page 304 [blank]

page 305

 
 
NEVER before has the unity of the international communist movement been so gravely threatened as it is today when we are witnessing a deluge of modern revisionist ideology. Both internationally and inside individual Parties, fierce struggles are going on between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism. The international communist movement is confronted with an unprecedentedly serious danger of a split.

    It is the urgent task of the Communists, the proletariat and the revolutionary people of the world to defend the unity of the socialist camp and of the international communist movement.

    The Communist Party of China has made consistent and unremitting efforts to defend and strengthen the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement in accordance with Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. It has been and remains the unswerving position of the Chinese Communist Party to uphold principle, uphold unity, eliminate differences and strengthen the struggle against our common enemy.

    Ever since they embarked on the path of revisionism, the leaders of the CPSU have tirelessly professed their devotion to the unity of the international communist movement. Of late, they have been particularly active in crying for "unity". This calls to mind what Engels said ninety years ago. "One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for 'unity.' Those who have this word most often on their lips are the ones who sow the most dissension. . . ." ". . . the biggest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues at times shout loudest for unity."[1]

page 304

    In order to gain a clear understanding of the nature of splittism in the present international communist movement and to struggle against it in the correct way, let us look back on the history of the international communist movement over the past century or so.

    The struggle between Marxism-Leninism and opportunism and between the forces defending unity and those creating splits runs through the history of the development of the

page 307

communist movement. This is the case both in individual countries and on the international plane. In this prolonged struggle, Marx, Engels and Lenin expounded the true essence of proletarian unity on a theoretical level and, by their deeds, set brilliant examples in combating opportunism, revisionism and splittism.

page 309

page 310

bourgeois legality instead of utilizing it and became legalists, thus opening the floodgates for opportunism.

    Hence, throughout the period of the Second International, the international working-class movement was divided into two main groups, the revolutionary Marxists and the pseudo-Marxian opportunists.

page 311

    Like other parties of the Second International the Russian SocialDemocratic Labour Party had a revolutionary as well as an opportunist group. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin constituted the former and the Mensheviks the latter.

    The Bolsheviks led by Lenin conducted prolonged theoretical and political struggles against the Mensheviks in order to safeguard the unity of the proletarian party and the purity of its ranks, and finally in 1912 expelled the Mensheviks for their persistence in opportunism and splitting activities.

page 312

and fought them face to face at the Stuttgart and Copenhagen Congresses.

page 313

    What does the history of the development of the international communist movement demonstrate?

page 314

this struggle of opposites that Marxism-Leninism and the international working-class movement have developed. And it is also through this struggle that the international working-class movement has strengthened and consolidated its unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.

    Engels said:

page 315

Both internationally and in individual countries, genuine proletarian unity is possible only on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.

    Both internationally and in individual countries, wherever opportunism and revisionism are rampant, a split becomes inevitable in the proletarian ranks. Every split in the communist movement is invariably caused by the opportunist-revisionist opposition to and betrayal of Marxism-Leninism.

    What is splittism?

    It means a split with Marxism-Leninism. Anyone who opposes and betrays Marxism-Leninism and undermines the basis of proletarian unity is a splitter.

    It means a split with the revolutionary proletarian party. Anyone who persists in a revisionist line and turns a revolutionary proletarian party into a reformist bourgeois party is a splitter.

    It means a split with the revolutionary proletariat and the broad masses of the working people. Anyone who follows a programme and line running counter to the revolutionary will and fundamental interests of the proletariat and the working people is a splitter.

    Lenin said, "Where the majority of the class-conscious workers have rallied around precise and definite decisions there is unity of opinion and action,"[1] while opportunism "is, in fact schism, in that it most unblushingly thwarts the will of the majority of the workers."[2]

    By disrupting proletarian unity, splittism serves the bourgeoisie and meets its needs. It is the consistent policy of the bourgeoisie to create splits within the ranks of the proletariat. Its most sinister method of doing so is to buy over or cultivate agents within the proletarian ranks. And agents of the bourgeoisie are exactly what the opportunists and revisionists are. So far from seeking to unite the proletariat in the fight against

page 316

the bourgeoisie, they want the proletariat to co-operate with it. This was what the revisionists of the Second International, such as Bernstein and Kautsky, did. At a time when the imperialists were most afraid that the proletariat of all countries would unite to turn the imperialist war into civil wars, they came forward to create a split in the international working-class movement and advocate co-operation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

    The splitters in the communist ranks are those who, to meet the needs of the bourgeoisie, split with Marxism-Leninism, with the revolutionary proletarian party and with the revolutionary proletariat and the broad masses of the labouring people; and they remain splitters even when for a time they are in the majority or hold the leading posts.

    In the days of the Second International, the revisionists represented by Bernstein and Kautsky were in the majority, and the Marxists represented by Lenin were in the minority. Yet obviously it was Bernstein, Kautsky and other opportunists who were the splitters, and not revolutionaries like Lenin.

    In 1904 the Mensheviks were the splitters although they held leading positions which they had usurped in the central organs of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Lenin pointed out at the time, "The leading centres (the Central Organ, the Central Committee, and the Council) have broken with the Party,"[1] and "the centres have put themselves outside the Party. There is no middle ground; one is either with the centres or with the Party."[2]

    In brief, opportunism and revisionism are the political and ideological roots of splittism. And splittism is the organizational manifestation of opportunism and revisionism. It can also be said that opportunism and revisionism are splittism as well as sectarianism. The revisionists are the greatest and, vilest splitters and sectarians in the communist movement.

page 317

    Thirdly, the history of the international communist movement demonstrates that proletarian unity has been consolidated and has developed through struggle against opportunism, revisionism and splittism. The struggle for unity is inseparably connected with the struggle for principle.

    The unity the proletariat requires is class unity, revolutionary unity, unity against the common enemy and for the great goal of communism. The unity of the international proletariat has its theoretical and political basis in Marxism-Leninism. Only when it has theoretical and political unity can the international proletariat have organizational cohesion and unity of action.

page 318

well as the only correct way to safeguard the unity of the international communist movement.

    The events of recent years show that the leaders of the CPSU headed by Khrushchov have become the chief representatives of modern revisionism as well as the greatest splitters in the international communist movement.

    Between the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU, the leaders of the CPSU developed a rounded system of revisionism. They put forward a revisionist line which contravenes the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, a line which consists of "peaceful coexistence", "peaceful competition", "peaceful transition", "a state of the whole people" and "a party of the entire people". They have tried to impose this revisionist line on all fraternal Parties as a substitute for the common line of the international communist movement which was laid down at the meetings of fraternal Parties in 1957 and 1960. And they have attacked anyone who perseveres in the Marxist-Leninist line and resists their revisionist line.

    The leaders of the CPSU have themselves undermined the basis of the unity of the international communist movement and created the present grave danger of a split by betraying Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and pushing their revisionist and divisive line.

    Far from working to consolidate and expand the socialist camp, the leaders of the CPSU have endeavoured to split and disintegrate it. They have thus made a mess of the splendid socialist camp.

    They have violated the principles guiding relations among fraternal countries as laid down in the Declaration and the Statement, pursued a policy of great-power chauvinism and

page 319

national egoism towards fraternal socialist countries and thus disrupted the unity of the socialist camp.

    They have arbitrarily infringed the sovereignty of fraternal countries, interfered in their internal affairs, carried on subversive activities and striven in every way to control fraternal countries.

    In the name of the "international division of labour", the leaders of the CPSU oppose the adoption by fraternal countries of the policy of building socialism by their own efforts and developing their economies on an independent basis, and at tempt to turn them into economic appendages. They have tried to force those fraternal countries which are comparatively backward economically to abandon industrialization and become their sources of raw materials and markets for surplus products.

    The leaders of the CPSU are quite unscrupulous in their pursuit of the policy of great-power chauvinism. They have constantly brought political, economic and even military pressure to bear on fraternal countries.

    The leaders of the CPSU have openly called for the overthrow of the Party and government leaders of Albania, brashly severed all economic and diplomatic relations with her and tyrannically deprived her of her legitimate rights as a member of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance.

    The leaders of the CPSU have violated the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, made a unilateral decision to withdraw 1,390 Soviet experts working in China, to tear up 343 contracts and supplementary contracts on the employment of experts and to cancel 257 projects of scientific and technical co-operation, and pursued a restrictive and discriminatory trade policy against China. They have provoked incidents on the Sino-Soviet border and carried on large-scale subversive activities in Sinkiang. On more than one occasion, Khrushchov went so far as to tell leading comrades of the Central Committee of the CPC that certain anti-

page 320

Party elements in the Chinese Communist Party were his "good friends". He has praised Chinese anti-Party elements for attacking the Chinese Party's general line for socialist construction, the big leap forward and the people's communes, describing their action as a "manly act".

    Such measures which gravely worsen state relations are rare even between capitalist countries. But again and again the a leaders of the CPSU have adopted shocking and extreme measures of this kind against fraternal socialist countries. Yet they go on grating about being "faithful to proletarian internationalism". We would like to ask, is there a shred of internationalism in all these deeds of yours?

    The great-power chauvinism and splittism of the leaders of the CFSU are equally glaring in their conduct vis-a-vis fraternal Parties.

    Since the 20th Congress of the CPSU its leaders have tried, on the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to change the leadership of other fraternal Parties to comform to their will. Right up to the present they have insisted on "combating the personality cult" as a precondition for the restoration of unity and as a "principle" which is "obligatory on every Communist Party".[1]

    Contrary to the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties laid down in the Declaration and the Statement, the leaders of the CPSU ignore the independent and equal status of fraternal Parties, insist on establishing a kind of feudal patriarchal domination over the international communist movement and turn the relations between brother Parties into those between a patriarchal father and his sons. Khrushchov has more than once described a fraternal Party as a "silly boy" and called himself its "mother".[2] With his feudal psychology of self-exaltation, he has absolutely no sense of shame.

page 321

    The leaders of the CPSU have completely ignored the principle of achieving unanimity through consultation among fraternal Parties and habitually make dictatorial decisions and order others about. They have recklessly torn up joint agreements with fraternal Parties, taken arbitrary decisions on important matters of common concern to fraternal Parties and forced faits accomplis on them.

    The leaders of the CPSU have violated the principle that differences among fraternal Parties should be settled through inter-Party consultation; they first used their own Party Congress and then the Congresses of other fraternal Parties as rostrums for large-scale public attacks against those fraternal Parties which firmly uphold Marxism-Leninism.

    The leaders of the CPSU regard fraternal Parties as pawns on their diplomatic chessboard. Khrushchov plays fast and loose, he blows hot and cold, he talks one way one day and another the next, and yet he insists on the fraternal Parties dancing to his every tune without knowing whence or whither.

    The leaders of the CPSU have stirred up trouble and created splits in many Communist Parties by encouraging the followers of their revisionist line in these Parties to attack the leadership, or usurp leading positions, persecute Marxist-Leninists and even expel them from the Party. It is this divisive policy of the leaders of the CPSU that has given rise to organizational splits in the fraternal Parties of many capitalist countries.

    The leaders of the CPSU have turned the magazine Problems of Peace and Socialism, originally the common journal of fraternal Parties, into an instrument for spreading revisionism, sectarianism and splittism and for making unscrupulous attacks on Marxist-Leninist fraternal Parties in violation of the agreement reached at the meeting at which the magazine was founded.

    In addition, they are imposing the revisionist line on the international democratic organizations, changing the correct line

page 322

pursued by these organizations and trying to create splits in them.

    The leaders of the CPSU have completely reversed enemies and comrades. They have directed the edge of struggle, which should be against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, against the Marxist-Leninist fraternal Parties and countries.

    The leaders of the CPSU are bent on seeking Soviet-U.S. co-operation for the domination of the world, they regard U.S. imperialism, the most ferocious enemy of the people of the world, as their most reliable friend, and they treat the fraternal Parties and countries adhering to Marxism-Leninism as their enemy. They collude with U.S. imperialism, the reactionaries of various countries, the renegade Tito clique and the Right-wing social democrats in a partnership against the socialist fraternal countries, the fraternal Parties, the Marxist-Leninists and the revolutionary people of all countries.

    When they snatch at a straw from Eisenhower or Kennedy or others like them, or think that things are going smoothly for them, the leaders of the CPSU are beside themselves with joy, hit out wildly at the fraternal Parties and countries adhering to Marxism-Leninism, and endeavour to sacrifice fraternal Parties and countries on the altar of their political dealings with U.S. imperialism.

    When their wrong policies come to grief and they find themselves in difficulties, the leaders of the CPSU become angrier and more red-faced than ever, again hit out wildly at the fraternal Parties and countries adhering to Marxism-Leninism, and try to make others their scapegoats.

    These facts show that the leaders of the CPSU have taken the road of complete betrayal of proletarian internationalism, in contravention of the interests of the Soviet people, the socialist camp and the international communist movement and those of all revolutionary people.

    These facts clearly demonstrate that the leaders of the CPSU counterpose their revisionism to Marxism-Leninism, their great-power chauvinism and national egoism to proletarian

page 323

internationalism and their sectarianism and splittism to the international unity of the proletariat. Thus, like all the opportunists and revisionists of the past, the leaders of the CPSU have turned into creators of splits in many fraternal Parties, the socialist camp and the entire international communist movement.

    The revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU constitute a greater danger than those of any other opportunists and splitters, whether past or present. As everyone knows, this revisionism is occurring in the CPSU, the Party which was created by Lenin and which has enjoyed the highest prestige among all Communist Parties; it is occurring in the great Soviet Union, the first socialist country. For many years, Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people the world over have held the CPSU in high esteem and regarded the Soviet Union as the base of world revolution and the model of struggle. And the leaders of the CPSU have taken advantage of all this -- of the prestige of the Party created by Lenin and of the first socialist country -- to cover up the essence of their revisionism and splittism and deceive those who are still unaware of the truth. At the same time, these past masters in double-dealing are shouting "unity, unity", while actually engaged in splitting. To a certain extent, their tricks do temporarily confuse people. Traditional confidence in the CPSU and ignorance of the facts have prevented quite a few people from recognizing the revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU sooner.

    Because the leaders of the CPSU exercise state power in a large socialist country which exerts world-wide influence, their revisionist and divisive line has done far greater harm to the international communist movement and the proletarian cause of world revolution than that of any of the opportunists and splitters of the past.

    It can be said that the leaders of the CPSU are the greatest eof all revisionists as well as the greatest of all sectarians and Splitters known to history.

page 324

    It is already clear that the revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU have greatly assisted the spread of the revisionist torrent internationally and rendered enormous service to imperialism and the reactionaries of all countries.

    The revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU are the product both of the lush growth of the bourgeois elements inside the Soviet Union, and of imperialist policy, and particularly of the U.S. imperialist policies of nuclear blackmail and "peaceful evolution". In turn, their revisionist and divisive theories and policies cater not only to the widespread capitalist forces at home but also to imperialism, and serve to paralyse the revolutionary will and to obstruct the revolutionary struggle of the people of the world.

    Indeed, the leaders of the CPSU have already won warm praise and applause from imperialism and its lackeys.

page 325

page 326

    The leaders of the CPSU accuse all who resist and criticize their revisionism and splittism of being anti-Soviet. This is a terrifying charge. To oppose the first socialist country in the world and the Party founded by the great Lenin -- what insolence!

    But we advise the leaders of the CPSU not to indulge in histrionics. The anti-Soviet charge can never apply to us.

    We also advise the leaders of the CPSU not to become self-intoxicated. The anti-Soviet charge can never silence Marxist-Leninists.

page 327

the people of the Soviet Union who, under the leadership of Lenin's Party, lit the triumphant torch of the October Revolution, opened up the new era of world proletarian revolution and marched in the van along the road to communism in the years that followed. It was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet state which, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, pursued a Marxist-Leninist domestic and foreign policy, scored unprecedented achievements in socialist construction, made the greatest contribution to victory in the war against fascism and gave internationalist support to the revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and working people of all other countries.

    Not long before his death, Stalin said:

page 328

demand of the people in the countries of the socialist camp and of the international proletariat and working people that all Communist Parties in the socialist camp should:

  (1) adhere to the Marxist-Leninist line and pursue correct Marxist-Leninist domestic and foreign policies;
  (2) consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the worker-peasant alliance led by the proletariat and carry the socialist revolution forward to the end on the economic, political and ideological fronts;
  (3) promote the initiative and creativeness of the broad masses, carry out socialist construction in a planned way, develop production, improve the people's livelihood and strengthen national defense;
  (4) strengthen the unity of the socialist camp on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, and support other socialist countries on the basis of proletarian internationalism;
  (5) oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war, and defend world peace;
  (6) oppose the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counter-revolutionary policies of the reactionaries of all countries; and ,
  (7) help the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed classes and nations of the world.

    It adds that all Communist Parties in the socialist camp "owe it to their own people and to the international proletariat and working people to fulfil these demands".

    But instead, the leaders of the CPSU have abandoned these demands, disappointed the hopes of the fraternal Parties and pursued a revisionist and divisive line. This violates the interests not only of the international proletariat and working people but also of the CPSU, the Soviet state and the Soviet people themselves.

    It is none other than the leaders of the CPSU headed by Khrushchov who are anti-Soviet.

page 329

    The leaders of the CPSU have completely negated Stalin and painted the first dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist system as dark and dreadful. What is this if not anti-Soviet?

    The leaders of the CPSU have proclaimed the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, altered the proletarian character of the CPSU and opened the floodgates for capitalist forces in the Soviet Union. What is this if not anti-Soviet?

    The leaders of the CPSU seek U.S.-Soviet co-operation and tirelessly fawn upon U.S. imperialism, and have thus disgraced he great Soviet Union. What is this if not anti-Soviet?

    The leaders of the CPSU pursue the policy of great-power chauvinism and treat fraternal socialist countries as dependencies, and have thus damaged the prestige of the Soviet state. What is this if not anti-Soviet?

    The leaders of the CPSU obstruct and oppose the revoluionary struggles of other peoples and act as apologists for imperialism and neo-colonialism, and have thus tarnished the glorious internationalist tradition of Lenin's Party. What is his if not anti-Soviet?

    In short, the actions of the leaders of the CPSU have brought deep shame upon the great Soviet Union and the CPSU and seriously damaged the fundamental interests of the Soviet people. They are anti-Soviet actions through and through.

    Naturally, in these circumstances, the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist-Leninist Parties and Marxist-Leninists are bound to subject the revisionist and divisive line of the leaders of the CPSU to serious criticism for the purpose of defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the unity of the international communist movement and upholding the principle of proletarian internationalism. We oppose only the revisionist and divisive errors of the leaders of the CPSU. And we do so for the sake of defending the CPSU founded by Lenin and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Soviet Union, the first socialist country, and of the Soviet people. How can this be described as anti-Soviet?

page 330

    Whether one defends or opposes the Soviet Union depends on whether or not one truly defends the line of Marxism-Leninism and the principle of proletarian internationalism and whether or not one truly defends the fundamental interests of the Soviet Party, the Soviet state and the Soviet people. To subject the leaders of the CPSU to serious criticism for their revisionism and splittism is to defend the Soviet Union. On the other hand, to pursue a revisionist and divisive line, as the leaders of the CPSU are doing, is actually to oppose the Soviet Union; and to copy this wrong line or submit to it is not genuinely to defend the Soviet Union but to help the leaders of the CPSU damage the fundamental interests of the Soviet people.

    Here we may recall Lenin's attitude to the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party in the early years of the 20th century. The German Social-Democratic Party was then the biggest and most influential party in the Second International. But as soon as Lenin discovered opportunism among its leaders, he made it clear to the Russian Social-Democrats that they should not take "the least creditable features of German Social-Democracy as a model worthy of imitation"[1] He further stated:

    We must criticise the mistakes of the German leaders fearlessly and openly if we wish to be true to the spirit of Marx and help the Russian socialists to be equal to the present-day tasks of the workers' movement.[1]

page 331

people, and in the interests of the socialist camp and the international communist movement and for the sake of their unity.

    The leaders of the CPSU ascribe our criticisms and our opposition to their revisionist and divisive line to a desire to "seize the leadership".

    First, we would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: You say we want to seize the leadership. From whom? Who now holds the leadership? In the international communist movement, is there such a thing as a leadership which lords it over all fraternal Parties? And is this leadership in your hands?

    Apparently, the leaders of the CPSU consider themselves the natural leaders who can lord it over all fraternal Parties. According to their logic, their programme, resolutions and statements are all infallible laws. Every remark and every word of Khrushchov's are imperial edicts, however wrong or absurd they may be. All fraternal Parties must submissively hear and obey and are absolutely forbidden to criticize or ow pose them. This is outright tyranny. It is the ideology of feudal autocrats, pure and simple.

    However, we must tell the leaders of the CPSU that the international communist movement is not some feudal clique. Whether large or small, whether new or old, and whether in or out of power, all fraternal Parties are independent and equal. No meeting of fraternal Parties and no agreement unanimously adopted by them has ever stipulated that there are superior and subordinate Parties, one Party which leads and other Parties which are led, a Party which is a father and Parties which are sons, or that the leaders of the CPSU are the supreme rulers over other fraternal Parties.

    The history of the international proletarian revolutionary movement shows that, owing to the uneven development of

page 332

revolution, at a particular historical stage the proletariat and its party in one country or another marched in the van of the movement.

    Marx anal Engels pointed out that the trade union movement in Britain and the political struggle of the French working class were successively in the van of the international proletarian movement. After the defeat of the Paris Commune, Engels said that "the German workers have for the moment been placed in the vanguard of the proletarian struggle". He went on to say:

page 334

    . . . to the extent that the internal as well as the international situation of individual countries became more complicated, the solution of the problems of the labour movement of each country through the medium of some international centre would meet with insuperable obstacles.

Events have shown that this resolution corresponded to reality and was correct.

    In the present international communist movement, the question of who has the right to lead whom simply does not arise. Fraternal Parties should be independent and completely equal, and at the same time they should be united. On questions of common concern they should reach unanimity of views through consultation, and they should concert their actions in the struggle for the common goal. These principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties are clearly stipulated in the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960.

    It is a flagrant violation of these principles, as laid down in the Declaration and the Statement, for the leaders of the CPSU to consider themselves the leaders of the international communist movement and to treat all fraternal Parties as their subordinates.

    Because of their different historical backgrounds, the fraternal Parties naturally find themselves in different situations. Those Parties which have won victory in their revolutions differ from those which have not yet done so, and those which won victory earlier differ from those which did so later. But these differences only mean that the victorious Parties, and in particular the Parties which won victory earlier, have to bear a greater internationalist responsibility in supporting other fraternal Parties, and they have absolutely no right to dominate other fraternal Parties.

    The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was built by Lenin and Stalin. It was the first Party to win the victory of the proletarian revolution, realize the dictatorship of the proletariat and engage in socialist construction. It was only

page 335

logical that the CPSU should carry forward the revolutionary tradition of Lenin and Stalin, shoulder greater responsibility in supporting other fraternal Parties and countries and stand in the van of the international communist movement.

    Taking these historical circumstances into account, the Chinese Communist Party expressed the sincere hope that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would shoulder this glorious historic mission. At the 1957 Moscow Meeting of the fraternal Parties, our delegation emphasized that the socialist camp should have the Soviet Union at its head. The reason was that, although they had committed some mistakes, "the leaders of the CPSU did finally accept the Moscow Declaration which was unanimously adopted by the fraternal Parties. Our proposal that the socialist camp should have the Soviet Union at its head was written into the Declaration.

    We hold that the existence of the position of head does not contradict the principle of equality among fraternal Parties. It does not mean that the CPSU has any right to control other Parties; what it means is that the CPSU carries greater responsibility and duties on its shoulders.

    However, the leaders of the CPSU have not been satisfied with this position of "head". Khrushchov complained of it on many occasions. He said, "What does 'at the head' give us materially? It gives us neither milk nor butter, neither potatoes nor vegetables nor flats. Perhaps it gives us some thing morally? Nothing at all!"[1] Later he said, "What is the use of 'at the head' for us? To hell with it!"[2]

    The leaders of the CPSU say they have no desire for the position of "head", but in practice they demand the privilege of lording it over all fraternal Parties. They do not require themselves to stand in the van of the international commu-

page 336

nist movement in pursuing the Marxist-Leninist line and fulfilling their proletarian internationalist duty, but they do require all fraternal Parties to obey their baton and follow them along the path of revisionism and splittism.

    By embarking on the path of revisionism and splittism, the leaders of the CPSU automatically forfeited the position of "head" in the international communist movement. If the word "head" is now to be applied to them, it can only mean that they are at the head of the revisionists and splitters.

    The question confronting all Communists and the entire international communist movement today is not who is the leader over whom, but whether one should uphold Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism or submit to the revisionism and splittism of the leaders of the CPSU. In spreading the slander that we want to seize the leadership, the leaders of the CPSU are in fact insisting that all fraternal Parties, including our own, must bow to their revisionist and divisive leadership.

    In their attacks on the Chinese Communist Party since 1960, the leaders of the CPSU have most frequently resorted to the charge that we "frustrate the will of the majority" and "violate international discipline". Let us review our debate with them on this question.

    At the Bucharest meeting in June 1960 the leaders of the CPSU made a surprise assault on the Chinese Communist Party by distributing their Letter of Information attacking it and tried to coerce it into submission by lining up a majority. Their attempt did not succeed. But after the meeting they advanced the argument that the minority must submit to the majority in relations among fraternal Parties, and de-

page 337

manded that the CPC should respect the "views and will unanimously expressed" at the Bucharest meeting on the pretext that the delegates of scores of Parties had opposed the views of the CPC.

    This erroneous argument was refuted by the Central Committee of the CPC in its Letter of Reply, dated September 10, 1960, to the Letter of Information of the Central Committee of the CPSU. It pointed out:

    . . . where the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism are concerned, the problem of exactly who is right and who is wrong cannot in every case be judged by who has the majority. After all, truth is truth. Error cannot be turned into truth because of a temporary majority, nor will truth be turned into error because of a temporary minority.

    Yet in its letter of November 5, 1960, the Central Committee of the CPSU repeated the fallacy about the minority's submitting to the majority in the international communist movement. Quoting a passage from Lenin's article "The Duma 'Seven' ", it accused the CPC, saying that "he who does not wish to respect the opinion of the majority of the fraternal Parties is in essence coming out against the unity and solidarity of the international communist movement".

    At the Moscow Meeting of the fraternal Parties in 1960, the delegation of the CPC once more refuted this fallacy of the leaders of the CPSU. It declared that it is totally wrong to apply the principle of the minority's submitting to the majority to the relations among fraternal Parties in actual present-day conditions in which centralized leadership such as that of the Comintern neither exists nor is desirable. Within a Party the principle that the minority should submit to the majority and the lower Party organization to the higher one should be observed. But it cannot be applied to relations among fraternal Parties. In their mutual relations, each fraternal Party maintains its independence and at the same

page 338

time unites with all the others. Here, the relationship in which the minority should submit to the majority does not exist, and still less so the relationship in which a lower Party organization should submit to a higher one. The only way to deal with problems of common concern to fraternal Parties is to hold discussions and reach unanimous agreement in accordance with the principle of consultation.

    The delegation of the CPC pointed out that by advancing the principle that the minority should submit to the majority in its letter, the Central Committee of the CPSU had obviously repudiated the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation. Our delegation asked:

    On what supra-Party constitution does the Central Committee of the CPSU base itself in advancing such an organizational principle? When and where did the Communist and Workers' Parties of all countries ever adopt such a supra-Party constitution?

    The delegation of the CPC then proceeded to expose the ruse of the Central Committee of the CPSU in deliberately omitting the word "Russian" from its citation of a passage dealing with the situation within the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party from Lenin's article "The Duma 'Seven'", in order to extend the principle of the minority's submitting to the majority, which is valid within a Party, to the relations among fraternal Parties.

    The delegation of the CPC further stated:

    . . . even within a Party, where the principle of the minority's submitting to the majority must be observed organizationally, it cannot be said that on questions of ideological understanding truth can always be told from error on the basis of which is the majority and which the minority opinion. It was in this very article, "The Duma 'Seven'", that Lenin severely denounced the despicable action of the seven liquidationists in the Party fraction in

page 339

page 340

us some time ago. It is precisely because the Chinese Communist Party and other fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties persistently opposed this fallacy that the principle of achieving unanimity through consultation among the fraternal Parties was written into the Statement of 1960.

    Yet even now the leaders of the CPSU keep on clamouring that "the minority should submit to the majority". This can only mean that they wish to deny the independent and equal status of all fraternal Parties and to abolish the principle of achieving unanimity through consultation. They are trying to force some fraternal Parties to submit to their will on the pretext of a "majority", and to use the sham preponderance thus obtained to attack fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties. Their very actions are sectarian and divisive and violate the Declaration and the Statement.

    Today, if one speaks of an international discipline binding on all Communist Parties, it can only mean observance of the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid down in the Declaration and the Statement. We have cited a great many facts to prove that these principles have been violated by the leaders of the CPSU themselves.

    If the CPSU leaders insist on marking off the "majority" from the "minority", then we would like to tell them quite frankly that we do not recognize their majority. The majority you bank on is a false one. The genuine majority is not on your side. Is it true that the members of fraternal Parties which uphold Marxism-Leninism are a minority in the international communist movement? You and your followers are profoundly alienated from the masses, so how can the great mass of Party members and people who disapprove of your wrong line be counted as part of your majority?

    The fundamental question is: Who stands with the broad masses of the people? Who represents their basic interests? And who reflects their revolutionary will?

    In 1916 Lenin said of the situation in the German Social-Democratic Party:

page 341

page 342

because they accepted the revisionist line imposed on them by the leaders of the CPSU or because their own revisionist line was encouraged by the leaders of the CPSU. By following the leaders of the CPSU and banging the drum for them in the struggle between the two lines in the international communist movement, they adversely affect the unity of the movement. Inevitably this arouses widespread dissatisfaction inside their own Parties and resistance and opposition from the Marxist-Leninists in them.

    Aping the leaders of the CPSU, their followers practise a divisive policy inside their own Parties. Violating the principle of democratic centralism, they forbid normal inner-Party discussion of differences concerning the Party line and of major problems confronting the international communist movement. Moreover, they illegitimately ostracize, attack and even expel Communists who adhere to principle. As a result the struggle between the two lines within the Parties inevitably takes on a particularly acute form.

    In essence, the struggle within these Communist Parties turns on whether to follow the Marxist-Leninist line or the revisionist line, and whether to make the Communist Party a genuine vanguard of the proletariat and a genuine revolutionary proletarian party or to convert it into a servant of the bourgeoisie and a variant of the Social-Democratic Party.

    In the Open Letter, the leaders of the CPSU present a distorted picture of the struggles within the Communist Parties of the United States of America, Brazil, Italy, Belgium, Australia and India. They vilify in the most malicious language those Marxist-Leninists who have been attacked and ostracized by the revisionist groups in their own Parties.

    Is it possible for the leaders of the CPSU to conceal or alter the truth about the struggles within these Communist Parties by calling white black and black white? No. They certainly cannot!

    Take for example the inner-Party struggle in the Belgian Communist Party.

page 343

    Differences have existed inside the Belgian Communist Party for a long time. The struggle within the Party has become increasingly acute as the original leading group has sunk deeper and deeper into the quagmire of revisionism and abandoned Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.

    During the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary, the revisionist group in the Belgian Communist Party went so far as to issue a statement condemning the Soviet Union for helping the Hungarian working people to put down the rebellion.

page 344

    In the face of these betrayals of the interests of the Belgian working class and the international proletariat, it is only natural that Belgian Marxist-Leninists headed by Comrade Jacques Grippa earnestly struggled against this revisionist group. They have exposed and repudiated the errors of the revisionist group inside the Party and have firmly resisted and opposed its revisionist line.

    Thus it is clear that the struggle inside the Belgian Communist Party is a struggle between the Marxist-Leninist and the revisionist line.

    How has the revisionist group in the Belgian Communist Party handled this inner-Party struggle? They have pursued a sectarian and divisive policy and used illegitimate means to attack and ostracize those Communists who have persevered in a principled Marxist-Leninist stand. At the 14th Congress of the Belgian Communist Party they refused to allow Jacques Grippa and other comrades to speak and, disregarding the widespread opposition of the membership, illegitimately declared them expelled from the Party.

    It is in these circumstances that Belgian Marxist-Leninists; headed by Comrade Jacques Grippa, upholding the revolutionary line, have firmly combated the revisionist and divisive line pursued by the original leading group and fought to rebuild the Belgian Communist Party. Are not their actions absolutely correct and above reproach?

    In openly supporting the revisionist group in the Belgian Party and encouraging it to attack and ostracize Belgian Marxist-Leninists, the leaders of the CPSU have simply exposed themselves as creators of splits in fraternal Parties.

    As for the Indian Communist Party, its situation is even graver.

    On the basis of a wealth of facts, we pointed out in "A Mirror for Revisionists", published by the editorial department of Renmin Ribao on March 9, 1963, that the renegade clique headed by Dange had betrayed Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, betrayed the rev-

page 345

olutionary cause of the Indian proletariat and people and embarked on the road of national chauvinism and class capitulationism. This clique has usurped the leadership of the Indian Communist Party and, conforming to the will of the Indian capitalists and landlords, has been transforming the Party into a lackey of the Nehru government which represents their interests.

    What has happened to the Indian Communist Party since then?

    Now everybody can see that the Dange clique is still travelling on the road of betrayal. It is still advocating class collaboration and the realization of socialism in India through the Nehru government. It actively supported the Nehru government's huge budget providing for arms expansion and war preparation, and its measures for fleecing the people. In August 1963 it sabotaged the great strike of one million people in Bombay against the Nehru government's ruthless taxation policy. It tried to obstruct the holding of a mass rally in Calcutta demanding the release of the imprisoned Communists, in which 100,000 people participated. It is continuing its frenzied anti-Chinese activities and supporting the Nehru government's expansionist policy. It is following the Nehru government's policy of hiring itself out to U.S. imperialism.

    As their renegade features are revealed, Dange and company meet increasing opposition and resistance from the broad rank and file of the Indian Communist Party. More and more Indian Communists have come to see clearly that Dange and company are the bane of the Indian Communist Party and the Indian nation. They are now struggling to rehabilitate the Party's glorious and militant revolutionary tradition. They are the genuine representatives and the hope of the Indian proletariat and the Indian people.

    The leaders of the CPSU clamour about the Chinese Communist Party's support of "defectors" and "renegades", but is they themselves who support such out-and-out defectors and renegades as Dance and company.

page 346

    The leaders of the CPSU denounce Communists in many countries who dare to combat revisionism and splittism as "defectors", "renegades" and "anti-party elements". But what have these Communists done? Nothing except to adhere to Marxism-Leninism and insist on a revolutionary party and a revolutionary line. Do the leaders of the CPSU really think that their abuse can cow these Marxist-Leninists, make them abandon their struggle for the correct and against the wrong line, and prevent them from carrying it through to the end? This wishful thinking can never be transformed into reality.

    Everywhere and at all times, true revolutionaries, true proletarian revolutionary fighters, true Marxist-Leninists (militant materialists), are dauntless people; they are no afraid of the abuse of the reactionaries and revisionists. For they know it is not such seemingly formidable giants as the reactionaries and revisionists, but "nobodies" like themselves who represent the future. All great men were once nobodies. Provided that they possess the truth and enjoy the support of the masses, those who are seemingly insignificant at first are sure to be victorious in the end. This was true of Lenin and of the Third International. On the other hand, the celebrities and the big battalions inevitably dwindle, decline and putrefy when they lose possession of the truth and therefore lose the support of the masses. This was the case with Bernstein, Kautsky and the Second International. Everything tends to change into its opposite in particular conditions.

    Communists are makers of revolution. If they refuse to make revolutions, they cease to be Marxist-Leninists and become revisionists and such-like. As Marxist-Leninists, Communists by their very nature should adhere to their revolutionary stand and oppose revisionism. Similarly, a Marxist. Leninist Party should as a matter of course give firm support to revolutionaries and to Communists who oppose revisionism.

    The Chinese Communist Party has never concealed its position. We support all revolutionary comrades who adhere

page 347

to Marxism-Leninism. In the international communist movement, we have contacts with revisionists; why then can we not have contacts with Marxist-Leninists? The leaders of the CPSU describe our support for Marxist-Leninists in other countries as a divisive act. In our opinion, it is simply a proletarian internationalist obligation which it is our duty to discharge.

    Fearing no difficulty or tyranny, upholding truth and daring to struggle, Marxist-Leninists in all countries have demonstrated the great revolutionary spirit of communist fighters. Among such heroic fighters are the Belgian Communists represented by Jacques Grippa and other comrades, the Brazilian Communists represented by Joao Amazonas, Mauricio Grabois and other comrades, the Australian Communists represented by E. F. Hill and other. comrades, the Ceylonese Communists represented by Premalal Kumarasiri, Nagalingam Sanmugathasan and other comrades, and the many Marxist-Leninists both inside and outside the Indian, Italian, French, U.S. and other Communist Parties. They have made important contributions to the common world proletarian cause by upholding the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, by working persistently to build revolutionary vanguard parties of the proletariat armed with Marxist-Leninist principles, and by persevering in the revolutionary line that conforms with the fundamental interests of the proletariat and other working people of their own countries. They deserve the respect, sympathy and support of all people fighting for the victory of communism throughout the world.

    In short, whatever the country or place, where one finds oppression, there one finds resistance; where one finds revisionists, there one finds Marxist-Leninists fighting them, and where one finds expulsion of Marxist-Leninists from the Party and other divisive measures, there outstanding Marxist-Leninists and strong revolutionary parties inevitably emerge. Changes contrary to the expectations of the modern revision-

page 348

ists are taking place. The revisionists are producing their own opposites and will eventually be buried by them. This is an inexorable law.

    In the last analysis, the present great debate in the international communist movement centres on whether to adhere to Marxism-Leninism or to revisionism, whether to adhere to proletarian internationalism or to great-power chauvinism and whether to desire unity or a split. This dispute over fundamental principles began long ago, following the 20th Congress of the CPSU. It went on in private talks between fraternal Parties for a considerable time until it came into the open a little more than two years ago.

    As everybody knows, the leaders of the CPSU first provoked and insisted on the open polemics in the international communist movement.

    At their 22nd Congress in October 1961, they made public attacks on the Albanian Party of Labour. In his address at that Congress, Comrade Chou En-lai, the head of the Chinese Communist Party delegation, took exception to this action by the leaders of the CPSU, pointing out that it could not be regarded as representing a serious Marxist-Leninist attitude. What was the answer of the Soviet Party leaders? They declared that they were "absolutely correct"[1] and were taking "the only correct and genuinely Marxist-Leninist position of principle"[2] in starting the open polemics.

page 349

should be stopped by the Parties". This suggestion was supported by the Chinese Communist Party, the Albanian Party of Labour and other fraternal Parties. But in effect the leaders of the CPSU refused to make a definite commitment to halt public polemics. Far from stopping their open attacks on the Albanian Party of Labour, they proceeded to engineer open attacks on the Chinese Communist Party too at the successive Congresses of five fraternal Parties in Europe in late 1962 and early 1963, and so launched another round of open polemics on an even wider scale. This gave us no choice but to make public replies to the attackers.

    Although we had not yet answered all the attacks by fraternal Parties, in its reply to the Central Committee of the CPSU in March 1963 the Central Committee of our Party stated that in order to create a favourable atmosphere for the scheduled talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties we would temporarily suspend public replies in the press from March 9, without prejudice to our rights. But on the eve of the talks the leaders of the CPSU took the further step of openly attacking the Chinese Communist Party by name in their Party statements and resolutions.

page 352

September 21 we have been eagerly waiting to see what "the most resolute rebuff" would be.

    Comrades and friends! You are mistaken, completely mistaken.

    Now that the public debate is on, it must proceed according to rule. If you think you have said enough, you should allow the other side ample chance to reply. If you think you still have a lot to say, please say it all. But when you do so, let the other side have his full say as well. In a word, there should be equal rights. Have not you, too, said that fraternal Parties are equal? Why then do you insist that you may start public polemics whenever you want to attack fraternal Parties and at the same time deprive the Parties so attacked of their right to make public replies whenever you choose to stop the polemics?

    The leaders of the CPSU unscrupulously provoked, extended and insisted on the open polemics, but now they have begun to clamour for their cessation. What is behind all this?

    Apparently, things have not developed according to the expectations of the launchers of these polemics. The public debate, which the leaders of the CPSU at first thought would be to their advantage, is developing in a way contrary to their wishes. Truth is not on the side of the leaders of the CPSU, and therefore in their attacks on others they can only depend on lies, slanders, distortion of the facts and confusion of right and wrong. When argument develops and it becomes necessary to produce facts and reason things out, they find the ground slipping from under their feet and take fright.

    Lenin once said that for revisionists "there is nothing more disagreeable, undesirable, unacceptable than the elucidation of the prevailing theoretical, programmatic, tactical, and organizational differences".[1]

page 353

    This is precisely the situation in which the leaders of the CPSU now find themselves.

    The stand of the Chinese Communist Party on public polemics is known to all. From the very beginning, we have held that differences among fraternal Parties should be resolved through private consultations. The public polemics were neither provoked nor desired by us.

page 354

debate in the international communist movement is impelling Communists, revolutionists and revolutionary people in all countries to use their brains and ponder over problems concerning the revolution in their own countries and the world revolution in accordance with the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism. Through this great debate, people will be able to distinguish between right and wrong and between real and sham Marxism-Leninism. Through this great debate, all the revolutionary forces in the world will be mobilized, and all Marxist-Leninists will be tempered ideologically and politically and will be able to integrate Marxism-Leninism with concrete practice in their own countries in a more mature way. Thus, Marxism-Leninism will undoubtedly be further enriched, developed and raised to new heights.

    The revisionism and great-power chauvinism of the leaders of the CPSU are an unprecedented menace to the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement. By taking a revisionist and great-power chauvinist position, the leaders of the CPSU are standing for a split. So long as they maintain such a position, they are in fact working for sham unity and a real split no matter how volubly they may talk of "unity" and abuse others as "splitters" and "sectarians" .

    The Chinese Communist Party, other Marxist-Leninist Parties and all Marxist-Leninists persevere in Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. This position is the only correct one for defending and strengthening the genuine unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement.

    Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism constitute the basis of that unity. Only on this basis can the unity of fraternal Parties and countries be built. Such unity

page 355

will be out of the question if one departs from this basis. To fight for Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism is to work for the unity of the international communist movement. Persevering in principle and upholding unity are inextricably bound together.

    If the leaders of the CPSU genuinely want unity and are not just pretending, they should loyally abide by the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism and by the Marxist-Leninist teachings concerning classes and class struggle, the state and revolution, and especially proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is absolutely impermissible for them to substitute class collaboration or class capitulation for class struggle, and social reformism or social pacifism for proletarian revolution, or abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat no matter under what pretext.

    If the leaders of the CPSU genuinely want unity and are not just pretending, they should strictly abide by the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement. It is absolutely impermissible for them to substitute their own Party programme for the common programme which was unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties.

    If the leaders of the CPSU genuinely want unity and are not just pretending, they should draw a sharp line of demarcation between enemies and comrades and should unite with all socialist countries, all fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties, the proletariat of the whole world, all oppressed people and nations and all peace-loving countries and people in order to oppose U.S. imperialism, the arch-enemy of the people of the world, and its lackeys. It is absolutely impermissible for them to treat enemies as friends and friends as enemies, and to ally themselves with the U.S. imperialists, the reactionaries of various countries and the renegade Tito clique against fraternal countries and Parties and all revolutionary people, in the vain pursuit of world domination through U.S.-Soviet collaboration.

page 356

    If the leaders of the CPSU genuinely want unity and are not just pretending, they should be faithful to proletarian internationalism and strictly abide by the principles guiding relations among fraternal countries and Parties, as laid down in the Declaration and the Statement. It is absolutely impermissible for them to replace these principles with policies of great-power chauvinism and national egoism. In other words, they should:

  Observe the principle of solidarity and never line up a number of fraternal Parties to attack other fraternal Parties and engage in sectarian and divisive activities;
  Adhere to the principle of mutual support and mutual assistance and never try to control others in the name of assistance or, on the pretext of the "international division of labour", impair the sovereignty and interests of fraternal countries and oppose their building socialism through self-reliance;
  Observe the principle of independence and equality and never place themselves above other fraternal Parties or impose their own Party's programme, line and resolutions on others; never interfere in the internal affairs of fraternal Parties and carry out subversive activities under the pretext of "combating the personality cult"; and never treat fraternal Parties as their property and fraternal countries as their dependencies;
  Follow the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation and never force through their own Party's wrong line in the name of the so-called majority or use the Congresses of their own Party or of other Parties and such forms as resolutions, statements and leaders' speeches for public and explicit attacks on other fraternal Parties, and certainly never extend ideological differences to state relations.

    In short, if the leaders of the CPSU genuinely desire the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist

page 357

movement, they must make a clean break with their line of revisionism, great-power chauvinism and splittism. The unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement can be safeguarded and strengthened only by remaining loyal to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and by opposing modern revisionism and modern dogmatism, great-power chauvinism and other forms of bourgeois nationalism, and sectarianism and splittism, and by doing so not merely in words but in deeds. This is the sole way to defend and strengthen unity.

    Taken as a whole, the present world situation is most favourable. The international communist movement has already gained brilliant victories, bringing about a fundamental change in the international balance of class forces. At present the international communist movement is being assailed by an adverse current of revisionism and splittism; this phenomenon is not inconsistent with the law of historical development. Even though it creates temporary difficulties for the international communist movement and some fraternal Parties, it is a good thing that the revisionists have revealed their true features and that a struggle between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism has ensued.

    Without any doubt, Marxism-Leninism will continue to demonstrate its youthful vitality and will sweep the whole world; the international communist movement will grow stronger and more united on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and the cause of the international proletariat and the world people's revolution will win still more brilliant victories. Modern revisionism will undoubtedly go bankrupt.

    We would like to advise the leaders of the CPSU to think matters over calmly: what will your clinging to revisionism and splittism lead to? Once again, we would like to make a sincere appeal to the leaders of the CPSU: We hope you will be able to return to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, to the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement and to the principles

page 358

guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries as laid down in these documents, so that the differences will be eliminated and the unity of the international communist movement and the socialist camp and unity between China and the Soviet Union will be strengthened on these principled bases.

    Despite our serious differences with the leaders of the CPSU, we have full confidence in the vast membership of the CPSU and in the Soviet people, who grew up under the guidance of Lenin and Stalin. As always, the Communists and the people of China will unswervingly safeguard the unity between China and the Soviet Union, and consolidate and develop the deep-rooted friendship between our two peoples.

    Communists of the world, unite on the basis of Marxism-Leninism!