Forgot your password?
Eighth Comment by the CPC
Communist Party of China
THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION
AND
KHRUSHCHOV'S REVISIONISM
Eighth 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 )
(March 31, 1964)
From the collection
The Polemic on the General Line of
the
International Communist Movement
FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS
PEKING 1965
pp. 359-413.
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 PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND
KHRUSHCHOV'S | |||
|
|
Eighth Comment on the Open Letter of the
Central Committee of |
||
|
|
A DISCIPLE OF BERNSTEIN AND KAUTSKY |
||
page 359
by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao page 360 [blank]
page 361
In the history of the international communist movement the
betrayal of Marxism and of the proletariat by the revisionists has always
manifested itself most sharply in their opposition to violent revolution and
to the dictatorship of the proletariat and in their advocacy of peaceful
transition from capitalism to socialism. This is likewise the case with
Khrushchov's revisionism. On this question, Khrushchov is a disciple of
Browder and Tito as well as of Bernstein and Kautsky.
Since the days of World War II, we have witnessed the
emergence of Browderite revisionism, Titoite revisionism and the theory of
structural reform. These varieties of revisionism are local phenomena in the
international communist movement. But Khrushchov's revisionism, which has
emerged and gained ascendancy in the leadership of the CPSU, constitutes a
major question of overall significance for the international communist
movement with a vital bearing on the success or failure of the entire
revolutionary cause of the international proletariat.
For this reason, in the present article we are replying to
the revisionists in more explicit terms than before.
page 362
Beginning with the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchov put
forward the road of "peaceful transition", i.e., "transition to socialism by
the parliamentary road",[1] which is
diametrically opposed to the road of the October Revolution.
Let us examine the "parliamentary road" peddled by Khrushchov
and his like.
Khrushchov holds that the proletariat can win a stable
majority in parliament under the bourgeois dictatorship and under bourgeois
electoral laws. He says that in the capitalist countries "the working class,
by rallying around itself the toiling peasantry, the intelligentsia, all
patriotic forces, and resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are
incapable of giving up the policy of compromise with the capitalists and
landlords, is in a position to defeat the reactionary forces opposed to the
popular interest, to capture a stable majority in parliament".[2]
Khrushchov maintains that if the proletariat can win a
majority in parliament, this in itself will amount to the seizure of state
power and the smashing of the bourgeois state machinery. He says that for the
working class "to win a majority in parliament and transform it into an organ
of the people's power, given a powerful revolutionary movement in the country,
means smashing the military-bureaucratic machine of the bourgeoisie and
setting up a new, proletarian people's state in parliamentary form".[3]
Khrushchov holds that if the proletariat can win a stable
majority in parliament, this in itself will enable it to realize
page 363
the socialist transformation of society. He says that the winning of a
stable parliamentary majority "could create for the working class of a number
of capitalist and former colonial countries the conditions needed to secure
fundamental social changes".[1] Also,
. . . the present situation offers the working class in a
number of capitalist countries a real opportunity to unite the overwhelming
majority of the people under its leadership and to secure the transfer of the
basic means of production into the hands of the people.[2] The Programme of the CPSU maintains that "the working class
of many countries can, even before capitalism is overthrown, compel the
bourgeoisie to carry out measures that transcend ordinary reforms".[3] The
Programme even states that under the bourgeois dictatorship it is possible for
a situation to emerge in certain countries, in which "it will be preferable
for the bourgeoisie . . . to agree to the basic means of production being
purchased from it".[3]
The stuff Khrushchov is touting is nothing original but is
simply a reproduction of the revisionism of the Second International, a
revival of Bernsteinism and Kautskyism.
The main distinguishing marks of Bernstein's betrayal of
Marxism were his advocacy of the legal parliamentary road and his opposition
to violent revolution, the smashing of the old state machinery and the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
Bernstein held that capitalism could "grow into socialism"
peacefully. He said that the political system of modern bourgeois society
"should not be destroyed but should only
page 364
be further developed",[1] and that
"we are now bringing about by voting, demonstrations and similar means of
pressure reforms which would have required bloody revolution a hundred years
ago".[2]
He held that the legal parliamentary road was the only way to
bring about socialism. He said that if the working class has "universal and
equal suffrage, the social principle which is the basic condition for
emancipation is attained".[3]
He asserted that "the day will come when it [the working
class] will have become numerically so strong and will be so important for the
whole of society that so to speak the palace of the rulers will no longer be
able to withstand its pressure and will collapse semispontaneously".[4]
Lenin said:
The Bernsteinians accepted and accept Marxism minus
its directly revolutionary aspect. They do not regard the parliamentary
struggle as one of the weapons particularly suitable for definite historical
periods, but as the main and almost the sole form of struggle making "force",
"seizure", "dictatorship", unnecessary.[5] Herr Kautsky was a fitting successor to Bernstein. Like
Bernstein, he actively publicized the parliamentary road and, opposed violent
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He said that under the
bourgeois democratic system there is "no more room for armed struggle for the
settlement of class conflicts"[6] and that "it would be
ridiculous . . . to,
page 365
preach a violent political overthrow".[1] He
attacked Lenin and the Bolshevik Party by comparing them to "an impatient
midwife who uses violence to make a pregnant woman give birth in the fifth
month instead of the ninth".[2]
Kautsky was hopelessly afflicted with parliamentary
cretinism. He made the well-known statement:
The aim of our political struggle remains, as hitherto, the
conquest of state power by winning a majority in parliament and by converting
parliament into the master of the government.[3] He aiso said:
The parliamentary republic -- with a monarchy at the top on
the English model, or without -- is to my mind the base out of which
proletarian dictatorship and socialist society grow. This republic is the
"state of the future" toward which we must strived.[4] Lenin severely criticized these absurd statements of
Kautsky's.
In denouncing Kautsky, Lenin declared:
Only scoundrels or simpletons can think that the proletariat
must win the majority in elections carried out under the yoke of the
bourgeoisie, under the yoke of wage-slavery, and that it should win
power afterwards. This is the height of folly or hypocrisy; it is substituting
voting, under the old system and with the old power, for class struggle and
revolution.[5] page 366
Lenin made the pointed comment that Kautsky's parliamentary
road "is nothing but the purest and the most vulgar opportunism: repudiating
revolution in deeds, while accepting it in word".[1] He said:
By so "interpreting" the concept "revolutionary dictatorship
of the proletariat" as to expunge the revolutionary violence of the oppressed
class against its oppressors, Kautsky beat the world record in the liberal
distortion of Marx.[2] Here, we have quoted Khrushchov as well as Bernstein and
Kautsky and Lenin's criticism of these two worthies at some length in order to
show that Khrushchov's revisionism is modern Bernsteinism and Kautskyism, pure
and simple. As with Bernstein and Kautsky, Khrushchov's betrayal of Marxism is
most sharply manifested in his opposition to revolutionary violence, in what
he does "to expunge revolutionary violence". In this respect, Kautsky and
Bernstein have now clearly lost their title to Khrushchov who has set a new
world record. Khrushchov, the worthy disciple of Bernstein and Kautsky, has
excelled his masters.
The entire history of the working-class movement tells-us
that the acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement of violent revolution as a
universal law of proletarian revolution, of the necessity of smashing the old
state machine, and of the necessity of replacing the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie by the
page 367
dictatorship of the proletariat has always been the watershed between
Marxism and all brands of opportunism and revisionism, between proletarian
revolutionaries and all renegades from the proletariat.
According to the basic teachings of Marxism-Leninism, the key
question in every revolution is that of state power. And the key question in
the proletarian revolution is that of the seizure of state power and the
smashing of the bourgeois state machine by violence, the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the replacement of the bourgeois state by
the proletarian state.
Marxism has always proclaimed the inevitability of violent
revolution. It points out that violent revolution is the midwife to socialist
society, the only road to the replacement of the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the proletariat, and a universal law of
proletarian revolution.
Marxism teaches us that the state itself is a form of
violence. The main components of the state machine are the army and the
police. History shows that all ruling classes depend upon violence to maintain
their rule.
The proletariat would, of course, prefer to gain power by
peaceful means. But abundant historical evidence indicates that the
reactionary classes never give up power voluntarily and that they are always
the first to use violence to repress the revolutionary mass movement and to
provoke civil war, thus placing armed struggle on the agenda.
Lenin has spoken of "civil war, without which not a single
great revolution in history has yet been able to get along, and without which
not a single serious Marxist has conceived of the transition from capitalism
to socialism".[1]
The great revolutions in history referred to by Lenin include
the bourgeois revolution. The bourgeois revolution is one in which one
exploiting class overthrows another, and yet it cannot be made without a civil
war. Still more is this
page 368
the case with the proletarian revolution, which is a revolution to abolish
all exploiting classes and systems. Regarding the fact that violent revolution
is a universal law of proletarian revolution, Lenin repeatedly pointed out
that "between capitalism and socialism there lies a long period of Stalin, too, said that a violent revolution of the
proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is "an inevitable and
indispensable condition for the advance towards socialism" in all countries
ruled by capital.[4]
Can a radical transformation of the bourgeois order be
achieved without violent revolution, without the dictatorship of the
proletariat? Stalin answered:
Obviously not. To think that such a revolution can be carried
out peacefully, within the framework of bourgeois democracy, which is adapted
to the rule of the bourgeoisie, means that one has either gone out of one's
mind and lost normal human understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated
the proletarian revolution.[5] page 369
Basing himself on the Marxist-Leninist theory of violent
revolution and the new experience of the proletarian revolution and the
people's democratic revolution led by the proletariat, Comrade Mao Tse-tung
advanced the celebrated dictum that "political power grows out of the barrel
of a gun".
Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
. . . revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in
class society and that without them, it is impossible to accomplish any leap
in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and
therefore impossible for the people to win political power.[1] He stated:
The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the
issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This
Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and
for all other countries.[2] He stated further:
Experience in the class struggle in the era of imperialism
teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the working class and
the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and landlords; in this
sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world be transformed.[3] To sum up, violent revolution is a universal law of
proletarian revolution. This is a fundamental tenet of Marxism-Leninism. It is
on this most important question that Khrushchov betrays Marxism-Leninism.
page 370
When Khrushchov first put forward the "parliamentary road" at
the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the Chinese Communist Party considered it a
gross error, a violation of the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism, and
absolutely unacceptable.
As Khrushchov's revisionism was still in its incipient stage
and the leaders of the CPSU had not as yet provoked open polemics, we
refrained for a time from publicly exposing or criticizing Khrushchov's error
of the "parliamentary road". But, as against his erroneous proposition, we
stated the Marxist-Leninist view in a positive form in our documents and
articles. At the same time we waged the appropriate and necessary struggle
against it at inter-Party talks and meetings among the fraternal Parties.
Summing up the experience of the Chinese revolution, we
clearly stated in the political report of our Central Committee to the Eighth
National Congress of our Party in September 1956:
While our Party was working for peaceful change, it did not
allow itself to be put off its guard or to give up the peoples arms. . . .
page 371
On this question, the Marxist-Leninist view of the Eighth
National Congress of the CPC is opposed to the revisionist view of the 20th
Congress of the CPSU.
In December 1956 we explained the road of the October
Revolution in a positive way in the article "More on the Historical
Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat", thus in fact
criticizing the so-called parliamentary road which Khrushchov set against the
road of the October Revolution.
In many private talks with the leaders of the CPSU, the
leading comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC made serious criticisms
of Khrushchov's erroneous views. We hoped in all sincerity that he would
correct his mistakes.
At the time of the Meeting of Representatives of the
Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, the delegation of the CPC engaged in a
sharp debate with the delegation of the CPSU on the question of the transition
from capitalism to socialism.
In the first draft for the Declaration which it proposed
during the preparations for the Moscow meeting, the Central Committee of the
CPSU referred only to the possibility of peaceful transition and said nothing
about the possibility of non-peaceful transition; it referred only to the
parliamentary road and said nothing about other means of struggle, and at the
same time pinned hopes for the winning of state power through the
parliamentary road on "the concerted actions of Communists and socialists".
Naturally the Central Committee of the CPC could not agree to these wrong
views, which depart from Marxism-Leninism, being written into the programmatic
document of all the Communist and Workers' Parties.
After the delegation of the CPC made its criticisms, the
Central Committee of the CPSU produced a second draft for the Declaration.
Although phrases about the possibility of non-peaceful transition were added,
the formulation of the question of peaceful transition in this draft still
reflected the revisionist views put forward by Khrushchov at the 20th Congress
of the CPSU.
page 372
The delegation of the CPC expressed its disagreement with
these erroneous views in clear terms. On November 10, 1957 it
systematically explained its own views on the question of the transition from
capitalism to socialism to the Central Committee of the CPSU, to which it also
presented a written outline.
The main points made in our written outline are summarized
below.
These views of ours are in full accord with Marxism-Leninism. page 373
The comrades of the delegation of the Central Committee of
the CPSU were unable to argue against them, but they repeatedly asked us to
make allowances for their internal needs, expressing the hope that the
formulation of this question in the draft Declaration might show some
connection with its formulation by the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
We had refuted the wrong views of the leadership of the CPSU
and put forward a written outline of our own views. For this reason and for
the sake of the common struggle against the enemy, the delegation of the CPC
decided to meet the repeated wishes of the comrades of the CPSU and agreed to
take the draft of the Central Committee of the CPSU on this question as the
basis, while suggesting amendments in only a few places.
We hoped that through this debate the comrades of the CPSU
would awaken to their errors and correct them. But contrary to our hopes, the
leaders of the CPSU did not do so.
At the meeting of fraternal Parties in 1960, the delegation
of the CPC again engaged in repeated sharp debates with the delegation of the
CPSU on the question of the transition from capitalism to socialism, and
thoroughly exposed and criticized Khrushchov's revisionist views. During the
meeting, the Chinese and the Soviet sides each adhered to its own position,
and no agreement could be reached. In view of the general wish of fraternal
Parties that a common document should be hammered out at the meeting, the
delegation of the CPC finally made a concession on this question again and
agreed to the verbatim transcription of the relevant passages in the 1957
Declaration into the 1960 Statement, again out of consideration for the needs
of the leaders of the CPSU. At the same time, during this meeting we
distributed the Outline of Views on the Question of Peaceful Transition put
forward by the Chinese Communist Party on November 10, 1957, and made it clear
that we were giving consideration to the leadership of the CPSU on this issue
for the last time, and would not do so again.
page 374
If comrades now make the criticism that we were wrong in
giving this consideration to the leaders of the CPSU, we are quite ready to
accept this criticism.
As the formulation of the question of peaceful transition in
the Declaration and the Statement was based on the drafts of the CPSU and in
some places retained the formulation by its 20th Congress, there are serious
weaknesses and errors in the overall presentation, even though a certain
amount of patching up was done. While indicating that the ruling classes never
relinquish power voluntarily, the formulation in the two documents also
asserts that state power can be won in a number of capitalist countries
without civil war; while stating that extra-parliamentary mass struggle should
be waged to smash the resistance of the reactionary forces, it also asserts
that a stable majority can be secured in parliament and that parliament can
thus be transformed into an instrument serving the working people; and while
referring to non-peaceful transition, it fails to stress violent revolution as
a universal law. The leadership of the CPSU has taken advantage of these
weaknesses and errors in the Declaration and the Statement and used them as an
excuse for peddling Khrushchov's revisionism.
It must be solemnly declared that the Chinese Communist Party
has all along maintained its differing views on the formulation of the
question of the transition from capitalism to socialism in the Declaration of
1957 and the Statement of 1960. We have never concealed our views. We hold
that in the interest of the revolutionary cause of the international
proletariat and in order to prevent the revisionists from misusing these
programmatic documents of the fraternal Parties, it is necessary to amend the
formulation of the question in the Declaration and the Statement through joint
consultation of Communist and Workers' Parties so as to conform to the
revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.
In order to help readers acquaint themselves with the full
views of the Chinese Communist Party on this question, we
page 375
are re-publishing the complete text of the Outline of Views on the Question
of Peaceful Transition put forward by the delegation of the CPC to the Central
Committee of the CPSU on November 10, 1957, as an appendix to this
article.[1]
In the last eight years the struggle of the Marxist-Leninist
Parties and of the world's Marxist-Leninists against Khrushchov's revisionism
has made great progress. More and more people have come to recognize the true
features of Khrushchov's revisionism. Nevertheless, the leaders of the CPSU
are still resorting to subterfuge and quibbles, and trying in every possible
way to peddle their nonsense.
Therefore, it is still necessary for us to refute the fallacy
of "peaceful transition".
The leaders of the CPSU openly distort the works of Marx and
Lenin and distort history too to cover up their betrayal of Marxism-Leninism
and justify their revisionist line.
They argue: Did not Marx "admit such a possibility [peaceful
transition] for England and America"?[2] In fact, this
argument is taken from the renegade Kautsky who used the self-same method to
distort Marx's views and oppose the proletarian revolution and the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
It is true that in the 1870's Marx said that in countries
like the United States and Britain "the workers can reach their goal by
peaceful means". But at the same time he stressed that this possibility was an
exception. He said that "even if this be so, we must also recognize that in
the majority of
page 376
countries on the continent force must serve as the lever of our
revolution".[1] What is
more, he pointed out:
The English bourgeoisie has always shown its readiness to
accept the decision of the majority, so long as it has the monopoly of the
suffrage. But believe me, at the moment when it finds itself in the minority
on questions which it considers vitally important, we will have a new
slaveholders' war here.[2] Lenin said in his criticism of the renegade Kautsky:
The argument that Marx in the 'seventies granted the
possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in England and Amehca is the
argument of a sophist, or, to put it bluntly, of a swindler who juggles with
quotations and references. First, Marx regarded this possibility as an
exception even then. Secondly, in those days monopoly capitalism, i.e.,
imperialism, did not yet exist. Thirdly, in England and America there was no
military then -- as there is now -- serving as the chief apparatus of the
bourgeois state machine.[3] Lenin said that, by virtue of its fundamental economic
traits, imperialism is distinguished "by a minimum attachment for peace and
freedom, and by a maximum and universal development of militarism". "To page 377
Today, the leaders of the CPSU have struck up Kautsky's old
tune. What is this if not stooping to the position of a common or garden
lackey of the bourgeoisie?
Again, the leaders of the CPSU argue: Did not Lenin "admit in
principle the possibility of a peaceful revolution"?[1] This is
even worse sophistry.
For a time after the February Revolution of 1917 Lenin
envisaged a situation in which "in Russia, by way of an exception, this
revolution can be a peaceful revolution".[2] He
called this "an exception" because of the special circumstances then
obtaining: "The essence of the matter was that the arms were in the hands of
the people, and that no coercion from without was exercised in regard to the
people."[3] In July
1917 the counter-revolutionary bourgeois government suppressed the masses by
force of arms, drenching the streets of Petrograd with the blood of workers
and soldiers. After this incident Lenin declared that "all hopes for a
peaceful development of the Russian Revolution have definitely vanished".[4] In October 1917 Lenin and the Bolshevik Party resolutely
led the workers and soldiers in an armed uprising and seized state power.
Lenin pointed out in January 1918 that "the class struggle. . . has turned
into a civil war".[5] The Soviet state had to wage
another three and half years of revolutionary war and to make heavy sacrifices
before it smashed both the domestic counter-revolutionary rebellion
page 378
and the foreign armed intervention. Only then was the victory of the
revolution consolidated. In 1919 Lenin said that "revolutionary violence
gained brilliant successes in the October Revolution".[1]
Now the leaders of the CPSU have the impudence to say that
the October Revolution was "the most bloodless of all revolutions"[2] and was
"accomplished almost peacefully".[3] Their
assertions are totally contrary to the historical facts. How can they face the
revolutionary martyrs who shed their blood and sacrificed their lives to
create the world's first socialist state?
When we point out that world history has thus far produced no
precedent for peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism, the leaders of
the CPSU quibble, saying that "practical experience exists of the achievement
of the socialist revolution in peaceful form". And shutting their eyes to all
the facts, they state, "In Hungary in 1919, the dictatorship of the
proletariat was established by peaceful means."[4]
Is this true? No, it is not. Let us see what Bela Kun, the
leader of the Hungarian revolution, had to say.
The Communist Party of Hungary was founded in November 1918.
The new-born Party immediately plunged into revolutionary struggle and
proclaimed as the slogans of Socialist revolution: "Disarm the bourgeoisie,
arm the proletariat, establish Soviet power."[5] The
Hungarian Communist Party worked actively in all fields for an armed uprising.
It
page 379
armed the workers, strove to win over the government troops and organize
the demobilized soldiers, staged armed demonstrations, led the workers in
expelling their bosses and occupying the factories, led the agricultural
workers in seizing large estates, disarmed the reactionary army officers,
troops and police, combined strikes with armed uprisings, and so forth.
In fact, the Hungarian revolution abounded in armed struggle
of various forms and on various scales. Bela Kun wrote:
From the day of the founding of the Communist Party to the
taking of power, armed clashes with the organs of bourgeois power occurred
with increasing frequency. Starting with December 12, 1918 when the armed
Budapest garrison came out into the streets in a demonstration against the War
Minister of the Provisional Government, . . . there was probably not a single
day on which the press failed to report sanguinary clashes between the
revolutionary workers and soldiers and armed units of the government forces,
and in particular of the police. The Communists organized numerous uprisings
not only in Budapest but in the provinces as well.[1] The leaders of the CPSU are telling a glaring lie when they say that the
Hungarian Revolution was an example of peaceful transition.
It is alleged in the Soviet press that the Hungarian
bourgeois government "voluntarily resigned",[2] and this
is probably the only ground the leaders of the CPSU base themselves on. But
what were the facts?
Karolyi, the head of the Hungarian bourgeois government at
the time, was quite explicit on this point. He declared:
signed a proclamation concerning my own resignation and the
transfer of power to the proletariat, which in reality
page 380
had already taken over and proclaimed power earlier . . . I did not hand
over power to the proletariat, as it had already won it earlier,
thanks to its planned creation of a Socialist army. For this reason, Bela Kun pointed out that to say the bourgeoisie
voluntarily handed political power over to the proletariat was a deceptive
"legend".[1]
The Hungarian Revolution of 1919 was defeated. In examining
the chief lessons of its defeat, Lenin said that one fatal error committed by
the young Hungarian Communist Party was that it was not firm enough in
exercising dictatorship over the enemy but wavered at the critical moment.
Moreover, the Hungarian Party failed to take correct measures to meet the
peasants' demand for the solution of the land problem and therefore divorced
itself from the peasantry. Another important reason for the defeat of the
revolution was the amalgamation of the Communist Party and the opportunist
Social Democratic Party.
It is a sheer distortion of history when the leaders of the:
CPSU allege that the Hungarian Revolution of 1918-19 a model of "peaceful
transition".
Furthermore, they allege that the working class of
Czechoslovakia won "power by the peaceful road".[2] This
is another absurd distortion of history.
The people's democratic power in Czechoslovakia was
established in the course of the anti-fascist war; it was not taken from the
bourgeoisie "peacefully". During World War II, the Communist Party led the
people in guerrilla warfare and armed uprisings against the fascists, it
destroyed the German fascist troops and their servile regime in Czechoslovakia
with the assistance of the Soviet Army and established a national front
coalition government. This government was in essence
page 381
a people's democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the proletariat,
i.e., a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In February 1948 the reactionaries inside Czechoslovakia,
backed by U.S. imperialism, plotted a counter-revolutionary coup d'etat to
overthrow the people's government by an armed rebellion. But the government
led by the Communist Party immediately deployed its armed forces and organized
armed mass demonstrations, thus shattering the bourgeois plot for a
counter-revolutionary come-back. These facts clearly testify that the February
event was not a "peaceful" seizure of political power by the working class
from the bourgeoisie but a suppression of a counter-revolutionary bourgeois
coup d'etat by the working class through its own state apparatus, and mainly
through its own armed forces.
In summarizing the February event Gottwald said:
Even before the February event we said: one of the basic
changes compared with what existed before the war is precisely that the state
apparatus already serves new classes and not the previous ruling classes. The
February event showed that the state apparatus, in this sense, played an
outstanding role.[1] How can the above instances be regarded as precedents for
peaceful transition?
Lenin said:
Kautsky had to resort to all these subterfuges, sophistries
and fraudulent falsifications only in order to dissociate himself from
violent revolution, and to conceal his renunciation of it, his
desertion to the liberal labour policy, i.e., to the bourgeoisie.
And he added, "That is where the trouble lies."[2]
page 382
Why has Khrushchov so shamelessly distorted the works of Marx
and Lenin, fabricated history and resorted to subterfuges? Again, that is
where the trouble lies.
The principal argument used by the leaders of the CPSU to
justify their anti-revolutionary line of "peaceful transition" is that
historical conditions have changed.
With regard to the appraisal of the changes in historical
conditions since World War II and the conclusions to be drawn from them,
Marxist-Leninists hold entirely different views from those of Khrushchev.
Marxist-Leninists hold that historical conditions have
changed fundamentally since the War. The change is mainly a manifested in the
great increase in the forces of proletarian socialism and the great weakening
of the forces of imperialism. Since the War, the mighty socialist camp and a
whole series of new and independent nationalist states have emerged, and there
have occurred a continuous succession of armed revolutionary struggles, a new
upsurge in the mass movements in capitalist countries and the great expansion
of the ranks of the international communist movement. The international
proletarian socialist revolutionary movement and the national democratic
revolutionary movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America have become the two
major historical trends of our time.
In the early post-war period, Comrade Mao Tse-tung repeatedly
pointed out that the world balance of forces was favourable to us and not to
the enemy, and that this new situation "has opened up still wider
possibilities for the emancipation of the working class and the oppressed
peoples
page 383
of the world and has opened up still more realistic paths towards it".[1]
He also indicated,
Make trouble, fail, make trouble again, fail again . . . till
their doom; that is the logic of the imperialists and all reactionaries the
world over in dealing with the peoples cause, and they will never go against
this logic. This is a Marxist law. When we say "imperialism is ferocious" we
mean that its nature will never change, that the imperialists will never lay
down their butcher knives, that they will never become Buddhas, till their
doom.[2] Marxist-Leninists base themselves on the fact that the
changes in post-war conditions have become increasingly favourable for
revolution and on the law that imperialism and reaction will never change
their nature. Therefore they draw the conclusion that revolution must be
promoted, and they hold that full use must be made of this very favourable
situation and that in the light of the specific conditions in different
countries the development of revolutionary struggles must be actively promoted
and preparations must be made to seize victory in the revolution.
On the other hand, using the pretext of these very changes in
post-war conditions, Khrushchov draws the conclusion that revolution must be
opposed and repudiated, and he holds that as a result of the changes in the
world balance of forces imperialism and reaction have changed their nature,
the law of class struggle has changed, and the common road of the October
Revolution and the Marxist-Leninist theory of proletarian revolution have
become outmoded.
page 384
Khrushchov and his like are spreading an Arabian Nights tale.
They maintain:
Now favourable international and internal conditions are
taking shape for the working class of a number of capitalist countries to
accomplish the socialist revolution in peaceful form. They say:
In the period between the first and second world wars, the
reactionary bourgeoisie in many European countries, incessantly developing and
perfecting its police-bureaucratic machine, savagely repressed the mass
movements of the working people and left no possibility for the achievement of
the socialist revolution by the peaceful road. But according to them the situation has now changed.[2]
They say that "basic shifts in favour of socialism in the
relationship of forces in the international arena" now create the possibility
of "paralyzing the intervention of international reaction in the affairs of
countries carrying out revolution",[3] and that
"this lessens the possibilities for the unleashing of civil war by the
bourgeoisie".[4]
But the lies of Khrushchov and his like cannot cover up
realities.
Two outstanding facts since World War II are that the
imperialists and the reactionaries are everywhere reinforcing, their apparatus
of violence for cruelly suppressing the masses and that imperialism headed by
the United States is conducting counter-revolutionary armed intervention in
all parts of the world.
page 385
Today the United States of America has become more
militarized than ever and has increased its troops to over 2,700,000 men, or
eleven times the 1934 total and nine times the 1939 total. It has so many
police and secret service organizations that even some of the big U.S.
capitalists have had to admit that it tops the world in this respect, having
far surpassed Hitlerite Germany.
Britain's standing army increased from over 250,000 men in
1934 to over 420,000 in 1963, and its police force from 67,000 in 1934 to
87,000 in 1963.
France's standing army increased from 650,000 in 1934 to over
740,000 in 1963, and its police and security forces from 80,000 in 1934 to
120,000 in 1963.
Other imperialist countries and even the ordinary run of
capitalist countries are no exceptions to this large-scale strengthening of
the armed forces and police.
Khrushchov is zealously using the slogan of general and
complete disarmament to immobilize the people. He has been chanting it for
many years now. But in actual fact there is not even a shadow of general and
complete disarmament. Everywhere in the imperialist camp headed by the United
States one finds a general and complete arms drive and an expansion and
strengthening of the apparatus of violent suppression.
Why are the bourgeoisie so frenziedly reinforcing their armed
forces and police in peace time? Can it be that their purpose is not to
suppress the mass movements of the working people but rather to guarantee that
the latter can win state power by peaceful means? Haven't the ruling
bourgeoisie committed enough atrocities in the nineteen years since the War in
employing soldiers and policemen to suppress striking workers and people
struggling for their democratic rights?
In the past nineteen years, U.S. imperialism has organized
military blocs and concluded military treaties with more than forty countries.
It has set up over 2,200 military bases and installations in all parts of the
capitalist world. Its armed
page 386
forces stationed abroad exceed 1,000,000. Its "Strike Command" directs a
mobile land and air force, ready at all times to be sent anywhere to suppress
the people's revolution.
In the past nineteen years, the U.S. and other imperialists
have not only given every support to the reactionaries of various countries
and helped them to suppress the peoples' revolutionary movements; they have
also directly planned and executed numerous counter-revolutionary armed
aggressions and interventions, i.e., they have exported
counter-revolution. U.S. imperialism, for instance, helped Chiang Kai-shek
fight the civil war in China, sent its own troops to Greece and commanded the
attack on the Greek people's liberated areas, unleashed the war of aggression
in Korea, landed troops in Lebanon to threaten the revolution in Iraq, aided
and abetted the Laotian reactionaries in extending civil war, organized and
directed a so-called United Nations force to suppress the national
independence movement in the Congo, and conducted counter-revolutionary
invasions of Cuba. It is still fighting to suppress the liberation struggle of
the people of southern Viet Nam. Recently it has used armed force to suppress
the just struggle of the Panamanian people in defence of their sovereignty and
participated in the armed intervention in Cyprus.
Not only does U.S. imperialism take determined action to
suppress and intervene in all people's revolutions and national liberation
movements, but it also tries to get rid of bourgeois regimes which show some
nationalist colouration. During these nineteen years, the U.S. Government has
engineered numerous counter-revolutionary military coups d'etat in a number of
countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It has even used violence to
remove puppets of its own fostering, such as Ngo Dinh Diem, once they have
ceased to suit its purposes -- "kill the donkey as soon as you take it from
the millstone", as the saying goes.
Facts have demonstrated that nowadays in order to make
revolutions and achieve liberation all oppressed peoples and
page 387
nations not only have to cope with violent suppression by the domestic
reactionary ruling classes, but must prepare themselves fully against armed
intervention by imperialism, and especially U.S. imperialism. Without such
preparation and without steadfastly rebuffing counter-revolutionary violence
by revolutionary violence whenever necessary, revolution, let alone victory,
is out of the question.
Without strengthening their armed forces, without preparing
to meet imperialist armed aggression and intervention and without adhering to
the policy of waging struggles against imperialism, countries which have won
independence will not be able to safeguard their national independence and
still less to ensure the advance of the revolutionary cause.
We would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since you talk
so glibly about the new features of the post-war situation, why have you
chosen to omit the most important and conspicuous one, namely, that the U.S.
and other imperialists are suppressing revolution everywhere? You never weary
of talking about peaceful transition! but why have you never had a single word
to say about how to deal with the bloated apparatus of forcible suppression
built up by the imperialists and reactionaries? You brazenly cover up the
bloody realities of the cruel suppression of the national liberation and
popular revolutionary movements by imperialism and reaction and spread the
illusion that the oppressed nations and peoples can achieve victory by
peaceful means. Isn't it obvious that you are trying to lull the vigilance of
the people, pacify the angry masses with empty promises about the bright
future and oppose their revolution, thus in fact acting as accomplices of
imperialism and the reactionaries of all countries?
On this question, it is useful to let John Foster Dulles, the
late U.S. Secretary of State, be our "teacher by negative example".
Dulles said in a speech on June 21, 1956 that all socialist
countries had hitherto been established "through the use of violence". He then
said that "the Soviet rulers now say that
page 388
they will renounce the use of violence" and that "we welcome and shall
encourage these developments".[1]
As a faithful champion of the capitalist system, Dulles was
of course perfectly aware of the essential role of force in class struggle.
While welcoming Khrushchov's renunciation of violent revolution, he laid great
stress on the bourgeoisie's need to strengthen its counter-revolutionary
violence in order a to maintain its rule. He said in another speech that "of
all the tasks of government the most basic is to protect its citizens [read
"reactionary ruling classes"] against violence. . . . So in every civilized
community the members contribute toward the maintenance of a police force as
an arm of law and order".[2]
Here Dulles was telling the truth. The political foundation
of the rule of imperialism and all reaction is nothing other than -- "a police
force". So long as this foundation is unimpaired, nothing else is of any
importance and their rule will not be shaken. The more the leaders of the CPSU
cover up the fact that the bourgeoisie relies on violence for its rule and
spread the fairy tale of peaceful transition, which was so welcome to Dulles,
the more they reveal their true colours as cronies of the imperialists in
opposing revolution.
The idea of the "parliamentary road" which was publicized by
the revisionists of the Second International was thoroughly refuted by Lenin
and discredited long ago. But in Khrushchov's eyes, the parliamentary road
seems suddenly to have acquired validity after World War II.
Is this true? Of course not.
page 389
Events since World War II have demonstrated yet again that
the chief component of the bourgeois state machine is armed force and not
parliament. Parliament is only an ornament and a screen for bourgeois rule. To
adopt or discard the parliamentary system, to grant parliament greater or less
power, to adopt one kind of electoral law or another -- the choice between
these alternatives is always dictated by the needs and interests of bourgeois
rule. So long as the bourgeoisie controls the military-bureaucratic apparatus,
either the acquisition of a "stable majority in parliament" by the proletariat
through elections is impossible, or this "stable majority" is undependable. To
realize socialism through the "parliamentary road" is utterly impossible and
is mere deceptive talk.
About half the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries
are still illegal. Since these Parties have no legal status, the winning of a
parliamentary majority is, of course, out of the question.
For example, the Communist Party of Spain lives under White
terror and has no opportunity to run in elections. It is pathetic and tragic
that Spanish Communist leaders like Ibarruri should follow Khrushchov in
advocating "peaceful transition" in Spain.
With all the unfair restrictions imposed by bourgeois
electoral laws in those capitalist countries where Communist Parties are legal
and can take part in elections, it is very difficult for them to win a
majority of the votes under bourgeois rule. And even if they get a majority of
the votes, the bourgeoisie can prevent them from obtaining a majority of the
seats in parliament by revising the electoral laws or by other means.
For example, since World War II, the French monopoly
capitalists have twice revised the electoral law, in each case bringing about
a sharp fall in the parliamentary seats held by the Communist Party of France.
In the parliamentary election in 1946, the CPF gained 182 seats. But in the
election of 1951, the revision of the electoral law by the monopoly
capitalists resulted in a sharp reduction in the number of CPF seats to
page 390
103, that is, there was a loss of 79 seats. In the 1956 election, the CPF
gained 150 seats. But before the parliamentary election in 1958, the monopoly
capitalists again revised the electoral law with the result that the number of
seats held by the CPF fell very drastically to 10, that is, it lost 140 seats. Even if in certain circumstances a Communist Party should win
a majority of the seats in parliament or participate in the government as a
result of an electoral victory, it would not change the bourgeois nature of
parliament or government, still less would it mean the smashing of the old and
the establishment of a new state machine. It is absolutely impossible to bring
about a fundamental social change by relying on bourgeois parliaments or
governments. With the state machine under its control the reactionary
bourgeoisie can nullify elections, dissolve parliament, expel Communists from
the government, outlaw the Communist Party and resort to brute force to
suppress the masses and the progressive forces.
For instance, in 1946 the Communist Party of Chile supported
the bourgeois Radical Party in winning an electoral victory, and a coalition
government was formed with the participation of Communists. At the time, the
leaders of the Chilean Communist Party went so far as to describe this
bourgeois-controlled government as a "people's democratic government". But in
less than a year the bourgeoisie compelled them to quit the government,
carried out mass arrests of Communists and in 1948 outlawed the Communist
Party.
When a workers' party degenerates and becomes a hireling of
the bourgeoisie, the latter may permit it to have a majority in parliament and
to form a government. This is the case with the bourgeois social democratic
parties in certain countries. But this sort of thing only serves to safeguard
and consolidate the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; it does not, and cannot,
in the least alter the position of the proletariat as an oppressed and
exploited class. Such facts only add testimony to the bankruptcy of the
parliamentary road.
page 391
Events since World War II have also shown that if Communist
leaders believe in the parliamentary road and fall victim to the incurable
disease of "parliamentary cretinism", they will not only get nowhere but will
inevitably sink into the quagmire of revisionism and ruin the revolutionary
cause of the proletariat.
There has always been a fundamental difference between
Marxist-Leninists on the one hand and opportunists and revisionists on the
other on the proper attitude to adopt towards bourgeois parliaments.
Marxist-Leninists have always held that under certain
conditions the proletarian party should take part in parliamentary struggle
and utilize the platform of parliament for exposing the reactionary nature of
the bourgeoisie, educating the masses and helping to accumulate revolutionary
strength. It is wrong to refuse to utilize this legal form of struggle when
necessary. But the proletarian party must never substitute parliamentary
struggle for proletarian revolution or entertain the illusion that the
transition to socialism can be achieved through the parliamentary road. It
must at all times concentrate on mass struggles.
Lenin said:
The party of the revolutionary proletariat must take part in
bourgeois parliamentarism in order to enlighten the masses, which can be done
during elections and in the struggle between parties in parliament. But to
limit the class struggle to the parliamentary struggle, or to regard the
latter as the highest and decisive form, to which all the other forms of
struggle are subordinate, means actually deserting to the side of the
bourgeoisie and going against the proletariat.[1] He denounced the revisionists of the Second International for
chasing the shadow of parliamentarism and for abandoning
page 392
the revolutionary task of seizing state power. They converted the
proletarian party into an electoral party, a parliamentary party, an appendage
of the bourgeoisie and an instrument for preserving the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie. In advocating the parliamentary road, Khrushchov and his
followers can only meet with the same fate as that of the revisionists of the
Second International.
The Open Letter of the
Central Committee of the CPSU fabricates a tissue of lies in its treatment of
the question of proletarian revolution. It asserts that the Chinese Communist
Party favours "advancing the slogan of immediate proletarian revolution" even
in the absence of a revolutionary situation, that it stands for abandoning
"the struggle for the democratic rights and vital interests of the working
people in capitalist countries",[1] that it
makes armed struggle "absolutes and so on. They frequently pin such labels as
"Left opportunism", "Left adventurism" and "Trotskyism" on the Chinese
Communist Party.
The truth is that the leaders of the CPSU are making this
hullabaloo in order to cover up their revisionist line which opposes and
repudiates revolution. What they are attacking as "Left opportunism" is in
fact nothing but the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary line.
We have always maintained that a revolution cannot be made at
will and is impossible unless a revolutionary situation objectively exists.
But the outbreak and the victory of revolution depend not only on the
existence of a revolutionary situation
page 393
but also on the preparations and efforts made by the subjective
revolutionary forces.
It is "Left" adventurism if the party of the proletariat does
not accurately appraise both the objective conditions and subjective forces
making for revolution and if it rashly launches a revolution before the
conditions are ripe. But it is Right opportunism, or revisionism, if the
proletarian party makes no active preparations for revolution before the
conditions are ripe, or dare not lead a revolution and seize state power when
a revolutionary situation exists and the conditions are ripe.
Until the time arrives for seizing state power, the
fundamental and most important task for the proletarian party is to
concentrate on the painstaking work of accumulating revolutionary strength.
The active leadership given in day-to-day struggle must have as its central
aim the building up of revolutionary strength and the preparations for seizing
victory in the revolution when the conditions are ripe. The proletarian party
should use the various forms of day-to-day struggle to raise the political
consciousness of the proletariat and the masses of the people, to train its
own class forces, to temper its fighting capacity and to prepare for
revolution ideologically, politically, organizationally and militarily. It is
only in this way that it will not miss the opportunity of seizing victory when
the conditions for revolution are ripe. Otherwise, the proletarian party will
simply let the opportunity of making revolution slip by even when a
revolutionary situation objectively exists.
While tirelessly stressing that no revolution should be made
in the absence of a revolutionary situation, the leaders of the CPSU avoid the
question of how the party of the proletariat should conduct day-today
revolutionary struggle and accumulate revolutionary strength before there is a
revolutionary situation. In reality, they are renouncing the task of building
up revolutionary strength and preparing for revolution on the pretext of the
absence of a revolutionary situation.
page 394
Lenin once gave an excellent description of the renegade
Kautsky's attitude towards the question of a revolutionary situation. He said
of Kautsky that if the revolutionary crisis has arrived, "then he too is
prepared to become a revolutionary! But then, let us observe, every blackguard
would proclaim himself a revolutionary!" "If it has not, then Kautsky will
turn his back on revolution!" As Lenin pointed out, Kautsky was like a typical
philistine, and the difference between a revolutionary Marxist and a
philistine is that the Marxist has the courage "to prepare the proletariat and
all the toiling and exploited masses for it [revolution]".[1] People
can judge for themselves whether or not Khrushchov and his followers resemble
the Kautsky type of philistine denounced by Lenin.
We have always held that the proletarian parties in the
capitalist countries must actively lead the working class and the working
people in struggles to oppose monopoly capital, to defend democratic rights,
to improve living conditions, to oppose imperialist arms expansion and war
preparations, to defend world peace and to give vigorous support to the
revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations.
In the capitalist countries which are subject to bullying,
control, intervention and aggression by U.S. imperialism, the proletarian
parties should raise the national banner of opposition to U.S. imperialism and
direct the edge of the mass struggle mainly against U.S. imperialism as well
as against monopoly capital and other reactionary forces at home which are
betraying the national interests. They should unite all the forces that can be
united and form a united front against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.
In recent years the working class and the working people in
many capitalist countries have been waging broad mass struggles which not only
hit monopoly capital and other reactionary forces at home, but render powerful
support to the revolu-
page 395
tionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and to
the countries of the socialist camp. We have always fully appreciated this
contribution.
While actively leading immediate struggles, Communists should
link them with the struggle for long-range and general interests, educate the
masses in a proletarian revolutionary spirit, ceaselessly raise their
political consciousness and accumulate revolutionary strength in order to
seize victory in revolution when the time is opportune. Our view is in full
accord with Marxism-Leninism.
In opposition to the views of Marxist-Leninists, the leaders
of the CPSU spread the notion that "in the highly-developed capitalist
countries, democratic and socialist tasks are so closely intertwined that
there, least of all, is it possible to draw any sort of lines of
demarcation.[1] This is
to substitute immediate for long-range struggles and reformism for proletarian
revolution.
Lenin said that "no reform can be durable, genuine and
serious if it is not supported by the revolutionary methods of struggle of the
masses". A workers' party that "does not combine this struggle for reforms
with the revolutionary methods of the workers' movement may be transformed
into a sect, and may become torn away from the masses, and . . . this is the
most serious threat to the success of genuine revolutionary socialism".[2]
He said that "every democratic demand . . . is, for the class
conscious workers, subordinated to the higher interests of
socialism".[3] Further, in The State and
Revolution Lenin quoted Engels as follows. The forgetfulness of the
great main standpoint in the momentary interests of the day, the strug-
page 396
gling and striving for the success of the moment without consideration for
the later consequences, the sacrifice of the future of the movement for its
present was opportunism, and dangerous opportunism at that.
It was precisely on this ground that Lenin criticized Kautsky
for "praising reformism and submission to the imperialist bourgeoisie, and
blaming and renouncing revolution".[1] He said
that "the proletariat fights for the revolutionary overthrow of the
imperialist bourgeoisie", while Kautsky "fights for the reformist
Lenin's criticism of Kautsky is an apt portrayal of the
present leaders of the CPSU.
We have always held that in order to lead the working class
and the masses of the people in revolution, the party of the proletariat must
master all forms of struggle and be able to combine different forms, swiftly
substituting one form for another as the conditions of struggle change. It
will be invincible in all circumstances only if it masters all forms of
struggle, such as peaceful and armed, open and secret, legal and illegal,
parliamentary and mass struggle, as well as both domestic and international
struggle.
The victory of the Chinese revolution was precisely the
result of the skilful and thorough mastery of all forms of struggle -- in
keeping with the specific characteristics of thee Chinese revolution -- by the
Communists of China who learned from the historical experience of
international proletarian struggle. Armed struggle was the chief form in the
Chinese revolution, but the revolution could not have been victorious without
the use of other forms of struggle.
In the course of the Chinese revolution the Chinese Communist
Party fought on two fronts. It fought both the Right,
page 397
deviation of legalism and the "Left" illegalist deviation, and properly
combined legal with illegal struggle. In the country as a whole, it correctly
combined struggle in the revolutionary base areas with struggle in the
Kuomintang areas, while in the Kuomintang areas it correctly combined open and
secret work, made full use of legal opportunities and kept strictly to Party
rules governing secret work. The Chinese revolution has brought forth a
complexity and variety of forms of struggle suited to its own specific
conditions.
From its long practical experience, the Chinese Communist
Party is fully aware that it is wrong to reject legal struggle, to restrict
the Party's work within narrow confines and thereby to alienate itself from
the masses. But one should never tolerate the legalism peddled by the
revisionists. The revisionists reject armed struggle and all other illegal
struggle, engage only in legal struggle and activity and confine the Party's
activities and mass struggles within the framework allowed by the ruling
classes. They debase and even discard the Party's basic programme, renounce
revolution and adapt themselves solely to reactionary systems of law.
As Lenin rightly pointed out in his criticism, revisionists
such as Kautsky were degraded and dulled by bourgeois legality. "For a mess of
pottage given to the organizations that are recognized by the present police
law, the proletarian right of revolution was sold."[1]
While the leaders of the CPSU and their followers talk about
the use of all forms of struggle, in reality they stand for legalism and
discard the objective of the proletarian revolution on the pretext of changing
forms of struggle. This is again substituting Kautskyism for Leninism.
The leaders of the CPSU often make use of Lenin's great work,
" page 398
justify their erroneous line and have made it a "basis" for their attacks
on the Chinese Communist Party.
This is of course futile. Like all his other works, this book
of Lenin's can only serve as a weapon for Marxist-Leninists in the fight
against various kinds of opportunism and can never serve as an instrument of
revisionist apologetics.
When Lenin criticized the "Left-wing" infantile disorder and
asked the party of the proletariat to be skilful in applying revolutionary
tactics and to do better in preparing for revolutions, he had already broken
with the revisionists of the Second International and had founded the Third
International.
Indeed, in " Those comrades whom Lenin criticized for their "Left-wing"
infantile disorder all wanted revolution, while the latter-day revisionist
Khrushchov is against it, has therefore to be included in the same category as
Kautsky and has no right whatsoever to speak on the question of combating the
"Left-wing" infantile disorder.
It is most absurd for the leadership of the CPSU to pin the
label of "Trotskyism" on the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, it is
Khrushchov himself who has succeeded to the mantle of Trotskyism and who
stands with the Trotskyites of today.
Trotskyism manifests itself in different ways on different
questions and often wears the mask of "ultra-Leftism", but its essence is
opposition to revolution, repudiation of revolution.
As far as the fundamental fact of their opposition to the
proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat is concerned,
Trotskyism and the revisionism of the Second International are virtually the
same. This is why Stalin reppeatedly said that Trotskyism is a variety of
Menshevism, is
page 399
Kautskyism and social democracy, and is the advanced detachment of the
counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.
In its essence, the present-day revisionism of Khrushchov
also opposes and repudiates revolution. Therefore, the only logical conclusion
is that Khrushchov's revisionism is not only cut from the same cloth as
Kautskyism, but also converges with Trotskyism to oppose revolution.
Khrushchov had better pin the label of Trotskyism on himself.
THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION
AND
KHRUSHCHOV'S REVISIONISM
Eighth Comment on the Open Letter of
the Central Committee
of the CPSU
(People's
Daily ) and Hongqi (Red Flag )
(March 31, 1964)
THE present article
will discuss the familiar question of "peaceful transition". It has become
familiar and has everybody's attention because Khrushchov raised it at the
20th Congress of the CPSU and rounded it into a complete system in the form of
a programme at the 22nd Congress, where he pitted his revisionist views
against the Marxist-Leninist views. The Open Letter of the
Central Committee of the CPSU of July 14, 1963 once again struck up this old
tune.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Report to the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU, February
1956.
[2]
Ibid.
[3] N. S.
Khrushchov, "For New Victories for the World Communist Movement" (a speech
delivered at a meeting of the Party organisations in the Higher Party School,
the Academy of Social Sciences and the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Central
Committee of the CPSU, on January 6, 1961), World Marxist Review, No.
1, 1961, p. 22.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Report to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 1956.
[2] Ibid.
[3] "Programme of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union", Documents of 22nd Congress of the CPSU, Eng. ed., FLPH,
Moscow, 1961, p. 482.
[4]
Ibid., p. 486.
[1] Eduard
Bernstein, The Prerequisites for Socialism and the Tasks of the
Social-Democratic Party, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1923, p. 11.
[2] Ibid., p. 197.
[3] Eduard Bernstein, What Is
Socialism? Ger. ed., Berlin, 1922, p. 28.
[4] Eduard Bernstein, The Political Mass Strike and
the Political Situation of the Social-Democratic Party in Germany, Ger.
ed., Berlin, 1905, p. 37.
[5]
V. I. Lenin, "The Victory
of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Workers' Party", Collected
Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1962, Vol. X, p. 249.
[6] Karl Kautsky, The Materialist
Interpretation of History, Ger. ed., Berlin, 1927, pp. 431-32.
[1] Karl Kautsky,
Social Democracy Versus Communism, Eng. ed., Rand School Press, New
York, 1946, p. 117.
[2] Karl
Kautsky, The Proletarian Revolution and Its Programme, Ger. ed.,
Berlin, 1922, p. 90.
[3] Karl
Kautsky, "New Tactics", Die Neue Zeit, No. 46, 1912.
[4] Karl Kautsky, Letter to Franz Mehring,
July 15, 1893.
[5] V. I.
Lenin, "Greetings to the Italian, French and German Communists", Collected
Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 40.
OF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The State and
Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II,
Part 1, p. 323.
[2] V. I.
Lenin, "The Proletarian
Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", Selected Works, Eng. ed.,
FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, pp. 47-48.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Prophetic Words", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol.
XXVII, p. 457.
birth
pains -- that violence is always the midwife of the old society",[1] that the
bourgeois state "cannot be superseded by the proletarian state (the
dictatorship of the proletariat) through the process of withering away, but,
as a general rule, only through a violent revolution",[2] and that
"the necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and precisely
this view of violent revolution lies at the root of all the teachings
of Marx and Engels".[3]
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Those Who Are Terrified by the Collapse of the Old and Those Who Fight for
the New", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXVI, p.
362.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "The
State and Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952,
Vol. II, Part 1, p. 219.
[3]
Ibid. p. 220.
[4] J.
V. Stalin, "Reply to the
Discussion on the Report on 'The Social-Democratic Deviation in Our
Party'", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. VIII, p.
323.
[5] J. V. Stalin, "Concerning Questions of
Leninism", Works, Eng. ed, FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. VIII, p. 25.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"On Contradiction",
Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1964, Vol. I, p. 344.
[2] Mao Tse-tung, " Problems of War and
Strategy", Selected Military Writings, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1963,
p. 267.
[3] Ibid., p.
273.
REVISIONISM
Unlike the reactionaries, the people are not warlike. . . .
But when the people were compelled to take up arms, they were completely
justified in doing so. To have opposed the people's taking up arms and to have
asked them to submit to the attacking enemy would have been to follow an
opportunist line. Here, the question of following a revolutionary line or an
opportunist line became the major issue of whether our 600 million people
should or should not capture political power when conditions were ripe. Our
Party followed the revolutionary line and today we have the People's Republic
of China.
It is advantageous from the point of view of tactics to
refer to the desire for peaceful transition, but it would be inappropriate
to over-emphasize the possibility of peaceful transition. It is necessary to
be prepared at all times to repulse counter-revolutionary attacks and, at
the critical juncture of the revolution when the working class is seizing
state power, to overthrow the bourgeoisie by armed force if, it uses armed
force to suppress the people's revolution (generally speaking, it is
inevitable that the bourgeoisie will do so).
The parliamentary
form of struggle must be fully, utilized, but its role is limited. What is
most important is to proceed with the hard work of accumulating
revolutionary strength; peaceful transition should not be interpreted in
such a way as solely to mean transition through a parliamentary majority.
The main question is that of the state machinery, namely, the smashing of
the old state machinery (chiefly the armed forces) and the establishment of
the new state machinery (chiefly the armed forces).
The social
democratic parties are not parties of socialism; with the exception of
certain Left wings, they are a variant of bourgeois political parties. On
the question of socialist revolution, our position is fundamentally
different from that of the social democratic parties. This distinction must
nolt be obscured.
[1] See Appendix I to "The
Origin and Development of the Differences Between the Leadership of the CPSU
and Ourselves", pp. 105-08 of this book.
[2] O. V. Kuusinen and others, Foundations of
Marxism-Leninism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1959, p. 526.
fail
to notice this" in the discussion of the question of peaceful or violent
change is "to stoop to the position of a common or garden variety lackey of
the bourgeoisie."[4]
[1] Karl Marx, "On
the Hague Congress, Speech at a Mass Meeting in Amsterdam", Collected Works
of Marx and Engels, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1961, Vol. XVIII, p. 154.
[2] "Record of a Talk Between K. Marx
and the Correspondent of The World ", Collected Works of Marx and
Engels, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1961, Vol. XVII, p. 637.
[3] V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution
and the Renegade Kautsky", Collected Works, Eng. ed., International
Publishers, New York, 1945, Vol. XXIII, pp. 233-34.
[4] Ibid., p. 357.
[1] A. Beliakov
and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's Theory of Socialist Revolution and the Present
Day", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 13, 1960.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Speech on Attitude Towards the
Provisional Government", delivered at the First All-Russian Congress of
Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Selected Works, Eng. ed.,
FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 80.
[3] V. I. Lenin, "On Slogans", Selected Works,
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 88.
[4] V. I. Lenin, "The Political Situation",
Collected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1932,
Vol. XXI, Book 1, p. 37.
[5]
V. I. Lenin, "People from the Next World", Collected Works, Russ. ed.,
Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXVI, p. 393.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The Successes and Difficulties of Soviet Power", Collected Works,
Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXIX, p. 41.
[2] F. Konstantinov, "Lenin and Our Own Times",
Kommunist, Moscow, No. 5, 1960.
[3] A. I. Mikoyan, Speech at the 20th Congress, The
20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Russ. ed.,
Moscow, 1956, Vol. I, p. 313.
[4] "Marxism-Leninism -- the Basis of Unity of the
Communist Movement", editorial board article in Kommunist, Moscow, No.
15, 1963.
[5] Bela Kun,
Lessons of the Proletarian Revolution in Hungary, Russ. ed., Moscow,
1960, p. 46.
[1] Ibid.,
p. 57.
[2] "How the World
Revolutionary Process Is Developing", Sovietskaya Rossia, August 1,
1963.
[1] Bela Kun,
op. cit., p. 49.
[2]
L. I. Brezhnev, Speech at the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of
Czechoslovakia, Pravda, December 4, 1962.
[1] Klement
Gottwald, Speech at the Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, November 17, 1948.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and
the Renegade Kautsky", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,
1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 44.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"Revolutionary Forces of the World Unite, Fight Against Imperialist
Aggression!", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p.
284.
[2] Mao Tse-tung, "Cast
Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP,
Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 428.
[1] A. Butenko,
"War and Revolution", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 4, 1961.
[2] 0. V. Kuusinen and others, Foundations
of Marxism-Leninism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1959, p. 528.
[3] A. Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's
Theory of Socialist Revolution and the Present Day", Kommunist, Moscow,
No. 13, 1960.
[4] A. Butenko,
op. cit.
[1] J. F. Dulles,
Address at the 41st Annual Convention of Kiwanis International, June 21,
1956.
[2] J. F. Dulles,
Speech at the Annual Luncheon of the Associated Press on April 22, 1957,
New York Times, April 23, 1957.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
The Constituent Assembly
Elections and the Dictatorshtp of the Proletariat, Eng. ed., FLPH,
Moscow, 1954. p. 36.
[1] Open Letter of
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to All Party
Organizations, to All Communists of th Soviet Union, July 14, 1963.
[2] "Marxism-Leninism -- the Basis of
Unity of the Communist Movement", editorial board article in Kommunist,
Moscow, No. 15, 1963.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", Selected Works,
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 103.
[1] A. Beliakov
and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's Theory of Socialist Revolution and the Present
Day", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 13, 1960.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "To the Secretary of the 'Socialist
Propaganda League'", Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950, Vol.
XXI, p. 389.
[3] V. I. Lenin,
"A Caricature of Marxism and
'Imperialist Economism'", Selected Works, Eng. ed., International
Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. V, p. 392.
improvement of imperialism, for adaptation to it, while submitting to
it".[2]
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", Selected Works,
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 95.
[2] Ibid.
Left-Wing Communism --
an Infantile Disorder", to
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The Collapse of the Second
International", Collected Works, Eng. ed., International
Publishers, Nesv York, 1930, Vol. XVIII, p. 314.
Left-Wing Communism -- an Infantile Disorder",
he stated that the main enemy of the international working-class movement at
the time was Kautsky's type of opportunism. He repeatedly stressed that unless
a break was made with revisionism there could be no talk of how to master
revolutionary tactics.