Vols Ll. No 52 Special odition price sixpence KHRUSHCHOV, MAO ND TROTSKYISI
Dec 31st 1962
In this last issue of the Bulletin for. 1962 we have given a great deal of gpaco over to the Sino/Russian disputo and moterial rolating to this question. Wy is becauso this dispute has now bocome the most important polemic since the days of the Left Opposition, Khrushchov has accused his critics of 'sliding into Trotskyist positions' and of acting the way Trotsky would if he were alive. This is not merely o question of using tho most damaging swear words, but is a reflecé: ®f tho deop underlying idoelogical differonces which pose again the questions “the 1920's, The roots of these differences have boon dealt with clsowhere, but roproduce here an oxtensivo summary of tho latest statement of the Chinese casce This boing the Hsinhua summary of the 13,000 article appearing in the Pooplo's Daily of 31st, Dec., entitled the "Differences betweon comrade Togliatii and us." We have for the purposes of accuracy stuck to tho Hsinhua translation, One is struck all the way through, espocially when reading the full article, by the similarity of the Chinese critique of Togliatti's position (read Khrushchov) and that of a Trotskyist critique. On one important position however we would difforontiate ourselves, that of the statement of Jugoslavia being 2 capitalist state bacaussa of the policies of the Tito leadership. Tho Chinese do not make a critique of the bureaucracy and still rogard Trotsky as a 'renoyado! (soo statement on ‘letter! in Tribuno), Howovery “TF they go no furthor they have provided the left with an armoury of arguments against present—dey Stalinism. The Summary roedss
"The People's Daily of Decombor 31st carries an important editorial entitleds "The difforoncos betweon Comrade Togliatti and us." The cditorial says that it was not tho desire of the Chinese Commmist Party to discuss the difforences in public, but at the recent 10th Congress of the Italian Communist Party, Comrade Togliatti and certain other comrades in the C.P.I. rudely attacked the Chinese Communist Party and other fraternal parties on a sarios of important quest ions of principle, and persisted in conducting a public debate. In such circumstaneos, the editorial says, "Wo cannot romain silent but must publicly answor the attacks on us by Comrade Togliatti and other comrades, nor can we romain silent about the views they exprossed in contravention of tho fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism and of the revolutionary principles of the Moscow declarnition and the Moscow statement but must publily comment on thsse views."
"The editorial analyses the essonce of the views of Togliatti and cert~ ain other C.P.I. leadors which run countor to Marxism-Leninism. "In the final. analysis", the editorial states, “the stand taken by Togliatti and certain other C.P.1. leaders boils down to this -~ the people of the capitalist countries should not make revolutions, tho oppressed nations should not wage struggle to win liber= ation, and the people of the world should not fight against imporialism. actually, all this exactly suits the needs of tho imporialists and the roactionaries." The first section of the editorial deals with the differences between the two parties on the question of war and peace. It explains tho consistent stand of the Chinese Commanist on this question, and analyses in detail three points which aro at issue.
"tOn the question of how to avert world war and safeguard world peace, the Chinese Commnist Party has consistontly stood for the resolute exposure of imperialism, for strengthening the socialist camp, for firm support of the national liberation movements and the people's revolutionary struggles, for the broadast alliance of all the peace-loving countries and the poople of the world, and at the same time, for taking full advantage of the contradictions among our onemies, and for utilising the method of nogotiation. as well as other forms of strusgla. Ths aim of this stand is precisely tho effective prevention of world war and prescrvation of peace. This stand fully conforms with Marxism-Leninism and with the Moscow declaration. and tho Moscow statement. It is the corroct policy for preventing world war and defending world peace. We persist in this correct policy precisely because we are deoply convinced that it is possible to prevent world by relying on the combined struggle of all the forces mentioned abovee"
"T+ would simply result in a phoney peace or bring about an actual war for the people of the whole world if you prottify (as translated - Hd, note) imper~ ialism, pin your hopes on peace on imperislism, t2ke a passive or negative attitude towards the national liberation movements and peoples revolutionary struggles and bow down and surrender to imperialism, as advocated by those who attack the Chinese Commnist Party. This policy is wrong and all Marxist-Leninists, all revolutionary people, all peace-loving people mist resolutely oppose it," the editorial says,
aegis
> Chinese Communist statement continued/ 4
"The second section of the editorial deals with the differences on the ey question of nuclear weapons and nuclear war in three respects. Tho editorial states that the emergence of nuclear weapons has not changed and cannot change the fundamental Marxist-Loninist theory with regard to war and peace, Those who hold there is no longor any distinction betwoen just and unjust wars either oppose just wars or refuse to support them, and they have lapsed into the position of bourgec is pacifism which is opposed to all wars. The editorial opposes the pessimistic and despairing tunes voiced by Togliatti and some other people, It points out on it is possible to attain a complete ban on nuclear weapons in the following circupstancess the socialist camp has a great nuclear superiority; the people's strug FS] in various countries against nuclear weapons and nucloar war become broader and deeper; having further forfeited their nuclear superiority, the imporialists are compelled to realise that their policy of nuclear blackmail is no longer oeffeetis and that their launching of a nuclear war would only accelerate their own extinctign.
The editorial declares: "The course of history necessarily leads to the destruction of nuclear weapons by mankind, and will definitely not lead to the destruction: of mankind by nuclear weapons." The editorial points out that the U.S. imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail mst be thoroughly exposed and that all peace-loving countries and people must be mobilised on the most extensive scale to wage an unrelonting fight against every move by the U.S. imporialists in their plans for aggression and ware "We are deeply convinced that, by relying on the united struggle of all the forces of peace, it is possible to frustrate the U.S. imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail. This is the correct and effective policy of achieving a ban on nuclear weapons and preventing a nuclear war," it Say Se
The third section of the editorial refutes the misrepresentations and attacks levelled by Togliatti and others at the Marxist-Leninist thesis that "Imperialism and all reactionaires are paper tigers." The editorial sayss "In comparing imperialism and all reactionaries with paper tigers, comrade Mao Tse- Tung and the Chinese Communists are looking at the problem as a whole and from a long-term point of view and arelooking at the essence of the problem. What is meant is that, in the final analysis, it is the people who aro really powerful, not imperialism and the reactionariese Strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously. This also means that in regard to the whole we should despise the enemy but that in regard to each and every concrote question we must take them seriously.
Comrade Mao Tse~Tung!s analysis of imperialism and all reactionaries is completely in accord with Lenin's analysis, In 1919 Lenin compared the "“univer= sally mighty" Anglo-French imperialism to a "Colossus with feut of clay." “Im history there have been countless instances proving that imperialism and reactionaries are all paper tigers."
The editorial sayss "The possession. of nuclear weapons by imperialism has not changed by one iota the nature of imperialism, which is rotten to the core and declining, inwardly weak though outwardly strong; nor has it changed by one iota the basic Marxist-Leninist principle that the masses of the people are the decisive factor in the developmont of history. When in his talk with Anna Louise Strong, Comrade Mao Tso—Tung first put forward the proposition that imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers, the imperialists already had nuclear weap~ ons, In this talk comrade Mao Tse-Tung pointed out "The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the U.S. reactionaries use to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn't. Of course, the atom bomb is a weapon of mass slaughter, but the outcome of a war is decided by the people, not by one or two new types of weapon,* History has proved that even when imperialism is armed with nuclear weapons, it cannot frighten into submission a revolutionary people who dare to fight. The victory of the Chinese revolution and the great victories of the peoples of Korca, Vivet= nam, Cuba, Algeria and other countrios in thoir revolutionary struggles, were all won at a time when U.S. imperialism possessed nuclear weapons. Imperialism has always been armed to the tocth and has always been out for the blood of the people. No matter what kind of teeth imperialism may have, whether guns, tanks, rocket testh, nuclear tovth or any other kind of tceth that modern science and technology may provide, its rotten decadent and paper tiger nature cannot change. In the final analysis, neither nuclear testh nor any other kind of teeth can save imperi~ alism from its fate of inevitable extinction. In the end the nuclear teeth of imperialism, and whatever other teeth it may have, will be consigned by the people of the world to the museum of history, togethor with impcrialism itself.
The fourth section of the editorial deals with the differences between the two parties on the question of peaceful co-oxistence, It statcse "The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government have always stood for peaceful co-
.
ye
Chinese Communist statement continued/ existence between countries with different social systems, China was am initiator of the well knom five principles of peaceful co-existence," It pdnts outs "It is inconceivable that pexceful co-existence can be achieved without struggle. It is still less conceivable that the establishment of peaceful co-existence can elimin= ateclass struggles in the world arena and can abolish the antagonism between the two systems, socialism and capitalism, and the antagonism betwoon oppressed nations and oppressor nations." The editorial adds: "Comrade Togliatti and other comrades have completely revised Lenin's principles for peaceful co-existence and discarded the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of class struggle; in reality they are substituting class collaboratiom for class struggle on a world scale, advocating the fusion of the socialist and capitalist systems." a The editorial says that Togliatti and certain other people extend their @idce of "peaceful co-existence" to cover relations between the colonial and semicolmial people on the one hand and the imperialists and colonialists on the other. They are really asking the oppressed nations to “co-exist peacefully" with their colonial rulers, and asking them to tolerate colonial rule rather than to resist or wage struggles for independence, much less to fight wars of national liberation. It continuess "Togliatti and certain other people extend idea of class collabor— ation in the international arena to cover "joint intervention! in the underdeve~ loped areas." It says: "To talk like this is obviously to spread illusions in the interests of neo-colonialism,"™
The editorial points out ¢ "The position taken by comrade Togliatti and certain other comrades on the Sino—Indian boundary question reflects their’ point of view on peaceful co-existence, which is that in carrying out this policy the socialist countries should make one concession after another to the capitalist countries, should not fight even in self-defence when subjected to armed attacks, but should surrender their territorial sovereignty." It adds that there is nothing in common between this point of view and the principle of peaceful co-existence which a socialist country ought to follow."
On the stand taken by China over the Cuban question, the editorial statess "When the heroic Cuban people and their revolutionary leader, promier Fidel Castro, resolutely rejected international inspection as an infringement om Cuba's sovereignty and advanced their five just demands, the Chinese poople held gigantic mass demonstrations and parades throughout the country in accordance with their consistent stand for proletarian internationalism and firmly supported the Cuban people's struggle in defence of their independence, sovereignty and dignity. Was there anything wrong in thet? Yot somo poople havo ropsatedly charged China with creating difficulties in the Caribbean situation and with wanting to plunge the world into a thermo-nuclear war. This slander against China is most malicious and most despicable.
How can one possibly interpret the resolute support which the Chinese people gave to the Cuban peoplo in their struggle against international inspoction. and in defence of their sovereignty as moaning that China was opposed to peaceful co-existence or wanted to plunge others into a thermonuclear war? Does this mean that China, also, should have applied pressure on Cuba to force her to accept international inspoction, and that only by so doing would China have conformed to this so-called 'peaceful co—existence'? If there are people who give verbal support to Cuba's five demands but are actually opposed to the Chinese people's support for Cuba, are they not merely exposing the hypocrisy of their own support for Cuba's five demands?
The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people have always maint= ained that the course of history is decided by the great strength of the masses of their people and not by any weapons. On more than one occasion we have made it clear that we neither called for the establishment of missile bases in Cuba nor obstructed the withdrawal of the so-called offensive weapons from Cuba. We have never considered that it was a Marxist-Leninist attitude to brandish nuclear weapons as a way of settling international disputes, Nor have we ever considered that the avoidance of a thermonuclear war in the Caribbean crisis was a Munich", What we did strongly oppose, still strongly oppose and will strongly oppose in the future is the sacrifice of another country's sovereignty as a means of reaching a compromise with imporialism. A compromise of this sort can only be regarded as 100% appeasement, 2a 'Munich' pure and simple. A compromise of this sort has note hing in common with the policy of peaceful coexistence of the socialist countries.
The fifth section of the editorial deals with the "structural reform" theory of Togliatti and certain other comrades in the Italian Comminist Parity.
uninese Communist statement continued/ X
be
The oditorial says: "The fundamental problem in every revolution is re | that of state power. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and smgels declared: "The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class." This idea runs through the entire works of Lonin. In "The State and Revolution", Lenin laid stress on the need to break up and smash the bourgeois state machine and to establish tho dictatorship of the prolctariat,"
However, the editorial continues, “Comrade Togliatti and certain other comrades in the Italian Communist Party maintain that Lenin's analysis in “Tho State and Revolution" is no longer sufficient, and that (the content of) proletarian dictatorship is now differont. According to their theory of 'structural reform' there is no noed for present-day Italy to have a proletarian revolutions they can arrive at socialism 'progressivoly' and 'peacofully' merely through a ~ ‘succession of transformations', through the nationalisation of the big ontorprdses through economic planning 2nd through ths oxtension of democracy within the fram work of the Italian cons titution, In fact, they take the state to be an instru~ mont above class and believe that the bourgeois state, too, can carry out socialist policies, they take bourgeois democracy to be democracy abovo class and believe that the proletariat can riso to be the 'leading class! in the state by relying on such democracy. This theory of ‘structural reform! is a complete botrayal of the Marxist-Loninist theories on prolotarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship."
The editorial then deals with the possibility of realising socialist rovolution through peaceful or non—peaceful means, (ED NOTMs we have at this point quoted more fully from the cidtorial than the Hsinhua summary because of the importance of the views expressed). It says: "From the liarxist-Loninist point of view, it would naturally be in the intcrusts of the proletariat and the entire people if peaceful transition could be realised. YWhenever the possibility for peaceful transition appears in a given country, the communists should strive for its realisation, After all, possibility and reality, the wish and its fulfillment are two different things. Hitherto, history has not witnessed a single example of peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. Communists should not pin all their hopes for the victory of the revolution on pexrceful transition. The bourgeoisie will never stop down from the stage of history of its own accord. This is a universal law of class struggle. Communists must not in the slightest degree relax their proparedness for rovolution. They must be prepared to repel the assaults of counter-revolution and to overthrow the bourgeoisie by armed force at the critical juncture of the revolution when the proletariat is seizing state power and the bourgeoisie resorts to armed force to suppress the revolution, That is to say, communists should be prepared to omploy dual tactics, namely, while preparing for the peaceful development of the revolution, they should be fully prepared for its non-peaceful development, Only in this way can they avoid being caught unawares when a situation favourable to the revolution emerges, and when the bourgeoisie rosorts to violence in order to suppress the revolution. ven when it is possible to secure state power through peaceful means, one must be prepared to deal immediately with armed intervention by foreign imperialists and with counter-revolutionary :rmed rebellions supported by the imperialists,"
The sixth section of the editorial deals with the question of Jugoslary rovisionism., The editorial says: "A representative of the Tito group, who aro renegades from Marxism-Leninism, was invited to the recent Congress of tho Lltalien Communist Party and was given a platform from which to donounce China, At the same Congress, Comrade Togliatti and certain other comrades publicly defended the Tito group and lavishly praised them for 'the value of what they have done and are doing.!
We wish to ask of Comrade Togliatti and certain othor comradess 'Do you still recognise the Moscow Statoment as binding on you?! the 1960 Moscow statement state unequivocablys 'The Communist Partics have unanimously condemned the Yugoslar, vericty of international opportunism, a varicty of modern revisionist 'theories! in concentrated form, ifter betraying Marxism-Leninism, which they termed obsolste the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavian opposed their anti-Leninist rovisionist programme to the declaration of 19573 they set the League of Communists of Yugoslavia against the International Communist Morvement as a whole.'! Can it be that this condemation of the Tito group is a mistake?" The oditorial asks. Far from giving up their thoroughly revisionist programme, the Titoites have stuck to it in the draft Yugoslav Constitution which they published not long ago, the editorial points out. It continues: "The Tito group have not changed their ‘unique road' of building ‘socialism! through selling themselves to imperialism, On the contrary, thoy are working hardor and harder in the service of the U.S. imporialist policies of agsrossion and war.
continucd over /
tj
¥
Chinese Communist statement continued/
"with the development of the Tito group's revisionist line and thoir increasing dependence upon U.S. imperialism, Yugoslavia has long ceased to bo a socialist country and. the gradual restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia began long ago. The restoration of capitalism in Yugoslavia has occurred not through any canter—revolutionary coup d'etat by the bourgeoisie, nor through any invasion by imperialism but gradually, through tho degonoration of the Tito group. In Yugoslavia today the state power is in tho hands of the Tito group, a group who ; have betrayed Marxian-Lonizisn an¢ tho cause of communism, betrayed the fundamental interests of the Yugoslav working ARF tho Yugoslav people, and who are enforcing a whole set of out-and-out revisionist policies, The Yugoslav example makes it clear that the struggle between the socialist and the capitalist roads is still going on.and that the danger of the restoration.of capitalism continues to exist even in a country which has embarked on the road of socialism,"
"What is particularly surprising, the cditorial notes, is that "certain people, while loudly boasting of thoir intimate rolations with the renegade Tito group, vigouously attack the Chinese Communist Party asserting that our unity with the Albanian Party of Labour, which is Dasod upon Marxism-Leninism, is 'impermiss— ible', These people stop at nothing in their attompt to eject the Albanian Party of Labour, a Marxist-Leninist party, fromthe international communist movementy, and at the same time, they are seeking ways to inject the renegade Tito group into the. international communist movement. What are they really after? As the old Chinese saying has its 'Like goes to Like and Unlikes pullt‘sunder.* Should not those who treat the Tito group like brothers and who cherish such bitter hatred for a fraternal Marxist-Leninist party stop and think for a moment where they now stand?"
ree Trt ater ANT TRON WAM Re IA rat Temas wo Tarr erent
The seventh section of the editorial emphasi~s that in the final analysis "Our differences on a whole series of problems with comrade Togliatti and certain other comrades who hold similar views involve the fundamental. question of whether’ basic principles of Marxism-Leninism are out-moded, and whether the Moscow declar= ation and the Moscow statement are out-of-date, At a certain stage in the develepment of a communist party, dognatism and sectarianism,may become the main dangers. The Moscow declaration and the Moscow statement are fully correct in pointing out the necessity of opposing dogmatism and sectarianism, Nevertheless, under present contitions modern revisionism is the main danger to the international communist movement as a whole, just as the Moscow declaration and the Moscow statement point oute Modern revisionism 'Mirrors tho bourgeois idoology in theory and practice, distorts Marxism-Lenirism, emasculates its revolutionary essence, and thereby para lyses the revolutionary will of the working class, disarms and demobilises the workers, tho masses of the working people, in their struggle against oppression by imperialists and exploiters, for peace, democracy -and national liberation, for the triumph of socialism." At present, the modern revisionists are opposing Marxism-Leninism under the pretext of opposing dogmatis®s, are renouncing under the pretext of opposing "left" opportunism, .and are advocating unprincipled compr omise and capitulationism under the pretext of flexibility in tactics, If a resolute struggle is not waged against modern revisionism, the international communist movoment will be seriously harmed."
The editorial declares: "We still sincerely hope it will be possible to eliminate our differences through comradely discussione., Wo desire to look ahead. On several occasions, we have suggested the holding of a representative conference of the communist and workers! parties of all countrios to settle the current diff erences in the international communist movenioent. We hold that communists of all countries should take to hoart the;.common interests of. the: struggle against the enemy and the cause of proletarian revolution, should abide by the principles guiding relations among fraternal parties. as set forth in the Moscow declaration and the Moscow statement, and should eliminate their differences and strengthen their unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism This is the hope of the working class and of the poople throughout the world.
The revisionist and new social—democratic trends which have now appeared in the international communist movemont and which now suit the needs of monopoly Caritalism and U.S. imperialism, are substantially the products of the policies of monopoly capital and U.S. imperialism. But the various kinds of revisionism can neither block the victorious advance of the revolutionary struggles of the oppre~ ssed nations and peoples, nor can they save imperialism from its final doom. Marxism-Leninism is at a new and important historical juncture, The struggle between the Marxist-Leninist trendand the anti-Marxist-Leninist trend is once
again being placed on the commmist agenda in all countries in an acute forme Concluding the editorial says: “Let imporialism and the reactionaries tromble bef ore the great revolutionary tide of the working class and of all oppressed natio and peoples of the world! Marxism-Leninism will finally triumph} Tho revolutions cause of the working class and of the peopkthe world over will finally triumph’g
; *, ~ Q + . »
wo
wee pee eS, wee er ee Ue
The Norwegian Communist Party journal Friheton on December 20th, carried a long editorial giving the party's views on relations botwoen Commnist Parties, AS 4 delegation of the party recently roturnod from a visit to China, and two resol~ utions wore passed, one, thanking the Chineso for their hospitality and expressing the wishes thet relations would grow stronger, the other, on the communes, said that these were a big contribution to socialism. Thus it appears that the party is by no means in the 'Khrushchov camp", and this is confirmed by tho operative part of the cditorial which reads:
"J eeceeeeThis discussion in which the two biggest parties are strongly engaged is throatening the unity of our movement and at the samo time weakens the fight for tho fulfilment of the common task: tho fight against imperialism and the preservation of world peace." It continued: "To the Communist Parties, itis ~ important to work out clear and correct standpoints on the basis of Marxism Lenin-—ism, but not to take part in a strifo which can only bring irreparable loss and ~ damage. On the contrary, one ought to make it one's task to work, as far as poss= ible, to prevent the divergence from developing still further," 7
"Especially damaging would be the transfor of an ideological or political discussion betwoon Communist Parties in countries whore thoy are in power, to stato basis, thus involving the fratarnal relations beotweon countries, The harmful results of such a development would not only affect the parties and countries directly concerned, but would inevitably cause loss and damage to the other Commun ist Parties; therefore, in the interest of all Communist Partios the discussion mist be pacified and brought back to the basis where it belongs — a basis of honest and real exchange of opinions." N.B. All major Chinese papers carried the editorial in full on December 24th.