken the
road of complete betrayal of proletarian internationalism, in contravention of
the interests of the Soviet people, the socialist camp and the international
communist movement and those of all revolutionary people.
These facts clearly demonstrate that the leaders of the CPSU
counterpose their revisionism to Marxism-Leninism, their great-power
chauvinism and national egoism to proletarian
page 323
internationalism and their sectarianism and splittism to the international
unity of the proletariat. Thus, like all the opportunists and revisionists of
the past, the leaders of the CPSU have turned into creators of splits in many
fraternal Parties, the socialist camp and the entire international communist
movement.
The revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU
constitute a greater danger than those of any other opportunists and
splitters, whether past or present. As everyone knows, this revisionism is
occurring in the CPSU, the Party which was created by Lenin and which has
enjoyed the highest prestige among all Communist Parties; it is occurring in
the great Soviet Union, the first socialist country. For many years,
Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people the world over have held the CPSU
in high esteem and regarded the Soviet Union as the base of world revolution
and the model of struggle. And the leaders of the CPSU have taken advantage of
all this -- of the prestige of the Party created by Lenin and of the first
socialist country -- to cover up the essence of their revisionism and
splittism and deceive those who are still unaware of the truth. At the same
time, these past masters in double-dealing are shouting "unity, unity", while
actually engaged in splitting. To a certain extent, their tricks do
temporarily confuse people. Traditional confidence in the CPSU and ignorance
of the facts have prevented quite a few people from recognizing the
revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU sooner.
Because the leaders of the CPSU exercise state power in a
large socialist country which exerts world-wide influence, their revisionist
and divisive line has done far greater harm to the international communist
movement and the proletarian cause of world revolution than that of any of the
opportunists and splitters of the past.
It can be said that the leaders of the CPSU are the greatest
eof all revisionists as well as the greatest of all sectarians and Splitters
known to history.
page 324
It is already clear that the revisionism and splittism of the
leaders of the CPSU have greatly assisted the spread of the revisionist
torrent internationally and rendered enormous service to imperialism and the
reactionaries of all countries.
The revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU are
the product both of the lush growth of the bourgeois elements inside the
Soviet Union, and of imperialist policy, and particularly of the U.S.
imperialist policies of nuclear blackmail and "peaceful evolution". In turn,
their revisionist and divisive theories and policies cater not only to the
widespread capitalist forces at home but also to imperialism, and serve to
paralyse the revolutionary will and to obstruct the revolutionary struggle of
the people of the world.
Indeed, the leaders of the CPSU have already won warm praise
and applause from imperialism and its lackeys.
The U.S. imperialists praise Khrushchov especially for his
splitting activities in the international communist movement. They say, "It
seems clear that Khrushchev is sufficiently in earnest in his desire for a
détente with the West that he is willing to risk a split in the
Communist movement to achieve it."[1] "Nikita
Khrushchev has destroyed, irrevocably, the unified bloc of Stalin's day. That
is perhaps Khrushchev's greatest service -- not to Communism, but to the
Western world."[2] "We ought to be grateful for his
mishandling of his relationship with the Chinese. . . . We should be grateful
for his introducing disarray into international Communism by a lot of quite
bumptious and sudden initiatives."[3]
They firmly believe that Khrushchov is "the best Soviet Prime
Minister the West can expect to treat with and . . . it must try for the time
being to avoid any action that might
page 325
further weaken his position".[1] They say,
"The Administration is now convinced that the U.S. should offer Khrushchev
maximum support in his dispute with Red China."[2]
The Trotskyites, who have long been politically bankrupt, are
among those applauding the leaders of the CPSU. The former actively support
the latter on such fundamental issues as the attitude one should take towards
Stalin, towards U.S. imperialism and towards the Yugoslav revisionists. They
say, "The situation created by the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU and still
more by the Twenty-second Congress is eminently favourable for the revival of
our movement in the workers states themselves."[3] "We have
prepared for this for more than 25 years. Now we must move in, and move
energetically."[4] "In
relation to the Khrushchev tendency, we will give a critical support to its
struggle for destalinisation against the more conservative tendencies. . .
."[5]
Just consider! All the enemies of revolution support the
leaders of the CPSU with alacrity. The reason is that they have found a common
language with the leaders of the CPSU in their approach to Marxism-Leninism
and world revolution, and that the revisionist and divisive line of the
leaders of the CPSU meets the counter-revolutionary needs of U.S. imperialism.
page 326
As Lenin said, the bourgeoisie understands that "the active
people in the working class movement who adhere to the opportunist trend are
better defenders of the bourgeoisie, than the bourgeoisie itself".[1] The
imperialist lords and masters are gleefully letting the leaders of the CPSU
clear the way for the destruction of the proletarian cause of world
revolution.
Having brought on the serious danger of a split in the
international communist movement, the leaders of the CPSU are trying to shift
the blame, vilifying the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist
Parties as guilty of "splittism" and "sectarianism" and fabricating a host of
charges against them.
Here we deem it necessary to take up some of their chief
slanders and to refute them one by one.
The leaders of the CPSU accuse all who resist and criticize
their revisionism and splittism of being anti-Soviet. This is a terrifying
charge. To oppose the first socialist country in the world and the Party
founded by the great Lenin -- what insolence!
But we advise the leaders of the CPSU not to indulge in
histrionics. The anti-Soviet charge can never apply to us.
We also advise the leaders of the CPSU not to become
self-intoxicated. The anti-Soviet charge can never silence Marxist-Leninists.
Together with all other Communists and revolutionary people
the world over, we Chinese Communists have always cherished sincere respect
and love for the great Soviet people the Soviet state and the Soviet Communist
Party. For it was
page 327
the people of the Soviet Union who, under the leadership of Lenin's Party,
lit the triumphant torch of the October Revolution, opened up the new era of
world proletarian revolution and marched in the van along the road to
communism in the years that followed. It was the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union and the Soviet state which, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin,
pursued a Marxist-Leninist domestic and foreign policy, scored unprecedented
achievements in socialist construction, made the greatest contribution to
victory in the war against fascism and gave internationalist support to the
revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and working people of all other
countries.
Not long before his death, Stalin said:
. . . representatives of the fraternal parties, in their
admiration for the daring and success of our Party, conferred upon it the
title of the "Shock Brigade" of the world revolutionary and labour movement.
By this, they were expressing the hope that the successes of the "Shock
Brigade" would help to ease the position of the peoples languishing under the
yoke of capitalism. I think that our Party has justified these hopes. . .
.[1] He was right in saying that the Soviet Party built by Lenin
had justified the hopes of all Communists. The Soviet Party was worthy of the
admiration and support it won from all the fraternal Parties, including the
Chinese Communist Party.
But, beginning with the 20th Congress, the leaders of the
CPSU headed by Khrushchov have been launching violent attacks on Stalin and
taking the road of revisionism. Is it possible to say that they have justified
the hopes of all Communists? No, it is not.
In its "Proposal Concerning the
General Line of the International Communist Movement", the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of China points out that it is the common
page 328
demand of the people in the countries of the socialist camp and of the
international proletariat and working people that all Communist Parties in the
socialist camp should:
It adds that all Communist Parties in the socialist camp "owe
it to their own people and to the international proletariat and working people
to fulfil these demands".
But instead, the leaders of the CPSU have abandoned these
demands, disappointed the hopes of the fraternal Parties and pursued a
revisionist and divisive line. This violates the interests not only of the
international proletariat and working people but also of the CPSU, the Soviet
state and the Soviet people themselves.
It is none other than the leaders of the CPSU headed by
Khrushchov who are anti-Soviet.
page 329
The leaders of the CPSU have completely negated Stalin and
painted the first dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist system as dark
and dreadful. What is this if not anti-Soviet?
The leaders of the CPSU have proclaimed the abolition of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, altered the proletarian character of the CPSU
and opened the floodgates for capitalist forces in the Soviet Union. What is
this if not anti-Soviet?
The leaders of the CPSU seek U.S.-Soviet co-operation and
tirelessly fawn upon U.S. imperialism, and have thus disgraced he great Soviet
Union. What is this if not anti-Soviet?
The leaders of the CPSU pursue the policy of great-power
chauvinism and treat fraternal socialist countries as dependencies, and have
thus damaged the prestige of the Soviet state. What is this if not
anti-Soviet?
The leaders of the CPSU obstruct and oppose the revoluionary
struggles of other peoples and act as apologists for imperialism and
neo-colonialism, and have thus tarnished the glorious internationalist
tradition of Lenin's Party. What is his if not anti-Soviet?
In short, the actions of the leaders of the CPSU have brought
deep shame upon the great Soviet Union and the CPSU and seriously damaged the
fundamental interests of the Soviet people. They are anti-Soviet actions
through and through.
Naturally, in these circumstances, the Chinese Communist
Party and other Marxist-Leninist Parties and Marxist-Leninists are bound to
subject the revisionist and divisive line of the leaders of the CPSU to
serious criticism for the purpose of defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism
and the unity of the international communist movement and upholding the
principle of proletarian internationalism. We oppose only the revisionist and
divisive errors of the leaders of the CPSU. And we do so for the sake of
defending the CPSU founded by Lenin and safeguarding the fundamental interests
of the Soviet Union, the first socialist country, and of the Soviet people.
How can this be described as anti-Soviet?
page 330
Whether one defends or opposes the Soviet Union depends on
whether or not one truly defends the line of Marxism-Leninism and the
principle of proletarian internationalism and whether or not one truly defends
the fundamental interests of the Soviet Party, the Soviet state and the Soviet
people. To subject the leaders of the CPSU to serious criticism for their
revisionism and splittism is to defend the Soviet Union. On the other hand, to
pursue a revisionist and divisive line, as the leaders of the CPSU are doing,
is actually to oppose the Soviet Union; and to copy this wrong line or submit
to it is not genuinely to defend the Soviet Union but to help the leaders of
the CPSU damage the fundamental interests of the Soviet people.
Here we may recall Lenin's attitude to the leaders of the
German Social-Democratic Party in the early years of the 20th century. The
German Social-Democratic Party was then the biggest and most influential party
in the Second International. But as soon as Lenin discovered opportunism among
its leaders, he made it clear to the Russian Social-Democrats that they should
not take "the least creditable features of German Social-Democracy as a model
worthy of imitation"[1] He further stated:
We must criticise the mistakes of the German leaders
fearlessly and openly if we wish to be true to the spirit of Marx and help the
Russian socialists to be equal to the present-day tasks of the workers'
movement.[1] In the spirit of Lenin's behest, we would advise the leaders
of the CPSU: If you do not correct your revisionist errors, we will continue
to criticize you "fearlessly and openly" in the interests of the CPSU, the
Soviet state and the Soviet
page 331
people, and in the interests of the socialist camp and the international
communist movement and for the sake of their unity.
The leaders of the CPSU ascribe our criticisms and our
opposition to their revisionist and divisive line to a desire to "seize the
leadership".
First, we would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: You say
we want to seize the leadership. From whom? Who now holds the leadership? In
the international communist movement, is there such a thing as a leadership
which lords it over all fraternal Parties? And is this leadership in your
hands?
Apparently, the leaders of the CPSU consider themselves the
natural leaders who can lord it over all fraternal Parties. According to their
logic, their programme, resolutions and statements are all infallible laws.
Every remark and every word of Khrushchov's are imperial edicts, however wrong
or absurd they may be. All fraternal Parties must submissively hear and obey
and are absolutely forbidden to criticize or ow pose them. This is outright
tyranny. It is the ideology of feudal autocrats, pure and simple.
However, we must tell the leaders of the CPSU that the
international communist movement is not some feudal clique. Whether large or
small, whether new or old, and whether in or out of power, all fraternal
Parties are independent and equal. No meeting of fraternal Parties and no
agreement unanimously adopted by them has ever stipulated that there are
superior and subordinate Parties, one Party which leads and other Parties
which are led, a Party which is a father and Parties which are sons, or that
the leaders of the CPSU are the supreme rulers over other fraternal Parties.
The history of the international proletarian revolutionary
movement shows that, owing to the uneven development of
page 332
revolution, at a particular historical stage the proletariat and its party
in one country or another marched in the van of the movement.
Marx anal Engels pointed out that the trade union movement in
Britain and the political struggle of the French working class were
successively in the van of the international proletarian movement. After the
defeat of the Paris Commune, Engels said that "the German workers have for the
moment been placed in the vanguard of the proletarian struggle". He went on to
say:
How long events will allow them to occupy this post of honour
cannot be foretold. . . . the main point, however, is to safeguard the true
international spirit, which allows no patriotic chauvinism to arise, and which
joyfully welcomes each new advance of the proletarian movement, no matter from
which nation it comes.[1] At the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian working
class, standing at the forefront of the international proletarian; movement,
won victory in the proletarian revolution for the first time in history.
Lenin said in 1919:
Hegemony in the revolutionary proletarian International has
passed for the time being -- but not for long, it goes without saying -- to
the Russians, just as at various periods of the nineteenth century it was in
the hands of the English, then of the French, then of the Germans.[2] The "vanguard" referred to by Engels, or the "hegemony"
referred to by Lenin, in no way means that any Party which is in the van of
the international working-class movement can order other fraternal Parties
about, or that other Parties must
page 333
obey it. When the Social-Democratic Party of Germany was in the forefront
of the movement, Engels said that "it has no right to speak in the name of the
European proletariat and especially no right to say something false".[1] When the
Russian Bolshevik Party was in the van, Lenin said, ". . . while foreseeing
every stage of development in other countries, we must decree nothing from
Moscow."[2]
Even the vanguard position referred to by Engels and Lenin
does not remain unchanged for a long time but shifts according to changing
conditions. This shift is decided not by the subjective wishes of any
individual or Party, but by the conditions shaped by history. If conditions
change, other Parties may come to the van of the movement. When a Party which
formerly held the position of vanguard takes the path of revisionism, it is
bound to forfeit this position despite the fact that it has been the largest
Party and has exerted the greatest influence. The German Social-Democratic
Party was a case in point.
At one period in the history of the international communist
movement, the Communist International gave centralized leadership to the
Communist Parties of the world. It played a great historic role in promoting
the establishment and growth of Communist Parties in many countries. But when
the Communist Parties matured and the situation of the international communist
movement grew more complicated, centralized leadership on the part of the
Communist International ceased to be either feasible or necessary. In 1943 the
Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International stated in
a resolution proposing to dissolve the Comintern:
page 334
. . . to the extent that the internal as well as the
international situation of individual countries became more complicated, the
solution of the problems of the labour movement of each country through the
medium of some international centre would meet with insuperable obstacles.
Events have shown that this resolution corresponded to reality and was
correct.
In the present international communist movement, the question
of who has the right to lead whom simply does not arise. Fraternal Parties
should be independent and completely equal, and at the same time they should
be united. On questions of common concern they should reach unanimity of views
through consultation, and they should concert their actions in the struggle
for the common goal. These principles guiding relations among fraternal
Parties are clearly stipulated in the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of
1960.
It is a flagrant violation of these principles, as laid down
in the Declaration and the Statement, for the leaders of the CPSU to consider
themselves the leaders of the international communist movement and to treat
all fraternal Parties as their subordinates.
Because of their different historical backgrounds, the
fraternal Parties naturally find themselves in different situations. Those
Parties which have won victory in their revolutions differ from those which
have not yet done so, and those which won victory earlier differ from those
which did so later. But these differences only mean that the victorious
Parties, and in particular the Parties which won victory earlier, have to bear
a greater internationalist responsibility in supporting other fraternal
Parties, and they have absolutely no right to dominate other fraternal
Parties.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was built by Lenin
and Stalin. It was the first Party to win the victory of the proletarian
revolution, realize the dictatorship of the proletariat and engage in
socialist construction. It was only
page 335
logical that the CPSU should carry forward the revolutionary tradition of
Lenin and Stalin, shoulder greater responsibility in supporting other
fraternal Parties and countries and stand in the van of the international
communist movement.
Taking these historical circumstances into account, the
Chinese Communist Party expressed the sincere hope that the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union would shoulder this glorious historic mission. At the 1957
Moscow Meeting of the fraternal Parties, our delegation emphasized that the
socialist camp should have the Soviet Union at its head. The reason was that,
although they had committed some mistakes, "the leaders of the CPSU did
finally accept the Moscow Declaration which was unanimously adopted by the
fraternal Parties. Our proposal that the socialist camp should have the Soviet
Union at its head was written into the Declaration.
We hold that the existence of the position of head does not
contradict the principle of equality among fraternal Parties. It does not mean
that the CPSU has any right to control other Parties; what it means is that
the CPSU carries greater responsibility and duties on its shoulders.
However, the leaders of the CPSU have not been satisfied with
this position of "head". Khrushchov complained of it on many occasions. He
said, "What does The leaders of the CPSU say they have no desire for the
position of "head", but in practice they demand the privilege of lording it
over all fraternal Parties. They do not require themselves to stand in the van
of the international commu-
page 336
nist movement in pursuing the Marxist-Leninist line and fulfilling their
proletarian internationalist duty, but they do require all fraternal Parties
to obey their baton and follow them along the path of revisionism and
splittism.
By embarking on the path of revisionism and splittism, the
leaders of the CPSU automatically forfeited the position of "head" in the
international communist movement. If the word "head" is now to be applied to
them, it can only mean that they are at the head of the revisionists and
splitters.
The question confronting all Communists and the entire
international communist movement today is not who is the leader over whom, but
whether one should uphold Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism or
submit to the revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU. In
spreading the slander that we want to seize the leadership, the leaders of the
CPSU are in fact insisting that all fraternal Parties, including our own, must
bow to their revisionist and divisive leadership.
In their attacks on the Chinese Communist Party since 1960,
the leaders of the CPSU have most frequently resorted to the charge that we
"frustrate the will of the majority" and "violate international discipline".
Let us review our debate with them on this question.
At the Bucharest meeting in June 1960 the leaders of the CPSU
made a surprise assault on the Chinese Communist Party by distributing their
Letter of Information attacking it and tried to coerce it into submission by
lining up a majority. Their attempt did not succeed. But after the meeting
they advanced the argument that the minority must submit to the majority in
relations among fraternal Parties, and de-
page 337
manded that the CPC should respect the "views and will unanimously
expressed" at the Bucharest meeting on the pretext that the delegates of
scores of Parties had opposed the views of the CPC.
This erroneous argument was refuted by the Central Committee
of the CPC in its Letter of Reply, dated September 10, 1960, to the Letter of
Information of the Central Committee of the CPSU. It pointed out:
. . . where the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism
are concerned, the problem of exactly who is right and who is wrong cannot in
every case be judged by who has the majority. After all, truth is truth. Error
cannot be turned into truth because of a temporary majority, nor will truth be
turned into error because of a temporary minority. Yet in its letter of November 5, 1960, the Central Committee
of the CPSU repeated the fallacy about the minority's submitting to the
majority in the international communist movement. Quoting a passage from
Lenin's article "The Duma At the Moscow Meeting of the fraternal Parties in 1960, the
delegation of the CPC once more refuted this fallacy of the leaders of the
CPSU. It declared that it is totally wrong to apply the principle of the
minority's submitting to the majority to the relations among fraternal Parties
in actual present-day conditions in which centralized leadership such as that
of the Comintern neither exists nor is desirable. Within a Party the principle
that the minority should submit to the majority and the lower Party
organization to the higher one should be observed. But it cannot be applied to
relations among fraternal Parties. In their mutual relations, each fraternal
Party maintains its independence and at the same
page 338
time unites with all the others. Here, the relationship in which the
minority should submit to the majority does not exist, and still less so the
relationship in which a lower Party organization should submit to a higher
one. The only way to deal with problems of common concern to fraternal Parties
is to hold discussions and reach unanimous agreement in accordance with the
principle of consultation.
The delegation of the CPC pointed out that by advancing the
principle that the minority should submit to the majority in its letter, the
Central Committee of the CPSU had obviously repudiated the principle of
reaching unanimity through consultation. Our delegation asked:
On what supra-Party constitution does the Central Committee
of the CPSU base itself in advancing such an organizational principle? When
and where did the Communist and Workers' Parties of all countries ever adopt
such a supra-Party constitution? The delegation of the CPC then proceeded to expose the ruse
of the Central Committee of the CPSU in deliberately omitting the word
"Russian" from its citation of a passage dealing with the situation within the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party from Lenin's article "The Duma
'Seven'", in order to extend the principle of the minority's submitting to the
majority, which is valid within a Party, to the relations among fraternal
Parties.
The delegation of the CPC further stated:
. . . even within a Party, where the principle of the
minority's submitting to the majority must be observed organizationally, it
cannot be said that on questions of ideological understanding truth can always
be told from error on the basis of which is the majority and which the
minority opinion. It was in this very article, "The Duma 'Seven'", that Lenin
severely denounced the despicable action of the seven liquidationists in the
Party fraction in
page 339
the Duma who took advantage of a majority of one to sup press the Marxists
who were in the minority. Lenin pointed out that although the seven
liquidationists constituted the majority, they could not possibly represent
the united will, united resolutions, united tactics of the majority of the
advanced and conscious Russian workers who were organized in a Marxist way,
and that therefore all shouts about unity were sheer hypocrisy. "The seven
non-Party men want to swallow the six Marxists; and they demand that this
should be called The delegation of the CPC continued that Lenin's words show:
. . . that even within a Party group the majority is not
always correct, that on the contrary sometimes the majority have to "renounce
the policy of suppression" if unity is to be preserved, and this is
particularly the case where relations among fraternal Parties are concerned.
The comrades of the Central Committee of the CPSU rashly quoted a passage from
Lenin without having fully grasped its meaning. Moreover, they purposely
deleted an important word. Even so, they failed in their aim! We have quoted at length from a speech of the delegation of
the CPC at the 1960 Moscow Meeting in order to show that the absurd charge of
the leaders of the CPSU that we "frustrate the will of the majority" was
completely refuted by
page 340
us some time ago. It is precisely because the Chinese Communist Party and
other fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties persistently opposed this fallacy
that the principle of achieving unanimity through consultation among the
fraternal Parties was written into the Statement of 1960.
Yet even now the leaders of the CPSU keep on clamouring that
"the minority should submit to the majority". This can only mean that they
wish to deny the independent and equal status of all fraternal Parties and to
abolish the principle of achieving unanimity through consultation. They are
trying to force some fraternal Parties to submit to their will on the pretext
of a "majority", and to use the sham preponderance thus obtained to attack
fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties. Their very actions are sectarian and
divisive and violate the Declaration and the Statement.
Today, if one speaks of an international discipline binding
on all Communist Parties, it can only mean observance of the principles
guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid down in the Declaration and
the Statement. We have cited a great many facts to prove that these principles
have been violated by the leaders of the CPSU themselves.
If the CPSU leaders insist on marking off the "majority" from
the "minority", then we would like to tell them quite frankly that we do not
recognize their majority. The majority you bank on is a false one. The genuine
majority is not on your side. Is it true that the members of fraternal Parties
which uphold Marxism-Leninism are a minority in the international communist
movement? You and your followers are profoundly alienated from the masses, so
how can the great mass of Party members and people who disapprove of your
wrong line be counted as part of your majority?
The fundamental question is: Who stands with the broad masses
of the people? Who represents their basic interests? And who reflects their
revolutionary will?
In 1916 Lenin said of the situation in the German
Social-Democratic Party:
page 341
Liebknecht and Rühle are only two against 108. But these two
represent millions, the exploited mass, the overwhelming majority of the
population, the future of mankind, the revolution that is mounting and
maturing with every passing day. The 108, on the other hand, represent only
the servile spirit of a handful of bourgeois flunkies within the
proletariat.[1] Today, more than 90 per cent of the world's population desire
revolution, including those who are not yet but will eventually become
politically conscious. The real majority are the revolutionary
Marxist-Leninist Parties and Marxist-Leninists who represent the fundamental
interests of the people, and not the handful of revisionists who have betrayed
these interests.
In its Open Letter, the
leadership of the CPSU makes the slanderous charge that "the CPC leadership
organizes and supports various anti-party breakaway groups, which oppose the
Communist parties of the United States, Brazil, Italy, Belgium, Australia and
India".
What are the facts?
The fact is, the splits that have occurred in certain
Communist Parties in recent years have largely been due to the forcible
application by the leaders of the CPSU of their revisionist and divisive line. The leaders of certain Communist Parties have led the
revplutionary movement of their own countries astray and brought serious
losses to the revolutionary cause either
page 342
because they accepted the revisionist line imposed on them by the leaders
of the CPSU or because their own revisionist line was encouraged by the
leaders of the CPSU. By following the leaders of the CPSU and banging the drum
for them in the struggle between the two lines in the international communist
movement, they adversely affect the unity of the movement. Inevitably this
arouses widespread dissatisfaction inside their own Parties and resistance and
opposition from the Marxist-Leninists in them.
Aping the leaders of the CPSU, their followers practise a
divisive policy inside their own Parties. Violating the principle of
democratic centralism, they forbid normal inner-Party discussion of
differences concerning the Party line and of major problems confronting the
international communist movement. Moreover, they illegitimately ostracize,
attack and even expel Communists who adhere to principle. As a result the
struggle between the two lines within the Parties inevitably takes on a
particularly acute form.
In essence, the struggle within these Communist Parties turns
on whether to follow the Marxist-Leninist line or the revisionist line, and
whether to make the Communist Party a genuine vanguard of the proletariat and
a genuine revolutionary proletarian party or to convert it into a servant of
the bourgeoisie and a variant of the Social-Democratic Party.
In the Open Letter, the leaders of the CPSU present a
distorted picture of the struggles within the Communist Parties of the United
States of America, Brazil, Italy, Belgium, Australia and India. They vilify in
the most malicious language those Marxist-Leninists who have been attacked and
ostracized by the revisionist groups in their own Parties.
Is it possible for the leaders of the CPSU to conceal or
alter the truth about the struggles within these Communist Parties by calling
white black and black white? No. They certainly cannot!
Take for example the inner-Party struggle in the Belgian
Communist Party.
page 343
Differences have existed inside the Belgian Communist Party
for a long time. The struggle within the Party has become increasingly acute
as the original leading group has sunk deeper and deeper into the quagmire of
revisionism and abandoned Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
During the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary, the
revisionist group in the Belgian Communist Party went so far as to issue a
statement condemning the Soviet Union for helping the Hungarian working people
to put down the rebellion.
This revisionist group opposed the Congolese people's armed
resistance to the bloody repression of the Belgian colonialists and supported
the U.S. imperialists' utilization of the United Nations to interfere in and
suppress the movement for national independence in the Congo. It shamelessly
prided itself on being the first to appeal to the United Nations, "desiring
the rapid and integral application of the U.N. decisions".[1]
It praised the Tito clique's revisionist programme, saying
that it "contains ideas which enrich Marxism-Leninism".[2]
It denigrated the 1960 Statement, saying that its contents
were all mixed up and that "in every twenty lines there is a phrase
contradicting the general line of the Statement".[3]
During the great strike of the Belgian workers towards the
end of 1960 and at the beginning of 1961, this revisionist group undermined
the workers' will to fight by denouncing their resistance to suppression by
the police and gendarmes as "rash and irresponsible actions".[4]
page 344
In the face of these betrayals of the interests of the
Belgian working class and the international proletariat, it is only natural
that Belgian Marxist-Leninists headed by Comrade Jacques Grippa earnestly
struggled against this revisionist group. They have exposed and repudiated the
errors of the revisionist group inside the Party and have firmly resisted and
opposed its revisionist line.
Thus it is clear that the struggle inside the Belgian
Communist Party is a struggle between the Marxist-Leninist and the revisionist
line.
How has the revisionist group in the Belgian Communist Party
handled this inner-Party struggle? They have pursued a sectarian and divisive
policy and used illegitimate means to attack and ostracize those Communists
who have persevered in a principled Marxist-Leninist stand. At the 14th
Congress of the Belgian Communist Party they refused to allow Jacques Grippa
and other comrades to speak and, disregarding the widespread opposition of the
membership, illegitimately declared them expelled from the Party.
It is in these circumstances that Belgian Marxist-Leninists;
headed by Comrade Jacques Grippa, upholding the revolutionary line, have
firmly combated the revisionist and divisive line pursued by the original
leading group and fought to rebuild the Belgian Communist Party. Are not their
actions absolutely correct and above reproach?
In openly supporting the revisionist group in the Belgian
Party and encouraging it to attack and ostracize Belgian Marxist-Leninists,
the leaders of the CPSU have simply exposed themselves as creators of splits
in fraternal Parties.
As for the Indian Communist Party, its situation is even
graver.
On the basis of a wealth of facts, we pointed out in "A
Mirror for Revisionists", published by the editorial department of Renmin
Ribao on March 9, 1963, that the renegade clique headed by Dange had
betrayed Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, betrayed the rev-
page 345
olutionary cause of the Indian proletariat and people and embarked on the
road of national chauvinism and class capitulationism. This clique has usurped
the leadership of the Indian Communist Party and, conforming to the will of
the Indian capitalists and landlords, has been transforming the Party into a
lackey of the Nehru government which represents their interests.
What has happened to the Indian Communist Party since then?
Now everybody can see that the Dange clique is still
travelling on the road of betrayal. It is still advocating class collaboration
and the realization of socialism in India through the Nehru government. It
actively supported the Nehru government's huge budget providing for arms
expansion and war preparation, and its measures for fleecing the people. In
August 1963 it sabotaged the great strike of one million people in Bombay
against the Nehru government's ruthless taxation policy. It tried to obstruct
the holding of a mass rally in Calcutta demanding the release of the
imprisoned Communists, in which 100,000 people participated. It is continuing
its frenzied anti-Chinese activities and supporting the Nehru government's
expansionist policy. It is following the Nehru government's policy of hiring
itself out to U.S. imperialism.
As their renegade features are revealed, Dange and company
meet increasing opposition and resistance from the broad rank and file of the
Indian Communist Party. More and more Indian Communists have come to see
clearly that Dange and company are the bane of the Indian Communist Party and
the Indian nation. They are now struggling to rehabilitate the Party's
glorious and militant revolutionary tradition. They are the genuine
representatives and the hope of the Indian proletariat and the Indian people.
The leaders of the CPSU clamour about the Chinese Communist
Party's support of "defectors" and "renegades", but is they themselves who
support such out-and-out defectors and renegades as Dance and company.
page 346
The leaders of the CPSU denounce Communists in many countries
who dare to combat revisionism and splittism as "defectors", "renegades" and
"anti-party elements". But what have these Communists done? Nothing except to
adhere to Marxism-Leninism and insist on a revolutionary party and a
revolutionary line. Do the leaders of the CPSU really think that their abuse
can cow these Marxist-Leninists, make them abandon their struggle for the
correct and against the wrong line, and prevent them from carrying it through
to the end? This wishful thinking can never be transformed into reality.
Everywhere and at all times, true revolutionaries, true
proletarian revolutionary fighters, true Marxist-Leninists (militant
materialists), are dauntless people; they are no afraid of the abuse of the
reactionaries and revisionists. For they know it is not such seemingly
formidable giants as the reactionaries and revisionists, but "nobodies" like
themselves who represent the future. All great men were once nobodies.
Provided that they posses
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
(People's
Daily ) and Hongqi (Red Flag )
(February 4, 1964)
NEVER before has the
unity of the international communist movement been so gravely threatened as it
is today when we are witnessing a deluge of modern revisionist ideology. Both
internationally and inside individual Parties, fierce struggles are going on
between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. The international communist movement
is confronted with an unprecedentedly serious danger of a split.
unity. Those
who have this word most often on their lips are the ones who sow the most
dissension. . . ." ". . . the biggest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and
rogues at times shout loudest for unity."[1]
[1] "Engels to A.
Bebel, June 20, 1873", Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels, Eng.
ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 345.
unity!"[1]
[1] "Engels to A.
Bebel, June 20, 1873", Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels, Eng.
ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 346.
[2] "Marx to W. Bracke, May 5, 1875", Selected
Correspondence of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, pp. 360, 361.
[1] "Engels to A.
Bebel, March 18-28, 1875", Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels,
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 358.
[2] "Marx to W. Bracke, May 5, 1875", Selected
Correspondence of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p.
361.
[3] "Marx to F. A.
Sorge, October 19, 1877", Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels,
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 376.
[4] "Marx to F. A. Sorge, September 19, 1879",
Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p.
396.
[5] "Marx and Engels to
A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke and Others (Circular Letter), September
17-18, 1879", Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels, Eng. ed.,
FLPH, Moscow, p. 395.
[1] "Engels'
Letter to Paul Lafargue, October 27, 1890", quoted in Marx and Engels on
Literature and Art, Fr. ed., Edition Sociales, Paris, 1954, p.
258.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Our
Programme", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1960, Vol. IV, pp.
210, 211.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity", Selected
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 251.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "The Break-up of the
August Bloc", Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers, Moscow,
1964, Vol. XX, p. 161.
[3] V.
I. Lenin, "Unity", Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress Publishers,
Moscow, 1964, Vol. XX, p. 232.
[1] "Either --
Or", Selected Speeches and Writings of Rosa Luxemburg, Ger. ed., Dietz
Verlag, Berlin, 1951, Vol. II, p. 534.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The War and Russian Social-Democracy", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,
Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 403.
[1] "Engels to A.
Bebel, June 20, 1873", Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels, Eng.
ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 347.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity", Selected
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 255.
[2] Ibid., p. 258.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"A Letter to the Zurich Group of Bolsheviks", Collected Works, Eng.
ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. VIII, p. 63.
[2] Ibid., p. 64.
killed, i.e., overthrown,
deprived of every influence among the Socialist proletariat". Hence, it is
necessary to wage "a merciless struggle against the current of
opportunism".[2]
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The Honest Voice of a French Socialist", Collected Works, Eng. ed.,
International Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. XVIII.
[2] Ibid.
[1] "For the Unity
and Solidarity of the International Communist Movement", editorial board
article in Pravda, December 6, 1963.
[2] See N. S. Khrushchov's interview with Gardner Cowles,
Editor of the U.S. magazine Look, April 20, 1962; report by N. S.
Khrushchov to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, December 12,
1962.
[1] "Openings for
Diplomacy: Cracks in the Blocs", The Nation, February 9,
1963.
[2] "Moscow and Peking:
How Wide the Split?", Newsweek, March 26, 1962.
[3] "With Test-Ban Treaty -- Has Khrushchev
Changed His Ways?", U.S. News and World Report, September 30, 1963.
[1] "Communist
Unity Seen in U.S. as Thing of the Past", the London Times, January 17,
1962.
[2] "The Periscope",
Newsweek, July 1, 1963.
[3] "The International Situation and Our Tasks",
resolution adopted by the Reunification Congress of the Trotskyites' so-called
Fourth International in June 1963, Fourth International, Eng. ed, No.
17, October-December 1963, p. 47.
[4] "The New Stage of the Russian Revolution and the
Crisis of Stalinism, resolution adopted by a meeting of the National Committee
of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers' Party of the U.S.A., April 13-15, 1956,
The 20th Congress (C.P.S.U.) and World Trotskyism, New Park
Publications Ltd., London, 1957, p. 36.
[5] "The Repercussions of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU",
resolution adopted by the International Secretariat of the Trotskyites'
so-called Fourth International on December 5, 1961, Fourth
International, Eng ed., No. 14, winter issue, 1961-1962, p. 25.
BEING ANTI-SOVIET
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The International Situation and the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist
International", Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New
York, 1943, Vol. X, p. 196.
[1] J. V. Stalin,
Speech at the Nineteenth Congress of the Party, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952,
p. 9.
(1) adhere to the Marxist-Leninist line and pursue
correct Marxist-Leninist domestic and foreign policies;
(2) 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;
(3) promote the initiative and creativeness of the
broad masses, carry out socialist construction in a planned way, develop
production, improve the people's livelihood and strengthen national defense;
(4) strengthen the unity of the socialist camp on the basis of
Marxism-Leninism, and support other socialist countries on the basis of
proletarian internationalism;
(5) oppose the imperialist
policies of aggression and war, and defend world peace;
(6) oppose the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counter-revolutionary
policies of the reactionaries of all countries; and ,
(7) help the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed classes and
nations of the world.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart" Selected Works,
Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. IV, p. 315.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Preface to the
Pamphlet by Voinov (A. V. Lunacharsky) on the Attitude of the Party Towards
the Trade Unions", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol.
XIII, p. 165.
SEIZING THE LEADERSHIP
[1] Frederick
Engels, "Prefatory Note to The Peasant War in Germany", Selected Works of
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p.
591.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "The Third International and
Its Place in History", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,
1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 203.
[1] "Engels to A.
Bebel, March 18-28, 1875", Selected Correspondence of Marx and Engels,
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, p. 354.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Report on the Party Program, Delivered
at the Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)",
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 159.
at the head give us materially? It gives us neither milk
nor butter, neither potatoes nor vegetables nor flats. Perhaps it gives us
some thing morally? Nothing at all!"[1] Later he said,
"What is the use of at the head for us? To hell with it!"[2]
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Speech at the Banquet Given in Honour of the Delegations of the
Fraternal Parties of the Socialist Countries, February 4, 1960.
[2] N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the
Meeting of the Delegates of Twelve Fraternal Parties in Bucharest, June 24,
1960.
Seven ", it accused the CPC, saying that "he who
does not wish to respect the opinion of the majority of the fraternal Parties
is in essence coming out against the unity and solidarity of the international
communist movement".
unity."[1] He
continued that it was precisely these six Marxists in the Party fraction in
the Duma who were acting in accordance with the will of the majority of the
proletariat, and that unity could be preserved only if those seven delegates
"abandon their steam-roller tactics".[2]
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The Duma 'Seven'", Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol.
XIX, p. 450.
[2] V. I. Lenin,
"Material on the Conflict Within the Social-Democratic Duma Group",
Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XIX, p. 470.
THE ANTI-PARTY GROUPS OF
FRATERNAL PARTIES
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"An Open Letter to Boris Souvarine", Collected Works, Eng. ed.,
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXIII, p. 199.
[1] Ernest
Burnelle, Interview with a Correspondent of l'Humanite on the Congolese
Question, Le Drapeau Rouge (organ of the Belgian Communist Party), July
26, 1960.
[2] "The Belgian
Communist Party and the Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia",
Le Drapeau Rouge, April 22, 1958.
[3] Jean Blume, Speech at the Federal Congress of
Brussels, on December 3,1961, cited by Jacques Grippa in "For the
Marxist-Leninist Unity of the Party and for the Marxist-Leninist Unity of the
International Communist Movement", Le Drapeau Rouge, February 22,
1962.
[4] Jean Blume, "For a
Complete and Quick Victory: Two Communist Proposals", Le Drapeau Rouge,
December 29, 1960.