Zs
1612 Pride of place was given in the May 3lst issue of Peking Review to oxtracts from an article which appeared in "Zenei" (The Vanguard), the organ of the Central Committee of the Japanese ¢.P,. Tritton under the lab orious titler"The Theories of Modern Ravisionism Discard Completely the Class Viewpoint", it aspires to refute the book "Tho Thoories of Modern Reform" by Seirin Ishido, a supporter of the “structural reform" theory ndvancod . by Toglietti amongst others, The fact that tho Japanose C,P. finds itself in relative harmony with the Chineso C.F, on this issuo probably accounts for the choice turn of phrase which occurs, for instance, whon doscribing a charactoristic of the revisionist argumont as ".e.s+e.e0no0 which is only mimicry by half-learnod apos," It seems as if wo need to turn elswhere for our reasoned rojection of rovisionism, and the articlo genorally tends to bo little moro than a toutology of basic Leninisn,
Nonetheless, tha emphasis is not based on caricatures of the arguments of the ravisionist, instead basic positions re—postulatod ars the main form of argument, "The universal defonce of poate and tha fight against the common onemy, U.S. imperialimm, are two sides of the same thing"; "the struggle for peace and the struggle for national indepenitence support and complement each other." The charge is made that Ishido "delibsrately" confuses the question of the historical mission of the working class with tha present day question of supporting tho fundamontal demand of all the poople to struggle against imporialim,. Tho reply is that Ishido also negates tho law of social development by placing on the samo footing tho fundamental comminist quostion of tha historial mission of the working class and the present day question (i.e. peace). Ishido's further mistake is to say thet “organs of violonce ars something supplementary to proletarian dictatorship." The Japaneses Cantral Committos replies with charges of "prettifying imperialism" to Ishido's contention that "if the proletariat builds up mors] and idsological authority in the society, then it can carry out 'strucutural reform! of various state organs, and consoquently those who control the machinery of the state will wavor and become unablo to use it. Everything will proceed peacefully and smoothly." They assert the 'Leninist! criterion for participation in the state apparatus: ""e make uso of the Parliament of the bourgeoisie for the purpose of overthrowing tho rule of tho onomy and establishing a people's democracy, this boing essentially different from the reformist line of realising 'revolution! through the reform of the bourgeois parliament."
The Yugoslavs area not forgotten. On this occasion, however, tho language used to describe their 'renegade activities! is less harsh than perhaps the Chinese, rather than their pupils, would use, "The programme of League of Comminists of Yugoslavia severs prolotarian dictatorship from the political leadership of the proletariat, maintaining that bureaucracy isa the inevitable outcome of proletarian dictatorship, and advecating the latter's abolition, Now Ishido advocates precisely abolishing proletarian dictatorship by changing it into political leadership," The reply to this imputation that Ishido supports the Yugoslavs (he probably does not) is that "tho essence of proletarian dictatorship as pointed out by Lenin lies in the integration of suppression of tho antagonistic classes by means of violence with education and the romoulding of the non—proletarian strata under conditions of true democracy as required by the poople." Generally, the article is a hotch=-potch of assertions and incantations, whose probable viatlity is hampered by the snoers and ebuse unfortunately the rule of this sort of polemic,