Forgot your password?
Fifth Comment by the CPC
Communist Party of China
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, 1963)
From the collection
The Polemic on the General Line of
the
International Communist Movement
FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS
PEKING 1965
pp. 221-58.
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]
|
|
Fifth Comment on the Open Letter of the
Central Committee of |
||
|
|
THE LESSONS OF HISTORY |
||
page 221
by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao page 222 [blank]
page 223
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
imperialists' 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 peoples attention,
weaken and undermine their struggle against imperialism and cover up the
imperialists' 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.
page 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.
Ever since capitalism evolved into imperialism, the question
of war and peace has been a vital one in the struggle between MarxismLeninism
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 "pay lip service
to peace and justice, but in fact wage annexationist and predatory wars".[1]
Stalin said that the imperialists "have only one aim in
resorting to pacifism: to dupe the masses with high-sounding phrases about
peace in order to prepare for a new war".[2] He also
said:
page 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 "defending the
motherland".
When the imperialists needed an armistice in their own
interests, the revisionists typified by Kautsky tried to poison people's minds
and to oppose revolution by such glib talk as "nothing would make me happier
than a conciliatory peace based on the principle, 'Live and let live'".[2]
After World War I, the renegade Kautsky and his successors
became still more brazen trumpeters of the imperialists' peace frauds.
page 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, "If
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."[2] Old
revisionists of his brand described those believing in the inevitability of
imperialist wars as "committed to a fatalistic conception of history".[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:
page 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 "civilians" and which usually render any
resistance on the part of the latter hopeless from the very outset.[4] page 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 "peace strategy" 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-
page 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 "as 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!"[3]
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 capitalism's main support among the
working class in preparing for new wars and intervention.[4] Even a cursory comparison of Comrade Khrushchov's 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
page 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 Khrushchov's erroneous line.
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 "global strategy"
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 counter-revolutionary 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 "reasonable"
group has emerged capable of soberly assessing the situation. And Eisenhower
and Kennedy are representatives of this "reasonable" group.
page 231
Khrushchov praised Eisenhower as one who "enjoys the absolute
confidence of his people", who "has a sincere desire for peace" and who "also
worries about ensuring peace just as we do".
Now Khrushchov praises Kennedy as even better qualified to
shoulder the responsibility of preserving world peace than was Eisenhower. He
showed "solicitude for the preservation of peace",[1] and it is
reasonable to expect him to "create reliable conditions for a peaceful life
and creative labour on earth".[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: "Do they really think that all
bourgeois governments, in all their doings, lack reason?"
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 one's own class and at taking actions according to
one's 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
page 232
war policy, Kennedy's deceptive peace policy serves the "global strategy"
of U.S. imperialism.
Kennedy's "strategy of peace" aims at unifying the whole
world into the "world community of free nations" rooted in U.S. imperialist
"law and justice".
The main points of Kennedy's "strategy of peace" are:
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 "free choice", 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 "peaceful means" 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 butcher-like 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
page 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, "In 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."[1] Since
Kennedy took office, he has followed the "strategy of flexible response",
which requires the speedy building of "versatile military forces" and the
strengthening of "all-round power" 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 Kennedy's 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 "special guerrilla and counter-insurgency forces".[2]
page 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 "soft-"
[above-ground] and "semi-hard" [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 "special forces" of its land, sea and air services in
order to cope with the people's revolutionary movement in those areas. The
United States has turned southern Viet Nam into a proving ground for "special
warfare" and increased its troops there to more than 16,000.
5. It has strengthened its war commands. It has set up a
"U.S. Strike Comrnand" 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-
page 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 Khrushchov's bible-reading and psalm-singing;
they have not turned into compassionate Buddhas in spite of Khrushchov's
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.
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:
page 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-tung's 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 "war between the United States
and the Soviet Union is inevitable" and that "the outbreak of a third world
war is inevitable". 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.
page 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 -- "The east wind prevails over
the west wind". 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 imperialisms.[2] He arrived at this conclusion by an analysis of international
class relations. He explicitly placed on the side of "the East wind" the
socialist camp, the international working class, the Communist Parties, the
oppressed peoples and nations and the peace-loving people and countries, while
confining "the West wind" to the war forces of imperialism and reaction.
page 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 "West" in order to please the
imperialists and to stir up chauvinism in Europe and North America.
Comrade Mao Tse-t ung's main aim in stating that "the East
wind prevails over the West wind" 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-tung's 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 "not believe in the possibility of preventing a new world war."[1]
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
Khrushchov's "creation".
Is it then true that Khrushchov has created nothing at all?
No. He has created something. Unfortunately, these "creations" 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
page 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, "To eliminate the inevitability of war, it is
necessary to abolish imperialism."[1]
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.
page 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:
page 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
Tsetung advanced the celebrated thesis that "political power grows out of the
barrel of a gun", 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 China's being "warlike".
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
"omnipotence of war". 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-tung's 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
whole-heartedly support every people's revolutionary war. As Lenin said of
such revolutionary war, "Of all the wars known in
page 242
history it is the only lawful, rightful, just, and truly great war."[1] 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 "warlike".
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 "a world without weapons, without armed forces and
without wars" can be brought into being while imperialism still exists. This
is nothing but Kautsky's theory of "ultra-imperialism" 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.
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,
"The nuclear and rocket weapons created in the middle of this century have
changed former conceptions of war." In what way were they changed?
page 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 "the atomic bomb does not draw class distinctions" and
that "the 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 destroyed".[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, ". . . any small
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
page 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! "What is the use of
principles if one's head is chopped off?"[2]
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.
page 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 world's
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 peoples' 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 peoples' 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 peoples' wars of national liberation and
revolutionary civil wars and have no need to do so.
page 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 "head-on
clash"[1] 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 "head-on clash" 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.
page 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 peoples' 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 people's 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
page 248
peace. But Khrushchov's military ideas based on nuclear fetishism and
nuclear blackmail are entirely wrong.
Khrushchov sees only nuclear weapons. According to him, "The
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."[1]
Of course, those units and men having combat duties on the
ground are even less significant. According to him, "In our time, a country's
defensive capacity is not determined by the number of men under arms, of men
in uniform. . . . a country's defense potential depends in decisive measure on
the fire-power and the means of delivery that country commands."[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]
Khrushchov's 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
Khrushchov's erroneous military strategy, it would inevitably place itself in
a most dangerous position.
Khrushchov may confer on himself such titles as "a great
peace champion", award himself a peace prize and pin heroes' 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.
page 249
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. 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 "tit for tat" 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] page 250
He drew the following historical lesson from the failure of
China's 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
people's 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.
page 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, "If 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."[2]
The Declaration of 1957 rightly says, "By this policy these
anti-popular, aggressive imperialist forces are courting their own ruin,
creating their own grave-diggers."
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
tit-for-tat struggle the Chinese Communist Party has rejected negotiations.
This again is nonsense.
page 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-lung 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] page 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.
page 254
Actually Khrushchov s we ong 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 tne 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.
TWO DIFFERENT LINES
ON THE QUESTION OF
WAR AND PEACE
Fifth Comment on the Open Letter of
the Central Committee
of the CPSU
(People's
Daily ) and Hongqi (Red Flag )
(February 4, 1964)
THE whole world is
discussing the question of war and peace.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Report on Peace", Delivered at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of
Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Selected Works, Eng. ed.. FLPH, Moscow, 1952,
Vol. II, Part. I, p. 332.
[2]
J. V. Stalin, "Concerning the International Situation", Works, Eng.
ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 297.
[1] J. V. Stalin,
"Results of the July Plenum of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.)", Works, Eng.
ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, p. 209.
[2] Karl Kautsky, National Problems, Russ. ed.,
Petrograd, 1918, p. 88.
[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, pubslished 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.
[1] "Resolution on
the League of Nations", 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, "Social-Democracy in War", Die Neue
Zeit, October 2, 1914.
[3] Karl Kautsky, Preface to War and Democracy,
Ger. ed., Berlin, 1932, p. xii.
[4] Karl Kautsky, "A Catechism of Social-Democracy",
Die Neue Zeit, December 13, 1893.
[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, "Once More on Disarmament", Die Neue Zeit, September 6,
1912.
[3] Karl Kautsky,
The Question of Defence and Social-Democracy, Ger. ed.. Berlin, 1928,
p. 32.
[1] Ibid.,
p. 25.
[2] Karl Kautsky,
Socialists and War, Ger. ed., Prague, 1937, p. 639.
[3] V. I. Lenin, "To the Workers Who Support
the Struggle Against the War and Against the Socialists Who Have Deserted to
the Side of Their Governments", Collected Works, Eng. ed.,
International Publishers, New York, 1942, Vol. XIX, p. 435.
[4] J. V. Stalin, "Results of the July Plenum
of the C.C., C.P.S.U. (B.)" Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol.
XI, p. 210.
[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.
To promote U.S. neocolonialism 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 "peaceful evolution";
To weaken and undermine by peaceful
means the struggle of the people of the world against imperialism.
[1] J. F. Kennedy,
Speech at the Eighth Annual Veteran's Day Ceremony, November 11,
1961.
[2] J. F. Kennedy,
Speech at a Democratic Party Fund-Raising Dinner, October 30, 1963.
[1] R. S.
McNamara, Statement Before the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of
Representatives, January 30, 1963.
PREVENTING A NEW WORLD WAR
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 100.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"Fight for a Fundamental Turn for the Better in the Financial and Economic
Situation in China", Renmin Ribao, June 13, 1950.
[2] Comrade Mao Tse-tung on "Imperialism
and All Reactionaries Are Paper Tigers", Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963, p.
35.
[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.
[1] J. V. Stalin,
Economic Problems of
Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, p. 41.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The War Program of the
Proletarian Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952,
Vol. I, Part 2, p. 571.
[2]
Ibid.
[1] Works of
Marx: and Engels, Ger. ed., Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962, Vol. XVII, p.
433.
[2] Mao Tse-tung, "Problems of War and
Strategy", Selected Military Writings, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963,
p. 273.
THE THEORETICAL BASIS
AND GUIDING POLICY
OF MODERN REVISIONISM
[1] V. I. Lenin.
"Revolutionary Days",
Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1969, Vol. VIII, p. 107.
local war might spark off the conflagration of a world war" and "Today, 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."[2] Thus, "We
will destroy our Noah's Ark -- the globe".
[1] Open Letter of
the Central Committee of the Communist Partv 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.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Speech at the Sixth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of
Germany, January 16, 1963.
[2] "Left of Common Sense", Pravda, August 16,
1963.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Interview with the U.S. Correspondent C. L. Sulzberger on
September 5, 1961, Pravda, September 10, 1961.
[1] "The General
Line of the International Communist Movement and the Schismatic Platform of
the Chinese Leaders", editorial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No.
14, 1963.
[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.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance
Against Japan", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV,
p. 14.
[2]
Ibid.
[3] Mao
Tse-tung, "On the Chungking Negotiations", Selected Works, Eng. ed.,
FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 56.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance
Against Japan", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP. Peking, 1961, Vol. IV,
p. 16.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
Speech at the Supreme State Conference, Renmin Ribao, September 9,
1958.
[2] Ibid.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the
Communist Party of China", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961,
Vol. IV, p. 372.
[2] Mao
Tse-tung, "Opening Speech at the Third Session of the First National Committee
of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference", Renmin
Ribao, October 24, 1951.
[1] Chairman Mao
Tse-tung's Talk with Guests from Asia and Latin America", Renmin Ribao,
May 15, 1960.
Last modified 2005-07-16 01:26 AM
