Author Archives: admin

Early 1975

On the Social Basis of the Lin Piao Anti-Party Clique

By | 05/19/2023
0 Comment

Speaking of the necessity for a clear understanding of the question of the proletariat exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, Chairman Mao pointed out explicitly: “It would be quite easy for people like Lin Piao to push the capitalist system if they come to power. Therefore, we should read some more Marxist-Leninist works.” This brings up a most important question: What is the class nature of ”people like Lin Plao”? What is the social basis that engendered the Lin Piao anti-Party clique? Undoubtedly a clear understanding of this question, is fully necessary for consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and preventing capitalist restoration and for firmly implementing the Party’s basic line for the historical period of socialism and creating step by step conditions in which it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist, or for a new bourgeoisie to arise.

As in the case of all other revisionists and revisionist trends of thought, the appearance of Lin Piao and his revisionist line was not accidental. Lin Piao and his sworn followers were extremely isolated in the whole Party, in the whole army and among the people of the whole country; but there is a deep-rooted class basis in society that engendered this bunch of extremely isolated persons who described themselves as ”heavenly horses flying through the skies, solitary and free.”

It is fairly clear that the Lin Piao anti-Party clique represented the interests of the overthrown landlord and capitalist classes and the aspirations of the overthrown reactionaries to topple the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The Lin Piao anti-Party clique opposed the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and had inveterate hatred for the socialist system under the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country, slandering it as ”feudal autocracy” and cursing it as ”Chin Shih Huang of the contemporary era.” They wanted the landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists ”to achieve genuine liberation politically and economically,” i.e., politically and economically they wanted to turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the landlord and comprador-capitalist classes and the socialist system into capitalist system. As an agent in the Party, an agent of the bourgeoisie working hard for a restoration, the Lin Piao anti-Party clique was wild in its attack on the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, so much so that it set up an organization of secret agents and plotted a counter-revolutionary armed coup d’etat. Such frenzy is a reflection of the fact that the reactionaries who have lost political power and the means of production inevitably will resort to every means to recapture the lost positions of the exploiting classes. We have seen how Lin Piao, after his political and ideological bankruptcy, tried to ”eat up” the proletariat by staking everything on a single cast as a desperate gambler would do, and how he finally betrayed the country and fled to defect to the enemy; despite the very patient education, waiting and efforts to save him by Chairman Mao and the Party Central Committee, his counter-revolutionary nature did not change in the least. All this reflects the life-and-death struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the two major antagonistic classes, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, a struggle that will go on for a long period. As long as the overthrown reactionary classes still exist, the possibility remains for the emergence within the Party (and in society as well) of representatives of the bourgeoisie who will try to turn their hope for restoration into attempt at restoration. Therefore, we must heighten our vigilance and guard against and smash any plot by the reactionaries at home and abroad, and on no account must we slacken our vigilance. Such an understanding, however, still does not embrace all aspects of the issue. The Lin Piao anti-Party clique represented not only the hope of the overthrown landlord and capitalist classes for a restoration but also the hope of the newly engendered bourgeois elements in socialist society for usurping power. Members of this clique had certain characteristics of newly engendered bourgeois elements, and a number of them were in fact such elements. And some of their slogans met and reflected the needs of the bourgeois elements and those wishing to take the capitalist road in developing capitalism. It is precisely this latter aspect that merits our further analysis.

Chairman Mao has pointed out: “Lenin said, ‘Small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale.’ This also occurs among a section of the workers and a section of the Party members. Both within the ranks of the proletariat and among the personnel of state organs, there are people who follow the bourgeois style of life.” Some in the Lin Piao anti-Party clique were the very representatives of such newly engendered bourgeoisie and capitalism. Among them, Lin Li-kuo [Lin Piao’s son] and his small ”fleet” [code name for their secret agent organization] were out-and-out anti-socialist bourgeois elements and counter-revolutionaries engendered in socialist sodiety.

The existence of bourgeois influence and the existence of the influence of international imperialism and revisionism are the political and ideological source of new bourgeois elements, while the existence of bourgeois right provides the vital economic basis for their emergence.

Lenin pointed out: “In the first phase of communist society (usually called Socialism) ‘bourgeois right’ is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production.” ”However, it continues to exist as far as its other part is concerned; it continues to exist in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labour among the members of society. The socialist principle: ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat,’ is already realized; the other socialist principle: ‘An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour,’ is also already realized. But this is not yet Communism, and it does not yet abolish ‘bourgeois right,’ which gives to unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labour, equal amounts of products.”

Chairman Mao has pointed out: “China is a socialist country. Before liberation, she was more or less like capitalism. Even now she practises an eight-grade wage system, distribution to each according to his work and exchange by means of money, which are scarcely different from these in the old society. What is different is that the system of ownership has changed.” ”Our country at present practises a commodity system, and the wage system is unequal too, there being the eight-grade wage system, etc. These can only be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

In socialist, society, there still exist two kinds of socialist ownership, namely, ownership by the whole social people and collective ownership. This determines that China at present practises a commodity system. The analyses made by Lenin and Chairman Mao tell us that bourgeois right which inevitably exists as regards distribution and exchange under the socialist system should be restricted under the dictatorship of the proletariat, so that in the long course of the socialist revolution the three major differences between workers and peasants, between town and country and between manual and mental labour will gradually be narrowed and the discrepancies between the various grades will be reduced and the material and ideological conditions for closing such gaps will gradually be created. If we do not follow this course, but call instead for the consolidation, extension and strengthening of bourgeois right and that part of inequality it entails, the inevitable result will be polarization, i.e., a small number of people will in the course of distribution acquire increasing amounts of commodities and money through certain legal channels and numerous illegal ones; capitalist ideas of amassing fortunes and craving for personal fame and gain, stimulated by such ”material incentives,” will spread unchecked; such phenomena as turning public property into private property, speculation, graft and corruption, theft and bribery will rise; the capitalist principle of the exchange of commodities will make its way into political life send even into Party life, undermine the socialist planned economy and give rise to such acts of capitalist exploitation as the conversion of commodities and money into capital and labour power into a commodity; and there will be a change in the nature of the system of ownership in certain departments and units which follow the revisionist line; and instances of oppression and exploitation of the labouring people will once again occur. As a result, a small number of new bourgeois elements and upstarts who have totally betrayed the proletariat and the labouring people will emerge from among Party members, workers, well-to-do peasants and personnel in state organs. Our worker-comrades have put it well: ”If bourgeois right is not restricted, it will check the development of socialism and aid the growth of capitalism.” When the economic strength of the bourgeoisie grows to a certain extent, its agents will ask for political rule, try to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system, completely change the socialist ownership, and openly restore and develop the capitalist system. Once in power, the new bourgeoisie will first of all carry out a bloody suppression of the people and restore capitalism in the superstructure, including all spheres of ideology and culture; then they will conduct distribution in proportion to the amount of capital and power each has, and the principle ”to each according to his work” will be nothing but an empty shell, and a handful of new bourgeois elements monopolizing the means of production will at the same time monopolize the power of distributing consumer goods and other products. Such is the process of restoration that has already taken place in the Soviet Union.

As regards the way the Lin Piao anti-Party clique stooped to anything to amass riches, insatiably pursued the bourgeois way of life and used bourgeois right to carry out insidious, unsavoury and vile activities, many instances have been brought to light and subjected to criticism. But even more illustrative is its programme for a counter-revolutionary coup d’etat, Outline of Project ”571,” in which the Lin Piao anti-Party clique used precisely the idea of bourgeois right, and not anything else, to abet or incite certain people of various classes to oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat. In other words, the class interests the programme represents, in addition to the interests of the old bourgeoisie, are precisely the interests of a number of new bourgeois elements and a few people who want to use bourgeois right to develop capitalism. This explains why the programme directs its attack on Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line and why it shows particularly bitter hatred for certain restrictions placed on bourgeois right through the socialist revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country.

The Lin Piao anti-Party clique slandered office cadres going to May 7th cadre schools as ”unemployment in a disguised form”; it vilified simplifying administrative set-ups and maintaining close relations with the masses as an attack on cadres. It held that cadres should be overlords sitting on the backs of the people and, therefore, they become ”unemployed” once they take part in collective productive labour. This was designed to incite a section of the office workers—those who wish to extend bourgeois right, seek official posts and become overlords and those who are seriously infected with the bourgeois style of life—to oppose the Party’s line and the socialist system.

The Lin Piao anti-Party clique slandered intellectuals integrating themselves with the workers and peasants and going to the countryside as ”reform through forced labour in a disguised form.” Young people, full of vigour and imbued with communist consciousness, have gone group after group to the countryside. This is a great undertaking of far-reaching significance for narrowing the three major differences and for restricting bourgeois right. All revolutionary people enthusiastically praise it, but those corrupted by bourgeois ideology, and particularly those fettered by the idea of bourgeois right, oppose it. Whether the integration of educated young people with the workers and peasants is upheld or not has a direct bearing on whether the revolution in university education can be carried on by following the road taken by the Shanghai Machine Tool Plant—enrolling students from among the workers and peasants and assigning them to work among workers and peasants upon graduation. The Lin Piao anti-Party clique’s special hatred of this not only showed its opposition to the labouring people but also exposed its scheme to use bourgeois right to attack the Party in an attempt to incite some people deeply influenced by the idea of bourgeois right to oppose the socialist revolution. Its programme was aimed at widening the gap between town and country and between manual and mental labour, and turning educated young people into a new stratum of elite, so as to win the support of those deeply influenced by the idea of bourgeois right for its counter-revolutionary coup d’etat.

The Lin Piao anti-Party clique smeared as ”exploitation in a disguised form” the communist spirit displayed by the working class in criticizing, the revisionist ”material incentives.” Lin Piao was a fanatic advocate of ”material incentives.” He wrote in his sinister notebook such revisionist trash as ”material incentives are still necessary” ”materialism—material incentives,” ”inducements—official post, emolument, favour.” A principal member of the Lin Piao anti-Party clique also wrote that ”the principle of to each according to his work and of material benefit” was the ”decisive motive force” in promoting production. On the face of it, they advocated using money to ”stimulate” the workers, but actually they wanted to widen without any limit the differences in grade among the workers in order to foster and buy over a small section of the working class, turn it into a privileged stratum which betrays the proletarian dictatorship and the interests of the proletariat, and split the unity of the working class. They tried to corrupt the workers with the bourgeois world outlook and use the small number of workers who are deeply influenced by the idea of bourgeois right as a force in support of their opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lin Piao and company attached ”particular importance” to using ”wages” to lure ”young workers,” and their ”inducements—official post, emolument, favour” were a sinister scheme. This shows us by negative example that young, workers, particularly those who have become cadres, must consciously reject the material inducements of the bourgeoisie and the flattery offered them in various forms by the idea of bourgeois, right. They must maintain and bring into play the communist revolutionary spirit of fighting valiantly for the complete emancipation of the proletariat and the whole of mankind and strive to arm themselves with the Marxist-Leninist world outlook; they must never be dazzled and become light-headed by the varicoloured world of commodities, exchange by means of money, vulgar flattery, sycophancy and factionalism, so as not to be taken in by political swindlers like Lin Piao or by the landlord and bourgeois elements in society. Under the cloak of ”showing concern,” all these persons are actually giving the young workers ”incentives” to lure them to take the capitalist road, and they could thus be called political ”abettors.” Inexperienced newly engendered bourgeois elements openly break the law while cunning bourgeois elements of long standing direct them from behind the scenes—this is a common occurrence in class struggle in the society today. We lay special emphasis on hitting the backstage abettors in dealing with corrupted young people who have committed criines. We must continue to adhere to this principle. Quite a number of young workers who take a clear-cut stand in the fight against bourgeois corruption have come to the fore in present-day struggles; we must support them and sum up their experience in struggle.

The Lin Piao anti-Party clique also vilified that the peasants ”lack food and clothing,” that ”the living standards” of cadres in the armed forces ”are deteriorating,” and that the Red Guards who displayed the spirit of daring to think, speak, blaze a trail, act and make revolution in criticizing the bourgeoisie during the Great Cultural Revolution ”are being hoodwinked and used”…. All this was aimed at totally negating the socialist system and the Party’s mass line, negating the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, extending bourgeois right and restoring capitalism. In spreading, the slander that peasants ”lack food and clothing,” the Lin Piao anti-Party clique aimed at inciting the peasants to ”eat up and divide everything” so as to undermine and liquidate the socialist collective economy. If things were done along this line, a small number of people would become the new bourgeoisie while the overwhelming majority would suffer capitalist exploitation. And this would be a situation the landlords, rich peasants and a part of well-to-do middle peasants taking the capitalist road in the countryside yearned for.

By now we can see what Lin Piao meant by ”building genuine socialism.” It meant the extension of bourgeois right under the signboard of socialism so that new bourgeois elements and certain factions and groupings intending to take the capitalist road could, in collusion with the overthrown landlord and capitalist classes, ”have everything under their command and everything at their disposal,” overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism. Lin Piao and his like were their political representatives. The programme advanced by the Lin Piao anti-Party clique in Outline of Project ”571” neither dropped from the skies nor was it innate in the minds of those who described themselves as ”super-geniuses”; it was a reflection of social being. To be exact, this clique which proceeded from its reactionary bourgeois stand reflected the demands of unreformed landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and Rightists—who account for only a few per cent of the population—and the demands of a small number of new bourgeois elements and those intending to make use of bourgeois right to become new bourgeois elements. On the other hand, it opposed the demands of the revolutionary people, who make up more than 90 per cent of the population, to adhere to the socialist road. Members of this clique used idealist apriorism to oppose the materialist theory of reflection; however, the materialist theory of reflection must be used to explain how their counter-revolutionary ideas came into being.

Why would it be quite easy for people like Lin Piao to push the capitalist system if they should come to power? This is because in our socialist society there are still classes and class struggle, there are still the soil and conditions for engendering capitalism. In order to gradually reduce such soil and conditions and finally eliminate them altogether, we must persevere in continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a task which the vanguard of the proletariat, guided by Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line, can accomplish only through the firm and indomitable efforts of a number of generations. So we must adhere to the Party’s basic line, enhance the political consciousness of the working class, consolidate the worker-peasant alliance, unite all forces that can be united with and unite the masses of revolutionary people and lead them in consciously remoulding their world outlook in the fight against class enemies and in the three great revolutionary movements of class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment. And so we must consolidate and develop socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist collective ownership by working people, prevent the restoration of bourgeois right already liquidated with regard to the system of ownership and continue to fulfil, gradually and over a fairly long period of time, that part of the task which is yet to be fulfilled in the transformation of ownership; and with regard to the two other aspects in the relations of production, namely, the mutual relations between men and the relations of distribution, we must restrict bourgeois right, criticize the idea of bourgeois right and continually weaken the basis that engenders capitalism. So we must persevere in the revolution in the realm of the superstructure, deepen our criticism of revisionism and the bourgeoisie and achieve the all-round dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

In his talks given during an inspection tour of various places in the country in August and September 1971, Chairman Mao said: “We have been singing The Internationale for fifty years, and there have been ten occasions on which someone in our Party worked for a split. As I see it, another ten, twenty or thirty such occasions may arise. Don’t you believe this? Well, if you don’t, I do anyway. There will be no more struggles with the realization of communism? That’s not what I believe. There will be struggles even then, although they will be struggles between the new and the old, between what is correct and what is wrong. Even tens of thousands of years from now, what is wrong won’t pass, it won’t stand up.” Lenin said: “Yes, by overthrowing the landowners and bourgeoisie we cleared the way but we did not build the edifice of socialism. On the ground cleared of one bourgeois generation, new generations continually appear in history, as long as the ground gives rise to them, and it does give rise to any number of bourgeois. As for those who look at the victory over the capitalists in the way that the petty proprietors look at it—‘They grabbed, let me have a go too’—indeed, every one of them is the source of a new generation of bourgeois.” What Lenin dealt with is the protracted nature of class struggle in society; what Chairman Mao deals with is the protracted nature of the two-line struggle which takes shape as a reflection in the Party of class struggle in society. We must carry out such class struggle and two-line struggle and continually defeat the bourgeoisie and its agents working for revisionism, for a split and for intrigues and conspiracy; only thus can we gradually create conditions in which it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist or for a new bourgeoisie to arise, and finally eliminate classes. Such is the great cause to be accomplished during the entire historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The new bourgeois elements who arise as a result of erosion by bourgeois ideas and the existence of bourgeois right generally share the political features of double-dealers and upstarts. In order to carry out capitalist activities under the dictatorship of the proletariat, they always put up a certain socialist signboard; since their restorationist activities aim not at seizing back any means of production of which they have been dispossessed but at grabbing the means of production they have never possessed, they are especially greedy, anxious to swallow at one gulp the wealth belonging to the whole people or the collective and place it under their private ownership. The Lin Piao anti-Party clique had these political features. ”Like the Chungshan wolf in the ancient fable, you commit treachery once you are in a position to have your own way.” These two lines from The Dream of the Red Chamber, which describe how Sun Shao-tsu, a relentless brute, ”stoops to anything to adapt himself to the circumstances,” can be aptly applied to the Lin Piao anti-Party clique. Before Lin Piao was ”in a position to have his own way,” that is, before he got hold of part of political and economic power, he used counter-revolutionary double-dealing tactics to deceive the Party and the masses, and utilized the might of the mass movement to serve his own ends; in doing this, he did not scruple at putting up a revolutionary sign-board or shouting revolutionary slogans while at the same time distorting them. Analysing the innermost feelings of Lin Piao and his gang in a letter written in the early days of the Great Cultural Revolution, Chairman Mao pointed out: “I guess their true intention is to make use of Chung Kuei to fight the ghosts.” [Chung Kuei is a legendary character said to have the power to drive away ghosts.] This put the case well. It was a case of making use of a brick to knock open the door, and once that was done they would no longer need it and would brutally get rid of it. Acting as counter-revolutionary double-dealers, opposing the red flag by waving red flags, ”speaking nice things to your face but stabbing you in the back,” or, as the Lin Piao anti-Party clique itself confessed, ”waving Chairman Mao’s banner to strike at Chairman Mao’s forces”—these are but different ways of expressing things done in one and the same manner. The moment the Lin Piao anti-Party clique thought, as they put it, that ”after several years of preparation, the ideological, organizational and military level has been raised considerably and an ideological and material foundation has been laid to a certain extent,” they decided to have their own way. In units and departments under their domination and control, they turned socialist public ownership into the Lin Piao anti-Party clique’s private ownership. More and more openly they exposed their political ambitions which were sure to grow as they were more and more “in a position to have their own way,” just as the bourgeoisie’s avarice knows no bounds and grows with the accumulation of capital. In analysing the bourgeoisie, Marx said: “As capitalist, he is only capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital.” The soul of Lin Piao, a bourgeois agent inside the Party, was also nothing but the soul of the old bourgeoisie which has been toppled but dreams of a come-back and the soul of the new bourgeoisie which is coming into being and is vainly attempting to rule. A class analysis makes quite clear the root cause of the perverse, counter-revolutionary political activities of Lin Piao said his gang: Preaching the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, betraying the Party and the Chinese people and going over to social-imperialism, they were engaged in the same kind of dirty business as the Chinese comprador-bourgeoisie which worshipped Confucius and betrayed the country; as to the counter-revolutionary coup d’etat they so feverishly plotted, it was only a carbon copy of the method the bourgeoisie of many countries in the world has resorted to numerous times and still resorts to even to this day.

Our task is, on the one hand, to gradually dig away the soil breeding the bourgeoisie and capitalism and, on the other, to be able to see through in good time the new bourgeoisie like Lin Piao when it appears or is emerging. This is why the study of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought is important. If we depart from the guidance of Marxism, we cannot accomplish the above-mentioned two tasks; moreover, when a revisionist trend of thought surfaces, one may be taken in and may even blindly board the gangsters’ boat because of the idea of bourgeois right in one’s own mind or because of failure to discern it. If this was not so, why did some people follow a revisionist line when it emerged? Why could Lin Piao and company deceive people at the Second Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee of the Party by resorting to idealism plus raising a big hullabaloo? Why could those naked words of the Lin Piao anti-Party clique aimed at splitting the Party and overthrowing the dictatorship of the proletariat find a market among a small number of cadres? Why could the ”fleets,” big and small, openly use such methods as giving feasts and presenting gifts, offering official posts and other favours as a means for luring people over to form a clique, for carrying out factional activities and for conspiring? Why did they write in their sinister notebooks such trash as ”using expertise to cover up politics” and use it as their tactics for carrying out counter-revolutionary activities? There is a profound lesson here. In opposing the Peng Teh-huai anti-Party clique in 1959, Chairman Mao pointed out that “at present, the main danger lies in empiricism.” Therefore we should read and study conscientiously. In the past decade and more, Chairman Mao has reiterated this opinion on many occasions. He stressed that high-ranking and intermediate Party cadres, first of all members of the Party Central Committee, “should all conscientiously read and study according to their different levels and have a good grasp of Marxism.” He also stressed that “in the next few years, special attention should be paid to propagating Marxism-Leninism.” After the collapse of the Lin Piao anti-Party clique, Chairman Mao once again said: “I formally advise comrades to do some reading.” And he again stressed this recently when he spoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat. How heartening these earnest and significant teachings are! All comrades in the Party, especially the high-ranking cadres, must grasp conscientious study and reading as a matter of cardinal importance in consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat. First of all, they must themselves study well and thoroughly understand the expositions by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and by Chairman Mao and their main works on the dictatorship of the proletariat, strive to explain the question by integrating theory with practice and rid themselves, both ideologically and in action, of the bourgeois ideas and styles of work which are divorced from the masses, so as to identify themselves with the masses, really become promoters of the new emerging socialist things and be good at discerning and daring to resist corrosion by capitalism. We must inherit and carry forward our Party’s glorious tradition of plain living and arduous struggle which has been developed over the past decades. We must have a clear understanding of the situation and study policies, including economic policies. It is imperative to adhere to the principle of grasping revolution and promoting production and other work and preparedness against war, a principle which has proved effective in practice. Attention should be paid to distinguishing between the two different types of contradictions and dealing accurate and powerful blows at the very small number of bad elements; as regards the bourgeois influence among the masses, it should be eliminated by applying the formula “unity, criticism, unity”—mainly by such methods as studying and raising consciousness, supporting advanced things which are firmly opposed to capitalism, recalling past suffering and contrasting it with today’s happiness as well as persuading and educating people and making criticism and self-criticism, all for the purpose of uniting 95 per cent of the cadres and of the masses. In criticizing capitalist tendencies, it is necessary to create public opinion, win aver the majority, awaken consciousness and give active guidance. As for the few who have sunk deep into the quagmire of capitalism, they must be told sharply: “Comrades, mend your ways right now!”

As was pointed out at the beginning of this article, the Lin Plao anti-Party clique was extremely isolated from the people of the whole country. In tracing its emergence to the class roots, we pointed to the soil and conditions which produced the Lin Piao anti-Party clique. After stating this aspect of the matter, we must also point out that the Lin Piao anti-Party clique was in essence very feeble; like all reactionaries, it was only a paper tiger. All the counter-revolutionary activities of this clique constituted only a record of defeat and impasse, not of victory. The socialist system is bound to replace the capitalist system and communism is bound to triumph throughout the world; this is an objective law independent of man’s will. Since socialist society is born out of the old society, it “is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectuality, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” This is not strange. The history of the past 25 years tells us that so long as we uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat, adhere to Chairman Mao’s theory of continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and keep to the line, principles and policies for the socialist revolution which Chairman Mao has laid down for us, we are able to smash the resistance put up by the class enemies, erase these birth marks step by step and continually win fresh victories. The present excellent situation marked by ever greater prosperity of our socialist cause is in sharp contrast to the situation of imperialism and social-imperialism which are disintegrating internally and beset with difficulties at home and abroad. Chairman Mao’s latest instruction on the question of theory will certainly enable us, both in theory and in practice, to understand more fully the historical tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the ways to accomplish them; it will greatly help consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, deepen the socialist revolution, spur the development of socialist construction and promote nationwide stability and unity. The Communists of China are full of confidence, so are the proletariat and the revolutionary people of the country. United as one and in high spirits, they are waging a struggle under the leadership of the Party to combat and prevent revisionism. The history of the Chinese revolution is a history of the revolutionary people advancing to victory through tortuous struggles and the reactionaries heading for destruction after repeated trials of strength. As Chairman Mao has summed it up: “In China, after the emperor was overthrown in 1911, no reactionary was able to stay long in power. The longest was only twenty years (Chiang Kai-shek), but he was also toppled once the people rose in revolt. Chiang Kai-shek climbed to power by taking advantage of Sun Yat-sen’s trust in him and by running the Whampoa Academy and gathering around him a big bunch of reactionaries. Practically the whole landlord class and bourgeoisie supported him when he turned against the Communist Party. Moreover, the Communist Party was inexperienced at the time. So, he gleefully gained temporary ascendancy. In those twenty years, however, he never achieved unification. There occurred the war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, the wars between the Kuomintang and the various warlord cliques, the Sino-Japanese war and, finally, the four-year large-scale civil war, which sent him scampering to a cluster of islands. If the Rightists were to stage an anti-Communist coup d’etat in China, I am sure they would have no peace either and their rule would most probably be short-lived, because it would never be tolerated by the revolutionaries who represent the interests of the people constituting move than 90 per cent of the population.” ”The conclusion is still the two oft-repeated sentences: The future is bright; the road is tortuous.” Let us advance courageously in the direction and along the road pointed out by Chairman Mao!

1975

On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie

By | 05/19/2023
0 Comment

Quotations from Chairman Mao

Why did Lenin speak of exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? It is essential to get this question clear. Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism. This should be made known to the whole nation.

Our country at present practises a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system. That is why we should do more reading of Marxist-Leninist works.

Lenin said that “small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale.” They are also engendered among a part of the working class and of the Party membership. Both within the ranks of the proletariat and among the personnel of state and other organs there are people who take to the bourgeois style of life.

The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat has long been the focus of the struggle between Marxism and revisionism. Lenin said, “Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” And it is precisely to enable us to go by Marxism and not revisionism in both theory and practice that Chairman Mao calls on the whole nation to get clear on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Our country is in an important period of its historical development. As a result of more than two decades of socialist revolution and socialist construction, and particularly of the liquidation of the bourgeois headquarters of Liu Shao-chi and of Lin Piao in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, our proletarian dictatorship is more consolidated than ever, and our socialist cause is thriving. Full of militancy, all our people are determined to build China into a powerful socialist country before the end of the century. In the course of this effort and in the entire historical period of socialism, whether we can persevere all the way in the dictatorship of the proletariat is a cardinal issue for China’s future development. Current class struggles, too, require that we should get clear on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Chairman Mao says, “Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism.” it won’t do if only a few people grasp the point; it must “be made known to the whole nation.” The present and long-range importance of success in this study cannot be overestimated.

As early as 1920, Lenin, basing himself on practical experience in leading the Great October Socialist Revolution and directing the first state of proletarian dictatorship, pointed out sharply, “The dictatorship of the proletariat is a most determined and most ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies not only in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections o the bourgeoisie, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential.” Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative—against the forces and traditions of the old society, that it means all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. Lenin stressed time and again that it is impossible to triumph over the bourgeoisie without exercising a protracted, all-round dictatorship over it. These words of Lenin’s, especially those he underscored, have been confirmed by practice in subsequent years. Sure enough, new bourgeois elements have been engendered batch after batch, and it is precisely the Khrushchov—Brezhnev renegade clique that is their representative. These people generally have a good class background; almost all of them were brought up under the red flag; they have joined the Communist Party organizationally, received college training and become so-called red experts. However, they are new poisonous weeds engendered by the old soil of capitalism. They have betrayed their own class, usurped Party and state power, restored capitalism, become chieftains of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and accomplished what Hitler had tried to do but failed. Never should we forget this experience of history in which “the satellites went up to the sky while the red flag fell to the ground,” especially not at this time when we are determined to build a powerful country.

We must be soberly aware that there is still a danger of China turning revisionist. This is not only because imperialism and social-imperialism will never give up aggression and subversion against us, not only because China’s old landlords and capitalists are still around and unreconciled to their defeat, but also because new bourgeois elements are being engendered daily and hourly, as Lenin put it. Some comrades argue that Lenin was referring to the situation before collectivization. This is obviously incorrect. Lenin’s remarks are not out of date at all. These comrades may look up Chairman Mao’s On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People published in 1957. There Chairman Mao shows by concrete analysis that after the basic victory in the socialist transformation of the system of ownership, which includes the achievement of agricultural co-operation, there still exist in China classes, class contradictions and class struggle, and there still exist both harmony and contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces and between the superstructure and the economic base. Having summed up the new experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat after Lenin, Chairman Mao gave systematic answers to various questions arising after the change in the system of ownership, set forth the tasks and policies of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and laid the theoretical basis for the Party’s basic line and for continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Practice in the past 18 years, particularly in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, has proved that the theory, line and policies advanced by Chairman Mao are entirely correct.

Chairman Mao pointed out recently, “In a word, China is a socialist country. Before liberation she was much the same as a capitalist country. Even now she practises an eight-grade wage system, distribution according to work and exchange through money, and in all this differs very little from the old society. What is different is that the system of ownership has been changed.” In order to gain a deeper understanding of Chairman Mao’s instruction, let us look at the changes in the system of ownership in China and the proportions of the various economic sectors in China’s industry, agriculture and commerce in 1973.

First, industry. Industry under ownership by the whole people covered 97 per cent of the fixed assets of industry as a whole, 63 per cent of the people engaged in industry, and 86 per cent of the value of total industrial output. Industry under collective ownership covered 3 per cent of the fixed assets, 36.2 per cent of the people engaged in industry, and 14 per cent of the total output value. Besides these, individual handicraftsmen made up 0.8 per cent of the people engaged in industry.

Next, agriculture. Among the agricultural means of production, about 90 per cent of the farmland and of the irrigation-drainage machinery and about 80 per cent of the tractors and draught animals were under collective ownership. Here ownership by the whole people made up a very small proportion. Hence, over 90 per cent of the nation’s grain and various industrial crops came from the collective economy. The state farms accounted for only a small proportion. Apart from these, there still remained the small plots farmed by commune members for their personal needs, and a limited amount of household side-line production.

Then commerce. State commerce accounted for 92.5 per cent of the total volume of retail sales, collectively owned commercial enterprises for 7.3 per cent, and individual pedlars for 0.2 per cent. Apart from these, there still remained the sizable amount of trade conducted at rural fairs.

The above figures show that socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist collective ownership by working people have indeed won a great victory in China. The dominant position of ownership by the whole people has been greatly enhanced and there have also been some changes in the economy of the people’s communes as regards the proportions of ownership at the three levels – commune, production brigade and production team. On Shanghai’s outskirts, for example, income at the commune level in proportion to total income rose from 28.1 per cent in 1973 to 30.5 per cent in 1974, that of the brigades rose from 15.2 per cent to 17.2 per cent, while the proportion going to the teams dropped from 56.7 per cent to 52.3 per cent. The people’s commune has demonstrated ever more clearly its superiority, consisting in its larger size and higher degree of public ownership. In so far as we have, step by step in the past 25 years, eliminated ownership by imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalism and feudalism, transformed ownership by national capitalism and by individual labourers and replaced these five kinds of private ownership with the two kinds of socialist public ownership, we can proudly declare that the system of ownership in China has changed, that the proletariat and other working people in China have in the main freed themselves from the shackles of private ownership, and that China’s socialist economic base has been gradually consolidated and developed. The Constitution adopted by the Fourth National People’s Congress specifically records these great victories of ours.

However, we must see that with respect to the system of ownership the issue is not yet fully settled. We often say that the issue of ownership “has in the main been settled”; this means that it has not been settled entirely, and also that bourgeois right has not been totally abolished in this realm. The statistics cited above show that private ownership still exists partially in industry, agriculture and commerce, that socialist public ownership does not consist entirely of ownership by the whole people but includes two kinds of ownership, and that ownership by the whole people is still rather weak in agriculture, which is the foundation of the national economy. The disappearance of bourgeois right in the realm of the system of ownership in a socialist society, as conceived by Marx and Lenin, implies the conversion of all the means of production into the common property of the whole of society. Clearly we have not yet reached that stage. Neither in theory nor in practice should we overlook the very arduous tasks that lie ahead for the dictatorship of the proletariat in this respect.

Moreover, we must see that both ownership b the whole people and collective ownership involve the question of leadership, that is, the question of which class holds the ownership in fact and no just in name.

Speaking at the First Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee of the Party on April 28 1969, Chairman Mao said, “Apparently, we couldn’t do without the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, for our base was not solid. From m observations, I am afraid that in a fairly large majority of factories — I don’t mean all or the overwhelming majority — leadership was not in the hands of real Marxists and the masses of workers. Not that there were no good people in the leadership of the factories. There were. There were good people among the secretaries, deputy secretaries and members of Party committees and among the Party branch secretaries. But they followed that line of Liu Shao-chi’s, just resorting to material incentive, putting profit in command, and instead of promoting proletarian politics, handing out bonuses, and so forth.” “But there are indeed bad people in the factories.” “This shows that the revolution is still unfinished.” Chairman Mao’s remarks not only explain the necessity for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution but also help us be more aware that in the problem of the system of ownership, as in all others, we should pay attention not only to its form but also to its actual content. It is perfectly correct for people to give full weight to the decisive role of the system of ownership in the relations of production. But it is incorrect to give no weight to whether the issue of ownership has been resolved merely in form or in actual fact, to the reaction upon the system of ownership exerted by the two other aspects of the relations of production — the relations among people and the form of distribution — and to the reaction upon the economic base exerted by the superstructure; these two aspects and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given conditions. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics. Whether the ideological and political line is correct or incorrect, and which class holds the leadership, decides which class owns those factories in actual fact. Comrades may recall how we turned any enterprise owned by bureaucrat capital or national capital into a socialist enterprise. Didn’t we do the job by sending a military-control representative or a state representative there to transform it according to the Party′s line and policies? Historically, every major change in the system of ownership, be it the replacement of slavery by the feudal system or of feudalism by capitalism, was invariably preceded by the seizure of political power, which was then used to effect large-scale change in the system of ownership and consolidate and develop the new system. Even more is this the case with socialist public ownership which cannot be born under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bureaucrat capital, which controlled 80 per cent of the industry in old China, could be transformed and placed under ownership by the whole people only after the People’s Liberation Army had defeated Chiang Kai-shek. Similarly, a capitalist restoration is inevitably preceded by the seizure of leadership and a change in the line and policies of the Party. Wasn’t this the way Khrushchov and Brezhnev changed the system of ownership in the Soviet Union? Wasn’t this the way Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao changed the nature of a number of our factories and other enterprises to varying degrees?

Also, we must see that what we are practising today is a commodity system. Chairman Mao says, “Our country at present practises a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system.” This state of affairs which Chairman Mao pinpointed cannot be changed in a short period. For instance, in the rural people’s communes on the outskirts of Shanghai where the economy at the commune and production brigade levels has developed at a rather fast pace, commune ownership accounts for 34.2 per cent of the fixed assets owned at all three levels, and brigade ownership accounts for only 15.1 per cent, while ownership by the production teams still occupies 50.7 per cent of the whole. Therefore, even if we take economic conditions in the communes alone, it will require a fairly long time to effect the transition from the team as the basic accounting unit to the brigade and then to the commune. Moreover, even when the commune becomes the basic accounting unit, the ownership will still be collective. Thus, in the short term, there will be no basic change in the situation in which ownership by the whole people and collective ownership co-exist. So long as we still have these two kinds of ownership, commodity production, exchange through money and distribution according to work are inevitable. And since “under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted,” the growth of capitalist factors in town and country and the emergence of new bourgeois elements are likewise inevitable. If such things are not restricted, capitalism and the bourgeoisie will grow more rapidly. Therefore, on no account should we relax our vigilance just because we have won a great victory in the transformation of the system of ownership and carried out one Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. We must realize that our economic base is not yet solid, that bourgeois right has not yet been abolished entirely in the system of ownership, and that it still exists to a serious extent in the relations among people and holds a dominant position in distribution. In the various spheres of the superstructure, some areas are in fact still controlled by the bourgeoisie which has the upper hand there; some are being transformed but the results are not yet consolidated, and old ideas and the old force of habit are still stubbornly obstructing the growth of socialist new things. New bourgeois elements are engendered, batch after batch, in the wake of the development of capitalist factors in town and country. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute. Even when all the landlords and capitalists of the old generation have died, such class struggles will by no means come to a stop, and a bourgeois restoration may still occur if people like Lin Piao come to power. In his speech The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan, Chairman Mao described how in 1936, near the site of the Party Central Committee in Pao-an, there was a fortified village held by a handful of armed counter-revolutionaries who obstinately refused to surrender until the Red Army stormed into it to settle the problem. This story has a universal significance, for it tells us: “Everything reactionary is the same; if you don’t hit it, it won’t fall. It is like sweeping the floor; where the broom does not reach, the dust never vanishes of itself.” Today there are still many “fortified villages” held by the bourgeoisie; when one is destroyed, another will spring up, and even if all have been destroyed except one, it will not vanish of itself if the iron broom of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not reach it. Lenin was entirely correct in saying, “For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is essential.”

Historical experience shows us that whether the proletariat can triumph over the bourgeoisie and whether China will turn revisionist hinges on whether we can persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie in all spheres and at all stages of development of the revolution. What is all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? The most succinct generalization is found in a passage from a letter Marx wrote in 1852 to J. Weydemeyer, which we are all studying. Marx said, “…no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle of the classes, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes, What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.” In this splendid observation, Lenin said, Marx succeeded in expressing with striking clarity the chief and radical difference between his theory on the state and that of the bourgeoisie, and the essence of his teaching on the state. Here it should be noted that Marx divided the sentence on the dictatorship of the proletariat into three points, which are interrelated and cannot be cut apart. It is impermissible to accept only one of the three points while rejecting the other two. For the sentence gives complete expression to the entire process of the inception, development and withering away of the dictatorship of the proletariat and covers the whole task of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its actual content. In The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, Marx deals in more specific terms with this dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, and to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations. In all the four cases, Marx means all. Not a part, a greater part, or even the greatest part, but all! This is nothing surprising, for only by emancipating all mankind can the proletariat achieve its own final emancipation. The only way to attain this goal is to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and carry the continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through to the end, until the above-mentioned four alls are banished from the earth so that it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes to exist or for new ones to arise; we definitely must not call a halt along the path of the transition. In our view, only those who understand the matter this way can be deemed to have grasped the essence of Marx’s teaching on the state. Comrades, please think it over: If the matter is not understood in this way, if Marxism is limited, curtailed and distorted in theory and practice, if the dictatorship of the proletariat is turned into an empty phrase, or all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie is crippled by amputation and exercised only in some spheres but not in all, or only at a certain stage (for instance, before the transformation of the system of ownership) but not at all stages, or in other words, if not all of the “fortified villages” of the bourgeoisie are destroyed but some are left, allowing the bourgeoisie to expand again, doesn’t this mean preparing the conditions for bourgeois restoration? Doesn’t it mean turning the dictatorship of the proletariat into a thing that protects the bourgeoisie, particularly the newly engendered bourgeoisie? All workers, all poor and lower-middle peasants and other working people who refuse to be plunged back into suffering and woe, all Communists who have dedicated their lives to the struggle for communism, and all comrades who do not want China to turn revisionist, must firmly bear in mind this basic principle of Marxism: It is imperative to exercise all- round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, and absolutely impermissible to give it up half-way. There are undeniably some comrades among us who have joined the Communist Party organizationally but not ideologically. In their world outlook they have not yet over-stepped the bounds of small production and of the bourgeoisie. They do approve of the dictatorship of the proletariat at a certain stage and within a certain sphere and are pleased with certain victories of the proletariat, because these will bring them some gains; once they have secured their gains, they feel it’s time to settle down and feather their cosy nests. As for exercising all- round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, as for going on after the first step on the 10,000-li long march, sorry, let others do the job; here is my stop and I must get off the bus. We would like to offer a piece of advice to these comrades: It’s dangerous to stop half-way! The bourgeoisie is beckoning to you. Catch up with the ranks and continue to advance!

Historical experience also teaches us that, as the dictatorship of the proletariat wins one victory after another, the bourgeoisie may pretend on the surface to accept this dictatorship while in reality it continues to work to restore the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This is exactly what Khrushchov and Brezhnev have done. They changed neither the name “Soviet,” nor the name of the party of Lenin, nor the name “socialist republics.” But, accepting these names and using them as a cover, they have gutted the dictatorship of the proletariat of its actual content and turned it into a dictatorship of the monopoly capitalist class that is anti- Soviet, opposed to the party of Lenin and opposed to the socialist republics. They put forward the revisionist programme of “the state of the whole people” and “party of the entire people,” which is an open betrayal of Marxism. But when the Soviet people stand up against their fascist dictatorship, they hoist the flag of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to suppress the masses. Similar things have happened in China. Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao did not limit themselves to spreading the theory of the dying out of class struggle; they, too, flaunted the flag of the dictatorship of the proletariat while suppressing the revolution. Didn’t Lin Piao preach his four “never forgets”? One of them was “never forget the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Indeed that was something he “never forgot,” only the words “to overthrow” need inserting to make it into “never forget to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat,” or as confessed by his own gang, “wave Chairman Mao’s banner to strike at Chairman Mao’s forces.” At times they trimmed their sails to the proletariat and even pretended to be more revolutionary than anyone else, raising “Left” slogans to create confusion and carry out sabotage, but they were usually waging a direct counter-struggle against the proletariat. You wanted to carry out socialist transformation? They said the new democratic order had to be consolidated. You wanted to organize co-operatives and communes? They said it was too early to do that. When you said literature and art should be revolutionized, they said it would do no harm to stage a few plays about ghosts. You wanted to restrict bourgeois right? They said it was an excellent thing indeed and should be extended. They are a bunch of past masters at defending old things and, like a swarm of flies, buzz all day long over the “birth marks” and “defects” of the old society referred to by Marx. They are particularly keen on taking advantage of the inexperience of our young people to boost material incentive to them, saying that like strong bean-curd cheese, it stinks but tastes fine. And they invariably wave the banner of socialism while carrying on these dirty tricks. Aren’t there some scoundrels who, engaging in speculation, graft and theft, say that they are promoting socialist co-operation? Don’t some instigators of crime who poison the minds of young people hoist the banner of “care and love for the successors to the cause of communism”? We must study their tactics and sum up our experience so as to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie more effectively.

“Are you out to stir up a wind of ‘communization’?” To fabricate rumours by posing such a question is a tactic which some persons have resorted to recently. We can give a definite answer: The wind of “communization” as stirred up by Liu Shao-chi and Chen Po-ta shall never be allowed to blow again. We have always held that, instead of having too much in the way of commodities, our country has not yet a sufficient abundance of them. So long as the communes cannot yet offer much to be “communized” along with what the production brigades and teams would bring in, and enterprises under ownership by the whole people cannot offer a great abundance of products for distribution to each according to his needs among our 800 million people, we will have to continue practising commodity production, exchange through money and distribution according to work. We have taken and will continue to take proper measures to curb the harm caused by these things. The dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship by the masses. We are confident that under the leadership of the Party, the broad masses have the strength and the ability to fight against the bourgeoisie and finally vanquish it. Old China was a vast sea of small production. Conducting socialist education among several hundred million peasants is a serious question at all times and requires the endeavour of several generations. But among the several hundred million peasants, the poor and lower-middle peasants form the majority, and they know from practice that the only path to the bright future for them is to follow the Communist Party and keep on along the socialist road. Our Party has relied upon them to forge unity with the middle peasants for the step-by-step advance from mutual-aid teams to the elementary and advanced agricultural producers’ co-operatives and then to the people’s communes, and we can surely lead them in further advance.

We would rather call the attention of comrades to the fact that it is another kind of wind that is now blowing — the “bourgeois wind.” This is the bourgeois style of life Chairman Mao has pointed to, an evil wind stirred up by those “parts” of the people who have degenerated into bourgeois elements. The “bourgeois wind” blowing from among those Communists, particularly leading cadres, who belong to these “parts,” does us the greatest of harm. Poisoned by this evil wind, some people have got their heads full of bourgeois ideas; they scramble for position and gain and feel proud of this, instead of being ashamed. Some have sunk to the point of looking at everything as a commodity, themselves included. They join the Communist Party and go to work for the proletariat merely for the sake of upgrading themselves as commodities and asking the proletariat for a higher price. Those who are Communists in name but new bourgeois elements in reality exhibit the features of the decadent and moribund bourgeoisie as a whole. Historically, when the slave-owning, landlord and capitalist classes were in the ascendancy, they did some things of benefit to mankind. But today’s new bourgeois elements are heading in the opposite direction to their forefathers. They are nothing but a heap of “new” garbage that can only harm mankind. Among the rumour-mongers about a wind of “communization” being stirred up, some are new bourgeois elements who have taken public property into their private possession and fear that the people will “communize” it again; others want to use the chance to grab something for themselves. These people have a better nose than many of our comrades. Some of our comrades say that study is an “elastic” task that can yield precedence to others, whereas these people have sensed by instinct that the present study is an “inelastic” matter gravely confronting both classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Indeed they themselves may deliberately stir up some wind of “communization,” or take over one of our own slogans in order to confuse the two different types of contradictions and play some unexpected trick. This is worth watching.

Under the leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, the mighty army of the proletarian revolution formed by China’s masses in their hundreds of millions is striding vigorously forward. We have 25 years of practical experience in exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as all the international experience since the Paris Commune, and so long as the few hundred members of our Party Central Committee and the several thousand senior cadres take the lead and join the vast numbers of other cadres and the masses in reading and studying assiduously, carrying on investigation and analysis and summing up experience, we can certainly translate Chairman Mao’s call into reality, gain clarity on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and ensure our country’s triumphant advance along the course charted by Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” This infinitely bright prospect will surely continue to inspire growing numbers of awakened workers and other working people and their vanguard, the Communists, to keep to the Party’s basic line, persevere in exercising all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and carry the continued revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat through to the end! The extinction of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and the victory of communism are inevitable, certain and independent of man’s will.

03/23/1965

Mao Zedong, ‘We Hope the Arab Countries Will Unite’

By | 05/04/2023
0 Comment

This is the main part of Mao Zedong’s talk with a visiting Syrian goodwill delegation.

All revolutionaries and political parties in Asia should unite against imperialism. The strength of one or two countries is insufficient, but they can become a formidable force by uniting together. The entire Arab world is confronting imperialism. We hope the Arab countries will unite.

The hands of the Americans stretch very far, committing aggression everywhere. In 1958 they landed in Lebanon and British troops landed in Jordan, thus creating a tense situation. They were compelled to withdraw only under the pressure of world public opinion. Subsequently, civil war broke out in Lebanon. The U.S. Sixth Fleet is in the Mediterranean Sea and its Seventh Fleet surrounds us. The U.S. has four fleets altogether: The Seventh Fleet is the biggest, then the Sixth Fleet; the Second Fleet is scattered along the U.S. West Coast, and it is the reserve force of the Seventh Fleet; the First Fleet is on the U.S. East Coast, as the reserve force of the Sixth Fleet. Moreover, the U.S. has military bases in Morocco, Libya and other places, while the U.K. also has such bases in Aden and the Persian Gulf.

In resisting Japanese imperialism we stood together with the U.S., U.K. and France. After the surrender of Japan the U.S. helped Chiang Kai-shek launch the civil war to attack us. The U.K. and France were at that time powerless to bother about our affairs. The United States didn’t directly participate in the war, only stationed some troops in harbors along the Chinese coast. They withdrew after we had annihilated Chiang Kai-shek’s several million troops and when we were about to liberate those harbors. We later encountered them again on the Korean battlefield and fought for three years. The Vietnamese people have also met them now. It seems that the United States is fond of making war. Korea and Vietnam are so distant from the U.S., yet it still sent troops there.

Both our countries were subjected to colonial oppression. You were under French domination, while we were under the domination of several imperialist powers. They divided China into spheres of influence, one for France, one for Britain and another for Japan. They were all expelled by us afterward. We fought against Japanese imperialism in the northeast for 14 years and in other places for eight years. Japanese imperialism helped us by causing China to unite against it, thus promoting the Chinese revolution. American troops are now occupying our Taiwan, South Korea and many places in Japan, as well as waging war in Vietnam. In fact, such behavior by the U.S. is teaching the Asian people they must unite and carry on a resolute struggle. For example, the Vietnamese people didn’t know how to fight a war before, but they are able to do so now. This is the advantage rendered us by imperialism. Imperialism also has its good side, don’t you agree?

Sometimes imperialism educates the people through its running dogs, such as China’s Chiang Kai-shek, who taught us how to fight by launching the civil war. A person like me was unable to fight, having never even thought of such a thing in the past. However, the running dogs of imperialism forced us to take up arms. There are now wars in Africa: in the Congo, Angola, Portuguese Guinea and elsewhere. Algeria obtained independence after fighting for eight years. War also broke out around the Suez Canal. You won independence when the French were forced to evacuate during the Second World War. Is that right?

We are different in appearance and in religious beliefs. I should say I have no religion, but this by no means hampers our cooperation. I believed in polytheism when I was a child and abandoned it as I grew up. China also has a God, but one different from yours; our god wears Chinese clothes. We help each other, support each other, and do not harm the other party. We won’t subvert you, nor you us. We are friendly countries and share a common objective: first, to oppose imperialism and, second, to build up our own country.

We support revolution wherever it takes place. Imperialism hates us very much, calling us bellicose. In fact, the problems of any country can be solved only by the revolution of the local people. External support, though necessary, is only secondary. For example, there are only 14 million people in South Vietnam, yet they are putting up a good fight.

The Arab people are very militant. If you unite, the imperialist conspiracy won’t succeed. It should be put this way, that every nation is militant, and victory can be obtained through unity and struggle. It’s only a matter of time. The victory of the revolution in China was obtained by undergoing 22 years of fighting: first against the domestic enemy, conducting the Long March, then against Japanese imperialism, and finally against the Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries supported by the U.S. We also committed mistakes during this period, such as Rightist and “Leftist” opportunism. We won after our mistakes were corrected. A man invariably commits mistakes. A political party is like a man. It is impossible not to commit any mistakes at all.

Many examples have proved that imperialism can be defeated, and revolution will be triumphant.

(From the verbatim record)

06/01/1966

Sweep Away All Monsters and Demons

By | 03/30/2023
0 Comment

An upsurge is occurring in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in socialist China whose population accounts for one quarter of the world’s total.

For the last few months, in response to the militant call of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman Mao, hundreds of millions of workers, peasants and soldiers and vast numbers of revolutionary cadres and intellectuals, all armed with Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, have been sweeping away a horde of monsters that have entrenched themselves in ideological and cultural positions. With the tremendous and impetuous force of a raging storm, they have smashed the shackles imposed on their minds by the exploiting classes for so long in the past, routing the bourgeois “specialists,” “scholars,” “authorities” and “venerable masters” and sweeping every bit of their prestige into the dust.

Chairman Mao has taught us that class struggle does not cease in China after the socialist transformation of the system of ownership has in the main been completed. He said:

The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the class struggle between different political forces, and the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will continue to be long and tortuous and at times will even become very acute. The proletariat seeks to transform the world according to its own world outlook, and so does the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, is still not really settled.

The class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has been very acute right through the sixteen years since China’s liberation. The current great socialist Cultural Revolution is precisely a continuation and development of this struggle. The struggle is inevitable. The ideology of the proletariat and the ideology of all the exploiting classes are diametrically opposed to each other and cannot coexist in peace. The Proletarian Revolution is a revolution to abolish all exploiting classes and all systems of exploitation; it is a most thoroughgoing revolution to bring about the gradual elimination of the differences between workers and peasants, between town and country, and between mental and manual laborers. This cannot but meet with the most stubborn from the exploiting classes.

In every revolution the basic question is that of state power. In all branches of the superstructure ideology, religion, art, law, state power — the central issue is state power. State power means everything, Without it, all will be lost. Therefore, no matter how many problems have to be tackled after the conquest of state power, the proletariat must never forget state power, never forget its orientation and never lose sight of the central issue. Forgetting about state power means forgetting about politics, forgetting about the basic theses of Marxism and switching to economism, anarchism and utopianism and becoming muddle-headed. In the last analysis, the class struggle in the ideological field between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle for leadership. The exploiting classes have been disarmed and deprived of their authority by the people, but their reactionary ideas remain rooted in their minds. We have overthrown their rule and confiscated their property, but this does not mean that we have rid their minds of reactionary ideas as well. During the thousands of years of their rule over the working people, the exploiting classes monopolized the culture created by the working people and in turn used it to deceive, fool and benumb the working people in order to consolidate their reactionary state power. For thousands of years, theirs was the dominant ideology which inevitably exerted widespread influence in society. Not reconciled to the overthrow of their reactionary rule, they invariably try to make use of this influence of theirs surviving from the past to shape public opinion in preparation for the political and economic restoration of capitalism. The uninterrupted struggle on the ideological and cultural front in the sixteen years from liberation up to the current exposure of the black anti-Party and anti-socialist line of the “Three-Family Villages,” big and small, has been a struggle between the forces attempting restoration and the for! ces opposing restoration.

In order to seize state power, the bourgeoisie during the period of the Bourgeois Revolution likewise started with ideological preparations by launching the Bourgeois Cultural Revolution. Even the Bourgeois Revolution, which replaced one exploiting class by another, had to undergo repeated reversals and witness many struggles — revolution, then restoration and then the overthrow of restoration. It took many European countries hundreds of years to complete their bourgeois revolutions from the start of the ideological preparations to the final conquest of state power. Since the Proletarian Revolution is a revolution aimed at completely ending all systems of exploitation, it is still less permissible to imagine that the exploiting classes will meekly allow the proletariat to deprive them of all their privileges without seeking to restore their rule. The surviving members of these classes who are unreconciled will inevitably, as Lenin put it, throw themselves with a tenfold furious passion into the battle for the recovery of their lost paradise. The fact that the Khrushchev revisionist clique has usurped the leadership of the Party, army and state in the Soviet Union is an extremely serious lesson for the proletariat throughout the world. At present the representatives of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeois “scholars” and “authorities” in China are dreaming precisely of restoring capitalism. Though their political rule has been toppled, they are still desperately trying to maintain their academic “authority,” mould public opinion for a comeback and win over the masses, the youth and the generations yet unborn from us.

The anti-feudal cultural revolution waged by the bourgeoisie ended as soon as it had seized power. The Proletarian Cultural Revolution, however, is a cultural revolution against the ideology of all exploiting classes. This Cultural Revolution is entirely different from the bourgeois cultural revolution. It is only after the creation of the political, economic and cultural prerequisites following the capture of state power by the proletariat that the broadest road is opened up for the Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

The Proletarian Cultural Revolution is aimed not only at demolishing all the old ideology and culture and all the old customs and habits, which, fostered by the exploiting classes, have poisoned the minds of the people for thousands of years, but also at creating and fostering among the masses an entirely new ideology and culture and entirely new customs and habits — those of the proletariat. This great task of transforming customs and habits is without any precedent in human history. As for all the heritage, customs and habits of the feudal and bourgeois classes, the proletarian world outlook must be used to subject them to thoroughgoing criticism. It takes time to clear away the evil habits of the old society from among the people. Nevertheless, our experience since liberation proves that the transformation of customs and habits can be accelerated if the masses are fully mobilized, the mass line is implemented and the transformation is made into a genuine mass movement.

As the Bourgeois Cultural Revolution served only a small number of people, i.e., the new exploiting class, only a small number of people could participate in it. The Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the broad masses of the working people and is in the interests of the working people who constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. It is therefore able to attract and unite the broad masses of the working people to take part in it. The bourgeois individuals who carried out the enlightenment invariably looked down upon the masses, treated them as a mob and considered themselves as the predestined masters of the people. In sharp contrast, proletarian ideological revolutionaries serve the people heart and soul with the object of awakening them, and work for the interests of the broadest masses.

The bourgeoisie, with its base selfishness, is unable to suppress its hatred for the masses. Marx said:

The peculiar nature of the material it [political economy] deals with, summons as foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the furies of private interest.

This also holds for the bourgeoisie when it has been overthrown.

The scale and momentum of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution now being carried on in China have no parallel in history, and the tremendous drive and momentum and boundless wisdom of the working people manifested in the movement far exceed the imagination of the lords of the bourgeoisie. Facts have eloquently proved that Mao Tse-tung’s Thought becomes a moral atom bomb of colossal power once it takes hold of the masses. The current great cultural revolution is immensely advancing the socialist cause of the Chinese people and undoubtedly exerting an incalculable, far-reaching influence upon the present and future of the world.

The stormy Cultural Revolution now under way in our country has thrown the imperialists, the modern revisionists and the reactionaries of all countries into confusion and panic. At one moment, they indulge in wishful thinking saying that our Great Cultural Revolution has shown that there are hopes of “a peaceful evolution” on the part of China’s younger generation. A moment later, they become pessimistic, saying that all this has shown that Communist rule remains very stable. Then again, they seem to be fearfully puzzled, saying that it will never be possible to find genuine “China hands” who can promptly pass accurate judgment on what is taking place in China. Dear Sirs, your wishful thinking invariably runs counter to the march of the history. The triumphant progress of this great and unparalleled Cultural Revolution of the proletariat is already sounding the death knell not only of the remnant capitalist forces on Chinese soil, but of imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction. Your days are numbered.

Illuminated by the great Mao Tse-tung’s Thought, let us carry the Proletarian Cultural Revolution through to the end. Its victory will certainly further strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country, guarantee the completion of the socialist revolution on all fronts and ensure our successful transition from socialism to triumphant communism!

05/18/1967

By | 03/29/2023
0 Comment

The victory or defeat of the revolution can be determined only over a long period of time. If it is badly handled, there is always the danger of a capitalist restoration. All members of the party and all the people of our country must not think that after one, two, three, or four great cultural revolutions there will be peace and quiet. They must always be on the alert and must never relax their vigilance.

(18-5-67)

The present Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is only the first; there will inevitably be many more in the future. The issue of who will win in the revolution can only be settled over a long historical period. If things are not properly handled, it is possible for a capitalist restoration to take place at any time in the future.

(August 1967)

Delivered at the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China on August 24 and Adopted on August 28, 1973

On the Revision of the Party Constitution

By | 03/17/2023
0 Comment

Comrades!

As entrusted by the Central Committee of the Party, I will now give a brief explanation of the revision of our Party’s Constitution.

In accordance with the instructions of Chairman Mao and the Party’s Central Committee concerning the revision of the Party Constitution, a working conference of the Central Committee which was convened last May discussed the question of revising the Party Constitution adopted at the Ninth National Congress. After that conference, the Party committees of the provinces, the municipalities directly under the central authority, and the autonomous regions, the Party committees of the greater military commands and the Party organizations directly under the Central Committee all set up groups for the revision of the Party Constitution, extensively consulted the masses inside and outside the Party and formally submitted forty-one drafts to the Central Committee. At the same time, the masses inside and outside the Party in various places directly mailed in many suggestions for revision. The draft of the revised Constitution now submitted to the congress for discussion was drawn up according to Chairman Mao’s specific proposals for the revision and on the basis of serious study of all the drafts and suggestions sent in.

In the discussion on the revision, all Party comrades were of the view that since the Party’s Ninth National Congress, the whole Party, Army and people, guided by the line of that congress, which was formulated under the personal direction of Chairman Mao, have done the work of struggle-criticism-transformation in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in a deep-going way, smashed the Lin Piao anti-Party clique and won great victories in all aspects of the domestic and international struggles. Practice over the past four years and more has fully proved that both the political line and organizational line of the Ninth Congress are correct. The Party Constitution adopted by the Ninth Congress upholds our Party’s consistent and fundamental principles, reflects the new experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and has played a positive part in the political life of our whole Party, Army and people. The stipulations in the Party Constitution adopted by the Ninth Congress regarding the nature, guiding ideology, basic programme and basic line of our Party have been retained in the general programme of the present draft. Some adjustments have been made in the structure and content. There are not many changes in the articles. The number of words has been slightly reduced. The paragraph concerning Lin Piao in the general programme of the Party Constitution adopted by the Ninth Congress was completely deleted. This was the unanimous demand of the whole Party, Army and people. It was also the inevitable result of Lin Piao’s betrayal of the Party and the country and his own final rejection of the Party and people.

Compared with the Party Constitution adopted by the Ninth Congress, the present draft is mainly characterized by its richer content with regard to the experience of the struggle between the two lines. This was a common feature of all the drafts sent in. Under the leadership of Chairman Mao, our Party has been victorious in the ten major struggles between the two lines and accumulated rich experience of defeating Right and “Left” opportunist lines, which is most valuable to the whole Party. Chairman Mao says, “To lead the revolution to victory, a political party must depend on the correctness of its own political line and the solidity of its own organization.” All the comrades of our Party must pay close attention to the question of line, persist in continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, strengthen our Party building and ensure that the Party’s basic line for the historical period of socialism is carried through.

What has been added in the draft in this respect?

One. Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is a great political revolution carried out under the conditions of socialism by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes, and it is also a deepgoing Party consolidation movement. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution the whole Party, Army and people, under the leadership of Chairman Mao, have smashed the two bourgeois headquarters, the one headed by Liu Shao-chi and the other by Lin Piao, thus striking a hard blow at all domestic and international reactionary forces. The current Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is absolutely necessary and most timely for consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, preventing capitalist restoration and building socialism. The draft fully affirms the great victories and the tremendous significance of this revolution and has the following statement explicitly written into it: “Revolutions like this will have to be carried out many times in the future.” Historical experience tells us that not only will the struggle between the two classes and the two roads in society at home inevitably find expression in our Party, but imperialism and social-imperialism abroad will inevitably recruit agents from within our Party in order to carry out aggression and subversion against us. In 1966 when the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was just rising, Chairman Mao already pointed out, “Great disorder across the land leads to great order. And so once again every seven or eight years. Monsters and demons will jump out themselves. Determined by their own class nature, they are bound to jump out.” The living reality of class struggle has confirmed and will continue to confirm this objective law as revealed by Chairman Mao. We must heighten our vigilance and understand the protractedness and complexity of this struggle. In order to constantly consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and seize new victories for the socialist cause, it is necessary to deepen the socialist revolution in the ideological, political and economic spheres, to transform all those parts of the superstructure that do not conform to the socialist economic base and carry out many great political revolutions such as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

Two. Adherence to the principles: “Practise Marxism, and not revisionism; unite, and don’t split; be open and aboveboard, and don’t intrigue and conspire.” Of these three principles — “the three dos and three don’ts” — put forward by Chairman Mao, the most fundamental is to practise Marxism and not revisionism. If one practises Marxism and wholeheartedly serves the interests of the vast majority of the people of China and the world, one is obliged to work for unity and be open and aboveboard; if one practises revisionism and exclusively serves the small number of exploiting class elements, one will inevitably go in for splits, intrigues and conspiracy. Revisionism is an international bourgeois ideological trend. Revisionists are agents whom the bourgeoisie, and imperialism, revisionism and reaction plant in our Party by means of sending them in or recruiting them from our ranks. Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao and similar careerists, conspirators, double-dealers and absolutely unrepentant capitalist-roaders, though they manifested themselves in somewhat different ways, were all essentially the same; they were all chieftains in practising revisionism and thoroughly turned bourgeois ideologically, politically and in their way of life. They were rotten to the core! Chairman Mao says, “The rise to power of revisionism means the rise to power of the bourgeoisie.” This is absolutely true. The principles of “the three dos and three don’ts” have been entered into the general programme of the draft in accordance with suggestions sent in. In Point (1) under Article 3 concerning the requirements for Party members and in Point (1) under Article 12 concerning the tasks of the primary Party organizations, the words “criticize revisionism” have been added in accordance with the views expressed by the worker, peasant and soldier comrades at the forum held by the Peking Municipal Party Committee on the revision of the Party Constitution as well as suggestions from some provinces and municipalities. Revisionism remains the main danger today. To study Marxism and criticize revisionism is our long-term task for strengthening the building of our Party ideologically.

Three. We must have the revolutionary spirit of daring to go against the tide. Chairman Mao pointed out: Going against the tide is a Marxist-Leninist principle. During the discussions on the revision of the Party Constitution, many comrades, reviewing the Party’s history and their own experiences, held that this was most important in the twoline struggle within the Party. In the early period of the democratic revolution, there were several occasions when wrong lines held sway in our Party. In the later period of the democratic revolution and in the period of socialist revolution, when the correct line represented by Chairman Mao has been predominant, there have also been lessons in that certain wrong lines or wrong views were taken as correct for a time by many people and supported as such. The correct line represented by Chairman Mao has waged resolute struggles against those errors and won out. When confronted with issues that concern the line and the overall situation, a true Communist must act without any selfish considerations and dare to go against the tide, fearing neither removal from his post, expulsion from the Party, imprisonment, divorce nor guillotine.

Of course, in the face of an erroneous trend there is not only the question of whether one dares go against it but also that of whether one is able to distinguish it. Class struggle and the two-line struggle in the historical period of socialism are ex-tremely complex. When one tendency is covered by another, many comrades often fail to note it. Moreover, those who intrigue and conspire deliberately put up false fronts, which makes it all the more difficult to discern. Through discussion, many comrades have come to realize that according to the dialectic materialist point of view, all objective things are knowable. “The naked eye is not enough, we must have the aid of the telescope and the microscope. The Marxist method is our telescope and microscope in political and military matters.” So long as one diligently studies the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and those of Chairman Mao, takes an active part in the actual struggle and works hard to remould one’s world outlook, one can constantly raise the ability to distinguish genuine from sham Marxism and differentiate between correct and wrong lines and views.

In waging struggle, we must study Chairman Mao’s theory concerning the struggle between the two lines and learn from his practice; we must not only be firm in principle, but also carry out correct policies, draw a clear distinction between the two types of contradictions of different nature, make sure to unite with the vast majority and observe Party discipline.

Four. We must train millions of successors for the cause of the proletarian revolution in the course of mass struggles. Chairman Mao said, “In order to guarantee that our Party and country do not change their colour, we must not only have a correct line and correct policies but must train and bring up millions of successors who will carry on the cause of proletarian revolution.” As stated above, those to be trained are not just one or two persons, but millions. Such a task cannot be fulfilled unless the whole Party attaches importance to it. In discussing the revision of the Party Constitution, many elder comrades expressed the strong desire that we must further improve the work of training successors, so that the cause of our proletarian revolution initiated by the Party under the leadership of Chairman Mao will be carried forward by an endless flow of successors. Many young comrades on their part warmly pledged to learn modestly from the strong points of veteran cadres who have been tempered through long years of revolutionary war and revolutionary struggle and have rich experience, to be strict with themselves and to do their best to carry on the revolution. Both veteran and new cadres expressed their determination to learn each other’s strong points and overcome their own shortcomings. In the light of the views expressed, a sentence about the necessity of training successors has been added to the general programme of the draft, and another sentence about the application of the principle of combining the old, the middle-aged and the young in leading bodies at all levels has been added to the articles. We must, in accordance with the five requirements Chairman Mao has laid down for successors to the cause of the proletarian revolution, lay stress on selecting outstanding persons from among the workers and poor and lower-middle peasants and placing them in leading posts at all levels. Attention must also be paid to training women cadres and minority nationality cadres.

Five. We must strengthen the Party’s cen-tralized leadership and promote the Party’s traditional style of work. The political party of the proletariat is the highest form of the organization of the proletariat, and the Party must exercise leadership in everything; this is an important Marxist principle. The draft has incorporated suggestions from various units on strengthening the Party’s centralized leadership. It is laid down in the articles that state organs, the People’s Liberation Army and revolutionary mass organizations “must all accept the centralized leadership of the Party.” Organizationally, the Party’s centralized leadership should be given expression in two respects: First, as regards the relationship between various organizations at the same level, of the seven sectors — industry, agriculture, commerce, culture and education, the Army, the government and the Party — it is the Party that exercises overall leadership; the Party is not parallel to the others and still less is it under the leadership of any other. Second, as regards the relationship between higher and lower levels, the lower level is subordinate to the higher level, and the entire Party is subordinate to the Central Committee. This has long been a rule in our Party and it must be adhered to. We must strengthen the Party’s centralized leadership, and a Party committee’s leadership must not be replaced by a “joint conference” of several sectors. But at the same time, it is necessary to give full play to the role of the revolutionary committees, the other sectors and organizations at all levels. The Party committee must practise democratic centralism and strengthen its collective leadership. It must unite people “from all corners of the country” and not practise mountain-stronghold sectionalism. It must “let all people have their say” and not “let one person alone have the say.” The most essential thing about the Party’s centralized leadership is leadership through a correct ideological and political line. Party committees at all levels must, on the basis of Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line, achieve unity in thinking, policy, plan, command and action.

The style of integrating theory with practice, maintaining close ties with the masses and practising criticism and self-criticism has been written into the general programme of the draft. Communists of the older generations are familiar with this fine tradition of our Party as cultivated by Chairman Mao; however, they still face the question of how to carry it forward under new historical conditions, whereas for the many new Party members, there is the question of learning, inheriting and carrying it forward. Chairman Mao often educates us with accounts of the Party’s activities in its years of bitter struggle, asking us to share the same lot, rough or smooth, with the broad masses. We must beware of the inroads of bourgeois ideology and the attacks by sugar-coated bullets; we must be modest and prudent, work hard and lead a plain life, resolutely oppose privilege and earnestly overcome all such unhealthy tendencies as “going in by the back door.”

Now, I would like to discuss with special emphasis the question of accepting criticism and supervision from the masses. Ours is a socialist country under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The working class, the poor and lower-middle peasants and the masses of working people are the masters of our country. They have the right to exercise revolutionary supervision over cadres of all ranks of our Party and state organs. This concept has taken deeper root throughout the Party, thanks to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. However, there are still a small number of cadres, especially some leading cadres, who will not tolerate differing views of the masses inside or outside the Party. They even suppress criticism and retaliate, and it is quite serious in some individual cases. In handling problems among the people, Party discipline absolutely forbids such wrong practices as resorting to “suppression if unable to persuade, and arrest if unable to sup-press.” In the draft, the sentence that “it is absolutely impermissible to suppress criticism and to retaliate” has been added to the articles. We should approach this question from the high plane of two-line struggle to understand it, and resolutely fight against such violations of Party discipline. We must have faith in the masses, rely on them, constantly use the weapons of arousing the masses to air their views freely, write big-character posters and hold great debates and strive “to create a political situation in which there are both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of will and personal ease of mind and liveliness, so as to facilitate our socialist revolution and socialist construction, make it easier to overcome difficulties, enable our country to build a modern industry and modern agriculture at a fairly rapid pace, consolidate our Party and state and make them better able to weather storm and stress.”

Six. It is our Party’s consistent principle to uphold proletarian internationalism. This time we have further included “Oppose great-power chauvinism” in the draft. We will forever stand together with the proletariat and the revolutionary people of the world to oppose imperialism, modern revisionism and all reaction, and at present to op-pose especially the hegemonism of the two super-powers — the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The danger of a new world war still exists. We must, without fail, prepare well against any war of aggression and guard against surprise attack by imperialism and social-imperialism.

Chairman Mao says, “In our international relations, we Chinese people should get rid of great-power chauvinism resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely.” Our country has a large population, vast territory and abundant resources. We must make our country prosperous and strong and we are fully capable of doing it. However, we must persist in the principle of “never seek hegemony” and must never be a superpower under any circumstances. All Party comrades must firmly bear in mind Chairman Mao’s teachings that we must never be conceited, not even after a hundred years, and never be cocky, not even after the 21st century. At home, too, we must oppose every manifestation of “great-power” chauvinism, and further strengthen the revolutionary unity of the whole Party, the whole Army and the people of all the nationalities of the country to speed up our socialist revolution and socialist construction and strive to fulfil our due internationalist obligations.

Comrades! Ours is a great, glorious and correct Party. We are confident that the whole Party, acting according to the political line defined by the Tenth Congress and the new Party Constitution adopted by it, can surely build our Party into a stronger and more vigorous one. Let us, under the leadership of the Party’s Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, unite to win still greater victories!

March 1975

Address to Diplomatic Cadres

By | 03/10/2023
0 Comment

Comrades, some comrades have talked not a little. All the points raised are very important and related to our future diplomatic operations. In diplomacy, I am inexperienced. I have to learn from the beginning just as I have had to learn “A.B.C.” in my study of English. I have to learn many things from you. Before the liberation, we dealt with foreigners in Nanking, Chungking, Shanghai, and Peking, but the contacts with them were not as wide and frequent as they are today. Dealing with foreigners has become the unavoidable work of the Party, and we must always place the subject on our agenda for our attention and fulfillment. The entire world will be affected if we do not work well. Consequently, in every move, we have to consider whether our work conforms with the interests of the broad masses of the people of the world. All comrades have much experience in this. I am here to tell you what I have learned from Chairman Mao and to fulfill my responsibility as a member of the Party by relaying his messages to you because he is very busy. Even in passing on messages from the top to the bottom, I have encountered many problems because my cultural level is so limited that I cannot understand the messages correctly and so make mistakes. Please give me your help and comments.

In the past year the situation has undergone great changes. Facts have proven the correctness of Chairman Mao’s prediction that “we are in the great era of social transformation.” He made the prediction in the early years of the 1960’s. Chairman Mao clearly pointed out: “The focus of world contradictions lies between Asia and Africa.” He pointed out not only the orientation of the revolution but also its strategic problems. Only under the guidance of Chairman Mao’s correct line do we dare to struggle and not fear the containment, blockade, blackmail and intimidation, overt and covert interference, plots and sabotage.This guidance has made us good at struggle, flexible, and capable of talking as well as fighting. We have two kinds of ideological preparations. In the great disturbance, great division, great reorganization, and great disorder of the world, we have never failed to adhere to our revolutionary principle in distinguishing ourselves from our enemies and friends and in understanding on whom we should rely, with whom we should unite, whom we should divide, whom we should disintegrate, whom we should isolate, and whom we should hit. As long as we can elevate our unity to the maximum, reduce the isolation and blows we suffer to the minimum, and adhere to the principle of unity and struggle to the last, we will be able to establish ourselves in an impregnable position.

The pith and soul of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought are adherence to the doctrine of class struggle and the implementation of the proletarian dictatorship. The final objective of the revolution is to establish communist society in the entire world. To reach this final goal, we must divide the revolution into several stages. The proletariat and its political party should make up their minds to continue the revolution and, in accordance with requirements of the different stages of the revolution and for every different historic period, formulate different policies and strategy. The former is the target, the latter the means to attain it.

For this historic period, we have presented, on the basis of the characteristics of the period, the view that “countries want independence, nations want liberation, and people want revolution.” The center of this view is people’s revolution. A proletarian regime can be established only under the leadership of the proletariat and its political party. The formation of the proletariat and the establishment and development of its political party depend on the revolutionary movement of the masses, which, blowing across the land like a storm of democracy and nationalism, seeks national independence and people’s liberation. We will support the movement of national independence and people’s liberation. We will help the poor and backward countries and support them to cast off political control, economic pillage, and cultural aggression by imperialism and colonialism because this is imperative for development of the national economy and for the establishment of proletarian troops, and furthermore for the organization of a revolutionary political party to lead this great class. This is the preliminary stage through which the revolution must go.

The debacle of colonialism and the collapse of imperialism are precursors and foreshadowing events of the socialist revolution. Poor and backward countries can cast off the control of imperialism and colonialism to achieve independence. However, they cannot spare themselves from the polarization and division brought upon them by the inequitable distribution of wealth in society. This division provides the material for lighting the fire of the proletarian revolution. The development of the national economy is a prerequisite to the establishment of proletarian troops and can ignite this flammable material. It is impossible to attain the final victory of the socialist revolution by departing from national independence and development of the national economy. It is on this point that we are different from opportunists. We have always adhered to the theory of continuing revolution and the division of stages in the progression of the revolution as envisaged in Marxism-Leninism. We must go on to understand the three sentences (countries want independence, nations want liberation, and peoples want revolution) by grasping talking as well as fighting. We have two kinds of ideological preparations. In the great disturbance, great division, great reorganization, and great disorder of the world, we have never failed to adhere to our revolutionary principle in distinguishing ourselves from our enemies and friends and in understanding on whom we should rely, with whom we should unite, whom we should divide, whom we should disintegrate, whom we should isolate, and whom we should hit. As long as we can elevate our unity to the maximum, reduce the isolation and blows we suffer to the minimum, and adhere to the principle of unity and struggle to the last, we will be able to establish ourselves in an impregnable position.

The pith and soul of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought are adherence to the doctrine of class struggle and the implementation of the proletarian dictatorship. The final objective of the revolution is to establish communist society in the entire world. To reach this final goal, we must divide the revolution into several stages. The proletariat and its political party should make up their minds to continue the revolution and, in accordance with requirements of the different stages of the revolution and for every different historic period, formulate different policies and strategy. The former is the target, the latter the means to attain it.

For this historic period, we have presented, on the basis of the characteristics of the period, the view that “countries want independence, nations want liberation, and people want revolution.” The center of this view is people’s revolution. A proletarian regime can be established only under the leadership of the proletariat and its political party. The formation of the proletariat and the establishment and development of its political party depend on the revolutionary movement of the masses, which, blowing across the land like a storm of democracy and nationalism, seeks national independence and people’s liberation. We will support the movement of national independence and people’s liberation. We will help the poor and backward countries and support them to cast off political control, economic pillage, and cultural aggression by imperialism and colonialism because this is imperative for development of the national economy and for the establishment of proletarian troops, and furthermore for the organization of a revolutionary political party to lead this great class. This is the preliminary stage through which the revolution must go.

The debacle of colonialism and the collapse of imperialism are precursors and foreshadowing events of the socialist revolution. Poor and backward countries can cast off the control of imperialism and colonialism to achieve independence. However, they cannot spare themselves from the polarization and division brought upon them by the inequitable distribution of wealth in society. This division provides the material for lighting the fire of the proletarian revolution. The development of the national economy is a prerequisite to the establishment of proletarian troops and can ignite this flammable material. It is impossible to attain the final victory of the socialist revolution by departing from national independence and development of the national economy. It is on this point that we are different from opportunists. We have always adhered to the theory of continuing revolution and the division of stages in the progression of the revolution as envisaged in Marxism-Leninism. We must go on to understand the three sentences (countries want independence, nations want liberation, and peoples want revolution) by grasping this point, and, based on this point, we should go on to establish a positive diplomatic relationship with the Third World by supporting the countries morally and economically. As Chairman Mao has told Prince Sihanouk. “Buy arms from us? No! We can give them to you, free of charge, on only one condition – revolution.” We will support the national liberation movements free of charge because our national diplomatic policy is decided by our social system, which requires us to fulfill our international obligation and seek a worldwide victory for socialist revolution. We may say that assistance is always reciprocal. We have assisted the countries that are struggling for national independence. In return, their struggle also has assisted us. The guerrilla warfare in South Africa against racial discrimination; the struggle in the Middle East against hegemony; the struggle in Latin America for national independence, democracy and liberation; the revolutionary struggle in East Europe for throwing off Russian control; and the struggle in Indochina for liberation, all have come into correlation. From east to west, south to north, these countries have been tightening the lasso on the necks of imperialism and socialist imperialism. Neither the US imperialists nor the Russian revisionists can raise their hands to cope with us. This has provided us with a peaceful environment not only for accelerating the construction of our country’s agriculture, and national economic and productive enterprises as a whole, but also for satisfactorily completing the socialist revolution on the political, ideological and cultural front lines. We have dragged out for struggle Liu Shao-chi, Lin Piao, and a handful of other capitalist agents in our party, wiped out all the demons in our society, consolidated the proletarian regime, and strengthened our national defense. Meanwhile, because the tide of national and democratic movements is rising, we have placed the emphasis of our diplomatic activities on “black friends,” “small friends,” and “poor friends.” They appreciate us and seek to return the kindness. Although we do not have “white friends,” “big friends” and “wealthy friends,” we are not isolated. In the UN voting on our admission to the world body, the big countries made a loud noise and exerted a threatening influence, but our small friends were greater in number and strident in their voices. We entered the United Nations at last, and then big countries came to our doorstep and called on us.

For scores of years, we have studied Chairman Mao’s “Theory of Contradictions” and “Theory of Practice.” We have learned that recognition and practice depend on each other and that opposition and unity of contradictions always are there in everything. Without contradictions, the world cannot progress. “Disorder” is the stirring state of contradictions, and “peace” is a moment of temporary unity of contradictions. “Disorder and then peace.” Without disorder, where does peace come from? If there is no disorder in the world, the reactionary class can maintain the situation in which it can squeeze and exploit the working people relentlessly and insatiably. Without disorder, the proletarian class cannot stand up, and the proletarian political party will either be divided, disintegrated, bought over, utilized, or made to change its nature and extinguished. This is hoped for by the reactionary class, but we would not like to see it happen.

When Chairman Mao met Nixon during the latter’s visit to China, he spent much of the time talking about philosophy with the American president. Kissinger met with our premier several times, and they also discussed philosophy in addition to Chinese and major world events. It is not surprising that their views are different from ours. In the talks, Kissinger let on that the United States intended to abandon the Asia-Pacific region. We should view this question by dividing it into two. We believe that Kissinger can never depart from the criteria of a capitalist statesman. The basic points of his view are restricted by the intention of upholding the class interests. Consequently, he cannot comprehend and solve the multifarious contradictions emerging from the complex situation of the current world. Like all past statesmen of the reactionary class, Kissinger is an adventurist and a defeatist. Both Nixon and Kissinger have admitted that the US policy of the past, i.e., the policy of strength pursued after World War II, is unfeasible today. The United States should return to the world of reality and should not dabble in interfering with the sovereignty and interests of other countries. Kissinger advanced the premise of maintaining the balance of power. Actually, this means he recognized the contradictions but did not strenuously pursue the way of struggle in solving these contradictions under the new conditions. On the contrary, he assumed an attitude of evasion in treating these contradictions. In a word, this policy is “ostrichism.” Evasion of contradictions is aimed at covering up the existence of these contradictions. Do the contradictions of today exist only in a colony or in an occupied land? Can the United States evade them? From another angle, we may say that the American retreat and the collapse of the old and neocolonialism resulted from developments which cannot be reversed by one or two politicians. Consequently, the proletariat and its political party can grasp this opportunity to expose incessantly the old and neo-colonialism and, at the same time, to adhere to a united front, including the work of seeking the internal disintegration of the enemy, as well as to armed struggle in the conviction that political power comes from the barrel of the gun. We should also adhere to the firm belief that by widely developing the mass movement under the leadership of the proletarian political party, a weak country can definitely defeat a strong one, and a small one can defeat a large one. At last it can seize political power and grasp the victory of socialist revolution. As diplomatic workers, we must publicize this revolutionary doctrine to the people of the whole world and, at the same time, clearly express our attitude that as long as it is revolution we will support it to the end. Our words mean what we say. Unlike the American imperialists and the Russian revisionists, we will never abandon friends who have stuck with us in times of distress. We will never engage in behind-the-scenes deals with any superpower and sell out our friends. Nor will we deceive, blackmail and plot to utilize our friends by victimizing them in exchange for ignominious gains.

Chairman Mao has seen the situation in Indochina clearly. He also has seen clearly the development of South Vietnam after the victorious liberation. He said: “Vietnam is a temple occupied by four chief monks who become masters of anyone who gives them food and clothing.” He has asked the Vietnamese ambassador to tell Tong Due Thanh, Le Duan, Pham Van Dong, Vo Vien Giap and also Nguyen Hun Tho and Huynh Tau Phap these words: “To oppose imperialism without opposing revisionism will eventually lead to a second revolution.” Do they comprehend this point? It is very difficult to say. When people talk about Vietnam, they always believe that Vietnam would not make it after Ho Chi Minh’s death. Chairman Mao has made this point clear. The Vietnamese comrades are revolutionaries who have in their hearts pains that we must comprehend. We should not always say that they are not revolutionary.

They are fighting against the American imperialists who claim to be the strongest in the world. They have made great sacrifices in lives, and their spirit deserves our admiration. We should not criticize them before we can see the post-victory development.

The situation in Laos is quite good…. The situation in the whole of Indochina has become clear, and the horizon of hope looms before us. However, the solution of the three Indochinese countries marks only the first step of a 10,000-march. The world is developing; the revolution is progressing. But there is much to be done. We must do our utmost to enhance our self-awareness in executing the correct line so that we can meet the needs and requirements of the situation. Consequently, I have to comment specifically on the movement to “criticize Lin Piao and Confucius” on the diplomatic front line. The Fourth National People’s Congress pointed out in a press communique: “The People of our country should continue to broaden, and persevere in the movement to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius, and make sure that Marxism occupies all spheres of the superstructure.”

The task on the diplomatic front line is different from that on other front lines. Because diplomatic workers have to spend a considerably longer time working abroad, our demands of them cannot be the same as those on our people at home. You cannot go to the streets in New York or Paris to put up big-character posters criticizing the foreign minister or the ambassador. Nor can you interfere in the domestic affairs of others by presenting your views to the president of a foreign country or shelling him with heavy artillery. Consequently, we can only subject the specific situation to specific analysis and treatment. In previous times, the foreign ministry obtained good results by adopting such policies as “returning to the country to get the scripture and taking it abroad for preaching,” “placing emphasis on self-study and making oneself another’s teacher,” “preaching and teaching near and far and going around to preach the scripture,” and “making proper concentration for wide interchange.” From now on, we should improve what is not good and insist on what is good.

Today I want only to make a sketchy explanation of several major problems and make some demands. Please consider whether or not they are appropriate.

First, we must further strengthen the monolithic leadership of the party. An old Chinese saying has it: “A general fighting on the front is permitted not to heed the sovereign’s order.” In a socialist country there is no feudalistic ruler such as an emperor or a king. Certainly there is no such thing as “a general fighting on the front is permitted not to heed the sovereign’s order.” But, shall the diplomatic workers weaken (their relations with) or depart from the track of the monolithic leadership of the Party abroad? Certainly, they shall not. The situation today is different from that of several hundred years ago. Telegraph, telephone, radiophoto, and outer space communications are very convenient. If necessary, you may take a plane and return home in a few hours. Why don’t you use these facilities? Nevertheless, some of our comrades do not think this way. They stress the special nature of their work and negate its universal nature. Some embassies, consulates, and trade offices send in cables every day and letters and telephone calls every other day, but all the messages are about business. As for political study, they seem to think that the political movement is not their business and therefore leave it alone. This is especially true of the embassies in countries in Eastern and Central Africa. They even have not studied politics for half a year. They make no report on study. Nor do they report on the situation of each movement. In the past, Chairman Mao reiterated: “Often ask for direction, make more reports, don’t fear the trouble, and, if necessary, return to Peking frequently.” This is not intended merely for strengthening work connections. The main aim is to keep our diplomatic workers in contact with the center in order to strengthen the monolithic leadership of the party. This will also enable the multitude of diplomatic workers to catch up with the steps of the people at home so that they can plunge into the movement as do the people at home, enhance their awareness, oppose imperialism, guard against revisionism, and become down-to-earth red diplomats.

Previously we emphasized the leadership and education for staff members of newly established embassies in Europe and America in the belief that the embassies in African countries have a longer history and therefore have a more solid foundation. Now we see that we must grasp all of them well. It will be useless if we do not grasp them well. To grasp by whom? This calls for strengthening the monolithic leadership of the party. The liaison department of the party center and the ministry of foreign affairs should grasp the affair. Every ambassador and party secretary in each embassy should grasp the affair. It should be grasped at every level with thoroughness. As in various units on the domestic front lines, in the embassies the party secretary should take part in all work, and specifically designated persons should become responsible. We must grasp well, flexibly, and solidly the four things of formulating plans, establishing small group leadership, strengthening study, and making regular reports. If the heads continue to refuse to grasp the work and shirk their responsibilities, the central liaison department and the propaganda department should ask the party center to appoint people to discharge that duty on their behalf. In short, we must immediately change the phenomenon of “making accomplishments in diplomacy but remaining backward in the promotion of movements.” This is the first thing to be grasped on the diplomatic front.

Second, as for the content of study and the regulations governing movements, the party center on February 2 specifically insisted on the four “nots,” five “mays” and six “musts.” They are not to drag out people for struggle, not to seek the dismissal of an official, not to put up big-character posters, and not to engage in factionalism. However, you may dispatch small-character papers; you may send exposition letters home, bypassing your superior; you may present your views face to face with the head of your organization; you may exchange your experience in study, join up in presenting your views, or make reports, bypassing your superior rank; and for major events, you may request return home to make a report. In any case, you must unite in facing the outside, you must pay attention to investigations in any event, you must obey directions, you must consider the collective interest, you must safeguard national prestige, and you must uphold the monolithic leadership of the party. In addition, you are not permitted to act on impulse. You should seek great harmony and tolerate minor difference. You should never do anything that may “grieve friends and please enemies.” Meanwhile, when you confront special circumstances, you should understand the special circumstance in which some comrades are situated and their identities. You should not consider the ambassador as being eroded by the bourgeoisie after seeing him attend a capitalist’s dinner party as necessitated by the work of the united front.

As all of you stand on the first front in the anti-imperialist struggle, you will encounter various kinds of men. You must heighten your revolutionary vigilance against the enemy′s sugar-coated artillery shells and his plots to win you over. Pai Hsiang-kuo was never cut down by American and Chiang Kai-shek′s artillery shells during his scores of years of revolution, but he cannot resist the temptation of venomous snakes in the guise of beautiful women. This is a lesson for us to learn. Certainly, Pai Hsiang-kuo′s faults are not limited to this. We hope he can correct himself and continue to work. He himself holds the key.

Most of the ambassadors and other responsible officials we sent abroad have scores of years of revolutionary experience. Abundant is the experience, but heavy is their responsibility. They represent Chairman Mao, the premier, Chu the senior, the party center, and people of the whole country in their struggle with imperialist revisionism abroad, in counter-struggle, and in making revolution with the revolutionary people of the world. Achievements are the primary good. They will correct their faults as soon as people point them out. When you present your views, you must be motivated by kindness and allow them time to process and recognize your views. This point is rather important. The final objective of our movement is to educate people, not to trim them to death. We must make this point clear.

You have read Chen Chu’s report. You would have seen in it that the heads are rather vigorous in making revolution. One sentence in the report is very good: “Living in the busy city and facing imperialists, revisionists and reactionaries, I have the bright sun in my heart and will always follow the Party.”

Last, I should like to discuss the conduct of study classes. The foreign ministry and the propaganda department of the party have conducted a study class for diplomatic workers. It was very effective. Some embassies in Europe also have opened study classes. The conduct of study classes by diplomatic organs is a good way to further promote the movement to “criticize Lin Piao and Confucius.” It is also a good way to link theory with reality and to pay attention to both movement and operation. The embassy in France proposed to let the students “study mainly by themselves during busy times, collectively in slack times,” and to guide the students to “sum up their study in a certain period, and complement self-study with guidance.” This formula should be played up in the study classes.

10/19/1949

Reply to a message of greetings from Ranadive

By | 02/04/2023
0 Comment

The Indian people is one of the great Asian peoples with a long history and a vast population, her fate in the past and her path to the future are similar to those of China in many points. I firmly believe that relying on the brave Communist Party of India and the unity and struggle of all Indian patriots India will certainly not remain long under the yoke of imperialism and its collaborators. Like free China, a free India will one day emerge in the Socialist and People’s Democratic family; that day will end the imperialist reactionary era in the history of mankind.

Probably 1990s

Historical Overview of the Marxist Revolutionary Movement in Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Liberation Organization (ALO)

By | 01/29/2023
0 Comment

The Years of “Royal Democracy”

The first revolutionary Marxist organisation in Afghanistan was founded in 1966 under the name of Progressive Youth Organisation (PYO). The revisionist Moscow-directed “People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan” (PDPA) had been founded some time earlier by a number of intellectuals with suspicious links to a faction of the ruling elite. (Prince Daoud, cousin of King Zahir Shah and prime minister of Afghanistan [1953‑1963] was dubbed “The Red Prince” because of his soft spot for the post-Stalin Soviet leadership; Babrak Karmal, one of the founding fathers of the PDPA and leader of the Parcham faction of this party was notorious as a Daoud informer and as a pander to Daoud’s political ambitions.)

A salient characteristic of the revolutionary Marxist movement in Afghanistan since its very inception has been its unflagging struggle against revisionism and opportunism. It was in an anti-revisionist and anti-opportunist context that the revolutionary Marxist movement in Afghanistan was founded and grew up. Those early years were dominated by ideological polemics between the communist parties of the Soviet Union and China on the one hand and the Cultural Revolution in China on the other. Both political phenomena had indelible ideological and political effects on the PYO. It can very well be claimed that the PYO was founded as a necessary entity for defending and propagating revolutionary Marxism against the revisionism and collaborationism of the PDPA led by Noor Mohammad Taraki and Babrak Karmal.

The winds of change were blowing in Afghanistan. In 1963 Daoud had to step down as prime minister in order to make way for King Zahir Shah to proclaim a constitutional monarchy. A new constitution was adopted and vestiges of democratic freedoms including a small measure of freedom of expression and freedom of the press was allowed to the people. Taking advantage of the thaw in the political climate, the PYO set out to publish a weekly mouthpiece, Sholai Jawaid [The Eternal Flame] which concentrated on introducing the principles of New Democracy (Mao Zedong Thought) and exposing the machinations of the PDPA and Soviet revisionism. Sholai Jawaid was banned after only 11 issues but that was enough to sow the seeds of revolutionary thought and to capture the hearts and minds of thousands of vanguard intellectuals and conscious workers.

The thaw in the political climate was appreciated by other political groupings also. Very soon political gatherings and demonstrations began to draw large numbers of adherents and to generate intense interest in Kabul and major towns. In most of such gatherings and demonstrations, three political currents were very visible: The Sholayis (as members, followers and sympathisers of the PYO came to be known after their mouthpiece Sholai Jawaid), the Khalqis and Parchamis (followers of the two rival factions of the PDPA, after their respective mouthpieces Khalq [The People] and Parcham [The Banner]), and the Ikhwanis (Islamists and Islamic fundamentalists, later renamed Moslem Youth, after the name of their prototype in Egypt – Ikhwan al-Muslimeen [Moslem Brotherhood]). From the point of view of numerical strength, the gatherings and demonstrations staged by the Sholayis in Kabul far outnumbered the Khalqis and Parchamis and completely dwarfed whatever the Ikhwanis could stage despite their claim on the religiosity and religious propensity of the general populace.

The Ikhwanis were initially not taken very seriously by political circles because of their inferior numbers and poor attraction for intellectuals. The Ikhwanis made up for their inferiority by their virulence, which first manifested itself by a spate of acid spraying onto the faces of young university and high school girl students. (This was motivated by Islamic fundamentalist misogyny which abhors the appearance of women in society and considers life-incarceration of women in houses and harems as the acme of Islamic piety.) This Ikhwani virulence grew by leaps and bounds and very soon reached the point of bloodthirsty murders of secular-minded intellectuals. A number of such murders were overtly committed by the Ikhwanis in Herat and Laghman and many covert cases of Ikhwani murders came to light in Kabul and other cities. The climax for the revolutionary Marxist movement came in June 1972 when Sholayis and Ikhwanis clashed on the campus of Kabul University, a hotbed of ideological and political struggle and debate. True to their nature, the Ikhwanis had come armed with knives and pistols. The situation on that fateful day quickly got out of hand and Saydal Sokhandan, a prominent PYO activist and fiery Sholayi orator was personally assassinated by Golbuddin Hekmatyar who later gained notoriety as the leader of the most rabid Islamic fundamentalist grouping, the Hizb-i-Islami [Islamic Party]. (It was this Hizb-i-Islami which got the lion’s share of the CIA largesse during the years of the War of Resistance against Soviet aggression and occupation; like all Afghan fundamentalist parties the Hizb-i-Islami was nurtured on CIA arms and dollars until from a lowly jackal it grew into a bloodthirsty hyena, feasting on the entrails of the people of Afghanistan. This one fact alone is enough to expose the hypocritical howls of Western imperialism against Islamic fundamentalism.) Many other Sholayis were wounded, some of them critically. This clash further polarised the general political atmosphere and generated intense debate within the PYO, forcing an introspection into its policies and approaches.

The prevailing criticism amongst the Sholayis was that despite the fact that the Sholai Jawaid political current had amassed a large and dedicated following of thousands of young Afghans, the leadership of the PYO had been unable to harness the potential of these adherents for the political mobilisation of the peasant masses who comprised 90% of the people of Afghanistan. The outreach of the PYO and its leadership rarely extended beyond the urban intelligentsia, urbanites and a limited number of workers. It was in consequence of such introspection that at the beginning of the 70s different circles within the Sholai Jawaid political current began highlighting the mistakes of the PYO and opened up an extensive ideological struggle at all levels of the organisation. The most profound criticism of the PYO came from the Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan (later upgraded and renamed Sazman-i Rehayi Afghanistan [Afghanistan Liberation Organisation]). The totality of such criticisms resulted in the dissolution of the PYO into a number of smaller revolutionary groupings generally adhering – with different degrees of disagreement – to Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought.

The Daoud years

In July 1973 Daoud, the “Red Prince”, supported by the Parcham faction of the PDPA, staged a bloodless coup d’état in which he ousted his cousin King Zahir Shah and proclaimed Afghanistan a republic with himself as the president. Daoud’s Parchami cronies got appointed to key government posts, but the Parchamis and their Russian masters had underrated Daoud’s famous self-willed bull-headedness. After a year of Parchami mismanagement and misdemeanour at all levels and their pursuance of a hidden agenda dictated by Moscow, Daoud sacked all key Parchami office bearers in his administration. This obliged Moscow to concentrate on the Afghan armed forces for the achievement of its ulterior motives. During Daoud’s 5-year rule as president (1973–1978) the revolutionary movement remained in a state of stagnation. This was due to disunity amongst former members and followers of the now-dissolved PYO. The Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan (the precursor of the ALO) emerged as one of the few well-organised revolutionary groups having a clear agenda. It laid stress (with hindsight, perhaps overstress) on the need for more in-depth work with the peasantry and most of its cadres and activists shifted their activities to the rural scene.

During this period the two rival factions of the PDPA (the Khalq faction led by Noor Mohammad Taraki and the Parcham faction led by Babrak Karmal) who had split some years ago in consequence of a personality clash between Taraki and Karmal were reunited in 1977 under strict orders from Moscow. This was in preparation for the implementation of strategic plans hatched in the Kremlin for a Russian version of 19th century colonial Britain′s “forward policy”. Daoud had in the meantime become disillusioned with his Kremlin sponsors and had turned to the West for help in his ambitious development plans. He mended fences with Pakistan (a long dispute with Pakistan over “Pashtunistan” was Daoud’s favourite foreign policy quarrel) and visited Iran and Saudi Arabia to solicit financial assistance. Daoud’s about-face was too abrupt and too alarming for Kremlin strategists to brook any delay in a swift, decisive counteraction. (Memories of Anwar Sadat and Mohmmad Siyad Barre’s booting out of the Russians from Egypt and Somalia a few years earlier were still too fresh and too painful). In April 1978 the KGB engineered the assassination of Mir Akbar Khyber, a key Parchami figure, and had the unified PDPA stage a massive show of strength and defiance at his funeral. This was orchestrated in order to provoke Daoud into a crackdown on the PDPA. The arrogant Daoud fell into the trap and triggered an armed backlash spearheaded by KGB moles in key army and airforce units. The “Glorious Saur Revolution” was on. The bloody ensuing coup d’état of April 28, 1978, resulted in the massacre of Daoud and his entire family along with an estimated 7,000 military and civilian population and the coming to power of the PDPA with Noor Mohammad Taraki as president and prime minister and Babrak Karmal as his deputy. At this juncture in time Afghan revolutionary groupings were not a recognisable political force, but the correctness of their political appraisal of the Soviet Union as a social-imperialist power and of the PDPA as an agent of high treason and a mole of social-imperialism, and the Sholayis’ oft-repeated refrain trying to bring home the need for unrelenting struggle against master and lackey did not fail to register itself on the minds and conscience of thinking and feeling patriots.

The “Saur” years

Neither the people of Afghanistan nor revolutionary groupings were sorry to see Daoud fall, but this did not prevent all revolutionary Marxist groupings – the political heirs of the PYO – from swiftly, unequivocally and unanimously condemning the bloody coup d’état and calling on the people to rally to save the motherland from the fate that awaited her at the hands of the sold-out PDPA arch-traitors and their Russian masters. This swift and clear response was based on the fact that no revolutionary Marxist individual or grouping in Afghanistan had the slightest doubt that the indigenous Khalqi and Parchami lackeys of Soviet revisionism had any role or mission in Afghanistan other than to sell out their country to the Soviet Union under the guise of the touted “non-capitalist road to development” and to safeguard at all costs the interests of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Immediately after the “victory of the Saur Revolution” a nightmarish reign of terror was unleashed on the broad populace in general and on dissident intelligentsia in particular. Arbitrary individual and mass arrests, horrendous torture of suspects and mass executions of all “counter-revolutionary” elements arrested on the slightest pretext by hysterically obsessed functionaries commissioned by a frantically paranoid coterie of KGB agents at the helm of the state and government became commonplace and routine. None were spared. For the Khalqi parvenus (they very soon fell out with the Parchamis and, gaining the upper hand, turned on their erstwhile comrades-in-arms; under the aegis of Alexandre Puzanov, the Soviet ambassador, Babrak Karmal and his retinue of key Parchamis were banished abroad but a number of them were clapped into prison) anyone and everyone uttering a word against the Soviet Union and the “Saur Revolution” were traitors and counter-revolutionaries and all counter-revolutionaries were either “Sholayis” (if they were educated and secular-minded) or “Ikhwanis” (if they were illiterate, uncouth and/or religious-minded). Between these two categories, the harsher and crueller treatment was meted out to the “Sholayis” for they were “conscious enemies” with pre-meditated political motives for antagonism and animosity against “the achievements of the Glorious Saur Revolution” as opposed to “ignorant enemies” who opposed the “Saur Revolution” out of thoughtless religious fanaticism. Not in words but in deeds the regime lashed out at the religiosity of the masses, misreading the ABC of historical materialism and Marxist sociology. All this was perpetrated in the name of “democratic revolution”, “people’s democracy as the first rung on the ladder to socialism” and “the abrogation of exploitation of man by man”. All concepts that were hallowed and venerable for workers, the exploited classes and the toiling masses were rendered profane and despicable, epitomising terror, treachery and “red villainy”. Irreparable damage was done in the name of “revolution” to the image of true revolutionary intellectuals and workers and revolutionary concepts.

Galvanised by the universal atmosphere of terror, dismay and tragedy and the awareness of much worse and much more serious to come, groupings of revolutionary Marxists began to draw together again and in some cases reached some degrees of unification, but under the prevailing circumstances such unification had little practical results. However, each revolutionary grouping, spurred by the same relentless circumstances to becoming more organised and to evolving into Marxist organisations, were –each in its own way and according to its available means and capabilities – engaged in deepening and expanding the patriotic struggle. On August 5, 1979, the Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan (precursor of the ALO) collaborating in a united front with a number of militant Islamist organisations participated in a military uprising in the Bala Hissar garrison in Kabul (popularly remembered as the Bala Hissar insurrection). The insurrection was savagely quashed by the regime and a large number of Revolutionary Group cadres were killed in the fighting, succumbed under torture or were summarily executed. The correctness of the policy and line of action taken by the Revolutionary Group in forming a united front with Islamists and participating in a military uprising is still debated in Afghan Marxist circles, but as mentioned in an ALO document, the 5th August insurrection showed that Marxist patriots did not flinch from being in the first line of battle when defence of the people and independence of the motherland were at stake, and that seas of blood separate the Sholayis from Khalqi and Parchami revisionist traitors.

For Afghan Marxist revolutionaries it was a foregone conclusion that in the light of the outright rejection of the regime by the people and the regime’s increasing failure in all aspects of governance the Soviet Union would have to step in to safeguard its strategic interests. As was expected, the PDPA regime very quickly degenerated into a mêlée of party top dogs going for each other’s throats with Alexandre Puzanov, the Soviet ambassador and veteran spymaster, acting both as patron and referee. Hafizullah Amin, Taraki’s unscrupulous and megalomaniacally ambitious lieutenant in the Khalq faction very soon turned the Khalqis on the Parchamis and had the Parchami top brass banished and some of them handed over to the dreaded omnipotent AGSA secret police for “investigation”. Soon afterwards he turned on his mentor, Taraki, and, in a dramatic scene strongly reminiscent of New York mafiosi settling scores, there was a shoot-out in the presidential palace in the presence of the Soviet ambassador. The Soviet godfather had given the Kremlin’s tacit blessings to Taraki to have the egotistical Amin annihilated, but the plan went awry and Amin managed to escape unscathed while his trusted aide-de-camp Daoud Taroon was killed. This was the last straw. Amin had Taraki peremptorily arrested and assumed all his official titles. A couple of days later Taraki, the “Great Leader”, the “Prodigy of the East”, was smothered to death on orders of his “loyal pupil” and “devout disciple” Amin. Amin was now at the top and was effusive in his frequent eulogies of the Soviet Union, but he couldn’t fool the Soviets. He had foiled the Kremlin’s plans, had considerably embarrassed Moscow and had kicked out the Soviet old hand in political intrigue in Afghanistan who was present when he had his close call. But Moscow had taken pains to have spares. It now lifted a finger and Parchami bigwigs banished as ambassadors to different countries by the Khalqis scurried to receive their orders. On December 27, 1979, Babrak Karmal went on the air from a radio station in the then Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic dissembling Radio Afghanistan and announced the inauguration of the “new and evolutionary stage of the Glorious Saur Revolution”. Amin had on that day been poisoned by his Russian guards in his palace in Kabul and “limited contingents” of the Soviet army poured into Afghanistan with Babrak Karmal perched on the barrel of their tanks. The former informer of Prince Daoud and the KGB’s ace spook was now at the helm.

The War of Resistance

The worst had come to pass. The homeland of a fanatically independent people had been occupied by a foreign invader and a despised quisling had been foisted on them at gunpoint as their ruler. The people flew to arms, often nothing better than kitchen knives or rusty 19th century firearms. For the revolutionary Marxist movement in Afghanistan it was a time of great tribulation. A fledgling movement which had not yet completely found it bearings and had not yet even teethed was saddled with the formidable challenge of putting its mark on a national liberation struggle against a superpower armed to the teeth. This was a country still in the throes of semi-feudal relations of production struggling with a primitive agricultural economy and an illiteracy rate of over 90% and, of course, deeply religious. The sacred sovereignty of such a people had been scandalously betrayed by “Marxists” and the integrity of such a country had been rudely violated by the country Lenin had built. Social-imperialism had struck home. The Afghan people’s concept of honour and the totality of their world outlook, encapsulated in their religious faith, had been battered and insulted. The masses were crying out for the blood of the atheist “communist” traitors. In such an atmosphere a fledgling revolutionary Marxist movement was expected to perform its historical mission.

Afghanistan is the homeland of different ethnic groups who due to the under-development of productive forces have not yet been completely fused into one nation in the strict sense of the word. The same factors which have prevented the people of Afghanistan from becoming a modern nation have for more than a millennium conditioned them to look to their Islamic religious belief as the one unifying agent of all social classes and all ethnic denominations, particularly in times of historical adversity. With the coming to power of the quisling PDPA and particularly after the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, the call for a Jihad –a Holy War – began to be echoed from all corners of the country’s plains and valleys. As against the British in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, this was the only way a people barely out of the Middle Ages, both spiritually and materially, could articulate the need for a patriotic war of resistance against an alien invader. Only Jihad could provide a burning motivation, a simple and well-understood ideological elucidation of the need and duty of giving up life and limb in an all-out concerted effort to rid the country from the defilement of indigenous traitors and their alien masters. Amid the cacophony of Islamic exhortations to a Jihad after the pro-Soviet coup d’état and particularly after the Soviet invasion, Islamic fundamentalist merchants of faith were reaping gold.

The Ikhwanis had made a bid for power during Daoud’s fateful years. Theirs was an exercise in folly as no segment of the Afghan society supported their feeble insurrections in Laghman and Panjsher. Most of their leaders were rounded up and put in jail and a number of them took refuge in neighbouring Pakistan where they offered their services to the intelligence agencies of the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. They were put on modest payrolls and put away for a rainy day. With the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the wakening up of Western imperialism to this chance of getting even with its social-imperialist rival after the humiliating defeat of the US in Vietnam, they were brought out of the closet and made into leaders overnight. The deity must have been smiling down on them as the wily secular-minded Bhutto had been deposed by his Islamist Chief of Army Staff, General Zia-ul-Haq, and the US arms-and-money pipeline and Arab petrodollars began pouring in. Inflated with US and Arab arms and money and surfing on a high tide of popular anti-Soviet religious sentiment, the fundamentalist small-time paid agents burst onto the political scene as leaders of the Afghan Mujahedin freedom fighters, and by extension, leaders of the people of Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the murderer of Saydal Sokhandan in bygone years, rose to stardom by dint of his political acumen, cruel, unscrupulous nature and shameless obsequiousness to Pakistani generals and bigwigs charged with dispensing US and Arab arms and dollars. He had not forgotten old animosities. He declared the Sholayis, as true revolutionaries, to be “the principal enemy” and more than at a par with the Khalqis and Parchamis. In the words of a revolutionary Afghan writer:

“The revolutionary movement in Afghanistan was pitted not only against the Soviet aggressors. The Khomeini regime in Iran and the Zia-ul-Haq dictatorship in Pakistan saw eye-to-eye and worked shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russians and the puppet regime in Kabul in decimating Marxist revolutionaries in Afghanistan and nullifying their work amongst the masses. Our fledgling revolutionary movement was under siege from all four directions.”

Hundreds of Afghan revolutionary Marxists were executed in the Polygon killing fields of Pol-i-Charkhy in Kabul during the Taraki-Amin period and later on during the Karmal and Najibullah years of Soviet occupation. Hundreds more were hunted down by Ikhwani parties in Pakistan and inside Afghanistan. The Khad secret services (the Afghan arm of the KGB) had a special section mandated with the task of annihilating all Sholayi organisations and groupings. The Sholayis were fighting against impossible odds. On the one hand they were duty bound to participate in the national liberation struggle, whether Jihad or War of Resistance, and on the other they had to fight off the KGB on one side and the Ikhwani bloodhounds on the other side. Yet participate in the national liberation struggle they did. The Afghanistan Liberation Organisation (the former Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan) and the Afghanistan People’s Liberation Organisation (SAMA) are two revolutionary organisations which have actively and tangibly participated in the War of Resistance. At one time SAMA even had liberated areas of its own. With such prominent presence in the national liberation struggle it was too much not to expect rabid Ikhwani reaction. The Islamists did not spare any Sholayi falling into their hands and spared no effort at getting at prominent comrades of the revolutionary movement. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar′s Hizb-i-Islami was the top bloodhound in hunting down Marxist revolutionaries. Many an intrepid revolutionary and many a stalwart patriot was gunned down or made to disappear without a trace in Peshawar, Pakistan, centre of resistance political and logistical activities. Comrade Dr Faiz Ahmad, veteran of the Marxist movement in Afghanistan and founding leader of the Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan and subsequently of the ALO was handed over to the Hizb-i-Islami by a traitor commissioned by the Hizb, and tortured to death. Tens of other ALO cadres and comrades were assassinated by the Hizb-i-Islami. It is a well known fact that Prof. Qayum Rahbar, leader of SAMA, was gunned down by Hizb-i-Islami hit men in Peshawar, although SAMA – for reasons of their own – have not yet documented this fact. Throughout the years of Russian occupation (by an irony of fate coinciding with the Zia-ul-Haq years in Pakistan) Afghan fundamentalist parties in general and Hizb-i-Islami in particular enjoyed highly privileged status afforded them by the Zia-ul-Haq regime. The resources of the Pakistan armed forces, intelligence services, police and the fundamentalist Jamaat-i Islami Pakistan party were all at the ready disposal of the Afghan fundamentalists, therefore Afghan revolutionaries and secular patriots had no refuge and no recourse to even a modicum of support or sympathy from the Pakistani authorities. By extension, they were deprived of any and all recognition and acknowledgement by the world media.

…Upto the present

The unsung and unnoticed revolutionary Marxist movement in Afghanistan, battered to nigh extinction from right and left, is outstanding by its resilience. The almost totality of its leaders and the absolute majority of its cadres and veterans have been decimated by either the Khalqis and Parchamis or by the Ikhwanis. Yet by the fiat of history the Marxist revolutionary movement is alive and immortal. The incredibly overpowering circumstances of the years of the War of Resistance compelled true communists to adopt tactics apposite to the situation. One such tactic was to infiltrate the ranks of belligerent reactionary Islamist parties and organisations at the grassroot level with the intention of authenticating their unseverable bond with the masses and acquiring arms and ammunition for revolutionary forces. A lasting monument to the contribution of revolutionary Marxists to the people’s War of Resistance against Soviet aggression is the fact that the names “Sholayis” and “Sholai Jawaid” have not been drowned out by fourteen years of thunderous Islamist stridency in a war which was never allowed by the Islamists to be labelled as anything but a war of Islam against atheism and communism. The prestige of Marxist revolutionaries has been enhanced by their active presence in frontlines of battle and the authentication of their personalities as intrepid, caring and popular individuals informed in military issues and evincing insight and discernment in political analyses. The known irreconcilability of revolutionary Marxists groupings and organisations with the puppet regime (notwithstanding the emergence of a few traitorous and capitulating elements amongst them) has greatly contributed to the growth of the revolutionaries’ prestige amongst the masses and amongst honest elements of the Islamist opposition. One very orthodox Muslim compatriot is on record as saying, “I am and always have been inimical towards the Sholayis but I do not for a moment doubt their patriotism and their love for the people.”

The War of Resistance against Soviet social-imperialism is over and the people of Afghanistan can rightfully claim the laurels of victory. Social-imperialism has been sent to its rightful place in the dustbin of history and classical Western imperialism is sure to follow suit sooner or later. But it is the historical misfortune of the people of Afghanistan that after giving the fatal mauling to the social-imperialist bear it now has to fend off rabid reactionary hyenas, the chained dogs of Western imperialism. As with the national liberation war of resistance against social-imperialism, the ALO shall continue to stand in the forefront of the battle with fundamentalist beasts.

The true communist movement in Afghanistan is beset by innumerable deficiencies, foremost amongst which are theoretical ambiguity and a concomitant organisational confusion; and is severely constrained in its political-awareness disseminating tasks. But it has amassed rich experience in combat activities and in work amongst the masses. Afghan revolutionary Marxists have become veterans in armed engagements with the enemy. Should it ever become possible for revolutionary Afghan Marxists to combine this fighting experience with a deeper understanding of class contradictions in Afghan society, with increased class consciousness of both its members and the toiling masses, and with the enjoyment of deeper trust of a people fatally betrayed in the name of Marxism-Leninism by social-imperialist stooges, history shall surely witness dramatic changes in the political arena in Afghanistan. The depth and breadth of the ignominy and savagery of the current Islamic fundamentalist rule in Afghanistan is unprecedented in contemporary world history, as is the devastation inflicted on the moral and material fabric of the country and the people. Not the fundamentalist but the ultra-fundamentalist beast is now worrying what is left of the living skin and bones of the Afghan people. What the world is witnessing in Afghanistan at the present juncture in time is ultra-reactionary religious fascism, mass gender apartheid and ultra-fundamentalism all rolled into one. Such unprecedented mediaeval tyranny is and shall be matched by the resilience, heroism and faith of true Afghan communists in their historical mission to deliver their country and people from the current inferno and to lead the toiling masses to a society free from the shackles of feudalism and the capitalist exploitation of the many by the few. This alone is sufficient to ensure that such an anachronistic political monstrosity cannot and should not live long. History shall always find the ALO at its post.

Autumn 1980

To the Marxist-Leninists, the Workers and the Oppressed of All Countries

By | 10/19/2022
0 Comment

Today the world is on the threshold of momentous events. The crisis of the imperialist system is rapidly bringing about the danger of the outbreak of a new, third, world war as well as the real perspective for revolution in countries throughout the world. During the last few years revolutionary struggles have erupted, including in certain areas of strategic importance. All the imperialist powers are preparing to lead the workers and the oppressed people to an unprecedented mutual slaughter to protect and expand their empires of profit and exploitation throughout the world. The imperialist powers and reactionary ruling classes are joined in two rival bands of cutthroats and slavemasters, two blocs which are led one by the U.S. imperialists, the other by the equally imperialist USSR. This war is looming on the horizon and will break out unless the revolutionary struggle of the masses, the seizure of power by the working class and oppressed peoples, is able to prevent it. Still if this does break out, it will represent an extreme concentration of the crisis of the imperialist system and will heighten the objective basis for revolutionary struggle that must be seized by the Marxist-Leninists.

But at the very time when such great dangers, challenges and opportunities are placed before the workers and oppressed of all countries, a great crisis exists within the ranks of the Marxist-Leninists who have the responsibility of leading the working class and peoples in making revolution. After revisionism had clearly come to power in the USSR with Khrushchev, the international proletariat suffered a further grievous loss after the death of Comrade Mao Tsetung in 1976 with the seizure of power in socialist China by a new, counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie dragging one fourth of humanity back down the capitalist road. This great loss was further compounded by the attacks on the great contributions Mao Tsetung made to the revolutionary science of the working class, Marxism-Leninism. These attacks were not only launched by the new reactionary rulers of China, but have been joined by deserters from the revolutionary ranks, and clearly the Soviet revisionists themselves are mixed up in these attacks.

In the face of this sharpening situation, and recognizing the critical need to rise to the great challenge that this situation represents, delegates from a number of Marxist-Leninist Parties and organizations have held a meeting to discuss how to emerge and advance from this crisis on the basis of forging and uniting around a correct ideological and political line for the international communist movement. Through the course of the meeting unity was achieved on the following points, which the undersigned Parties and organizations consider important elements for the development of this line:

The Current Situation

  • Imperialism means war. This basic truth analyzed by Lenin holds particular meaning for today as another world war shapes up on the horizon. This is not a result of the desire of any particular bourgeois leader but stems from the very laws of the imperialist system.

  • In the current historical conjuncture it is only the two most powerful imperialist powers, the U.S. and the USSR, who are capable of heading up imperialist blocs to go to world war. These two imperialist powers are also the most powerful bastions of reaction in the world today.

  • All the other imperialist powers are also driven by their nature toward war—they are also big exploiters, thoroughly reactionary, aggressive and enemies of the proletariat and the peoples of the world.

  • In the face of the growing danger of world war the proletariat and the oppressed people must develop their revolutionary struggle against imperialism and all reaction. If such a war breaks out they must strive to turn inter-imperialist war into a revolutionary war aimed at the overthrow of the reactionary ruling classes.

  • In the last few years powerful revolutionary movements have developed in a number of countries, which have greatly battered or even toppled the reactionary regimes and shaken the imperialist system. While none of these revolutionary movements has yet led to the dictatorship of the proletariat, they are another clear indication of the possibility of doing so. The objective conditions for revolution are ripening throughout the world and in some countries these conditions are already mature. But the subjective conditions, especially the development of the Marxist-Leninist movement, are lagging seriously behind the objective conditions.

Tasks of Marxist-Leninists

It is necessary to rescue and build upon basic principles of Marxism-Leninism which revisionists and opportunists have done their best to obscure and bury.

  • The dictatorship of the proletariat has been and remains a cardinal point of Marxism-Leninism. This principle too has been trampled on by revisionism. From the time of Karl Marx down to the present, fighting to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and to defend and strengthen it where it is established, have remained touchstone questions for Marxist-Leninists.

    However, it is not correct and is especially harmful today, to fail to take into account the important experience, positive and negative, the proletariat has acquired in this respect since the time of the October Revolution. In particular the great teachings of Mao Tsetung on continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and the experience of the Cultural Revolution he led are of vital importance. Comrade Mao Tsetung correctly pointed out that during the entire period of socialism, that is in the period of the transition to communism, classes and class struggle still exist. He pointed out the continued existence and constant regeneration of the bourgeoisie under socialism, its material and ideological base, and the means for combatting it. Mao clearly indicated, for the first time in the history of the science of Marxism-Leninism, that the ringleaders and most important section of the bourgeoisie during the socialist period (after the socialist transformation of ownership has in the main been completed) are those leading people in the Party and the state apparatus taking the capitalist road. Mao made clear that it would be necessary to wage repeated mass revolutionary struggles, such as the Cultural Revolution, against the new bourgeoisie during the entire socialist transition.

    The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was an unprecedented mass revolutionary movement which succeeded for ten years in blocking capitalist restoration, training revolutionary successors who are fighting today against the new capitalist rulers in China, and helped to spread Marxism-Leninism throughout the world. The fact that the Cultural Revolution did not succeed in the final analysis in preventing the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat in no way lessens its historic importance nor its important lessons for the world proletariat.

  • “The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution.” This is universally true for all countries. The “peaceful road to socialism” is littered with the corpses of countless masses who were pointed down this road by revisionist betrayers.

    The principle of armed struggle of the masses has also been abandoned by revisionists who replace it with putschist theses and practices or empty phrases which renounce all types of political and organizational preparations. No matter what stages the revolution may go through, the need to seize political power by the force of arms must be propagated broadly among the masses of people, the Marxist-Leninists must carry out the necessary ideological, political and organizational preparations with this goal in mind and must strive to launch the armed struggle for power as soon as the conditions are ripe. In short, communists are advocates of revolutionary warfare.

    The armed struggle must be carried out as a war of the masses and through it the masses must be prepared ideologically, politically and organizationally to exercise political power.

    Whatever the necessary forms and stages of the revolutionary process the principal reliance must be based on building up the armed forces of the masses led by the party, while it is also necessary to carry out political work among the armed forces of the enemy to help disintegrate these armed forces and win over as many of their soldiers as possible in the course of the revolutionary struggle.

  • The existence and the leading role of the party of the proletariat is another cardinal principle. This is expressed in an organization of the vanguard of the proletariat which must be based on a Marxist-Leninist ideological, political and organizational line on the principal problems of the revolution; which at every moment, inside and outside its ranks, combats all bourgeois and revisionist influences; which permanently practises criticism and self-criticism and centralism based on democracy; which has a conscious iron discipline, all in order to link closely with the masses, to raise, generalise and coordinate their struggles, particularly political struggles, leading them to seize power from the ruling classes. With this aim, the party must attach great importance to formulating and spreading, according to principles, a concrete strategy, line and policy in accordance with the concrete conditions of the country and the interests of the masses and their wish to liberate themselves. The party must give great attention to the illegal forms of struggle and organization, in order to preserve its independence and to educate the masses in the struggle against their enemies. From a strategic point of view, illegal forms of work are fundamental. At the same time the party must make use of legal opportunities in order to broaden its influence without falling into or promoting bourgeois democratic illusions and while preparing for the inevitable repression by the reactionaries.

    The party must gain the leadership of the struggle of the masses and the revolution in practice, by correctly applying the mass line. The party must continually strengthen its leading role by ensuring that the masses and the working class continually raise their ideological, political and organizational level and that they take over an increasingly important part of the tasks of the revolution. In this way, the party will create the conditions for an authentic dictatorship of the proletariat and likewise the final withering away of the party with the withering away of social classes, communism.

Capitalism has long ago reached its final stage of imperialism, one of the most important features of which is the pillaging of the dominated countries and the exploitation of the oppressed peoples. In doing so, imperialism also greatly expands and strengthens the gravediggers destined to overthrow it.

As Lenin analysed, the world proletarian revolution, in the era of imperialism, consists of two great currents allied against the imperialist system—the proletarian socialist revolution in the capitalist countries and the new democratic revolution in the semi-feudal, colonial, semi-(or neo-) colonial countries subjected to imperialist enslavement. There are many features in common between the revolution in these two types of countries: above all that in both instances the revolution must be led by the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party, through whatever stages, and to the dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism. But there are also some important distinctions in the path of the revolution in the two types of countries.

Colonial and Dependend Countries

In the semi-feudal, colonial, semi-(or neo-) colonial countries the revolution must in general pass through two stages—first that of the new democratic revolution led by the proletariat which leads to the socialist stage. Those who insist on making a principle of skipping this stage or eclectically combining the democratic and the socialist revolution do great harm to the revolution.

While the exact course of the revolution in any given country is dependent on the concrete conditions found there, the teachings of Mao Tsetung concerning protracted people’s war are of great relevance in these types of countries. Those revisionists who attack Mao’s theory of surrounding the city by the countryside as having failed to insure the hegemony of the proletariat or dogmatically insist that insurrection in the city is the sole form of seizing power in these types of countries are in fact attacking the revolutionary struggle there.

Experience has shown that without the leadership of the proletariat and a genuine Marxist-Leninist line it is impossible to free these types of countries from imperialist enslavement, still less to advance on the socialist road. While in general it is possible and necessary to build a very broad united front in such countries, even at times involving sections of the exploiting classes, experience has underscored the importance of the Marxist-Leninists maintaining leadership and political and organizational independence, of conducting widespread education on the need to advance to socialism and ultimately communism, to combat narrow nationalist tendencies even while waging a struggle for national liberation, and exposing and combatting in the appropriate ways the bourgeoisie, even the sections with which it may be allied in this struggle against foreign imperialism and the reactionary ruling classes in power.

There is an undeniable tendency for imperialism to introduce significant elements of capitalist relations in the countries it dominates. In certain dependent countries capitalist development has gone so far that it is not correct to characterize them as semi-feudal. It is better to call them predominantly capitalist even while important elements or remnants of feudal or semi-feudal production relations and their reflection in the superstructure may still exist.

In such countries a concrete analysis must be made of these conditions and appropriate conclusions concerning the path, tasks, character and alignment of class forces must be drawn. In all events, foreign imperialism remains a target of the revolution.

Imperialist Countries

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels pointed out that the “workers have no fatherland”. Lenin stressed that this is particularly applicable in the imperialist countries. This, too, is not only a cardinal principle of Marxism-Leninism that must be rescued from decades of revisionist distortion but takes on special importance in the current conjuncture with the approach of a third world war. Communists combat every form of national chauvinism within the working class and other sections of the oppressed people. This means fighting against every tendency which identifies the interests of the proletariat with the interests of its “own” imperialist ruling class either in plundering people of the colonial and dependent countries or, especially in today’s situation, in going to war to protect the interests of the bourgeoisie. If a third world war breaks out the proletariat must work actively for the defeat of its own bourgeoisie in the war, attempting to transform the war into revolutionary civil war and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

While the road of the October Revolution is universally applicable in the sense of the need for the armed revolution, the leadership of a proletarian vanguard party, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the establishment of socialism, etc., in all countries; in addition in the capitalist and imperialist countries the October Revolution remains the basic point of reference for Marxist-Leninist strategy and tactics. The Marxist-Leninists recognize that in each country the revolution will take specific forms and must analyse the concrete conditions and sum up the experience of the masses in struggle while upholding the basic Leninist line concerning the political and organizational measures necessary for the preparation for and the seizure of power by the proletariat. Again, the distortion and negation by the revisionists of basic Leninist principles in this regard is not only an historical fact but continues to be a current problem. While paying attention to concrete analysis of concrete conditions in each country, it is necessary to study and apply correctly Lenin’s theses on the importance of raising the political consciousness of the working class to its historic mission and developing its political and revolutionary struggle, on the importance of the communist press, and of combatting the influence of economism while paying attention to the needs and conditions of the life of the masses. It’s also necessary to study and apply Mao’s teachings of the need to base oneself on the profound sentiments of the masses to liberate themselves.

On the Unity of the Marxist-Leninists

The proletariat is a single class worldwide with a single historic class interest in liberating humanity from all exploitation and oppression and in ushering in the era of communism throughout the globe. For this reason proletarian internationalism is something inseparable from Marxism-Leninism and a constant need of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist vanguard in all countries. In addition to this obvious, but often forgotten, truth, the current conjuncture also demands vigorous efforts to establish the unity of Marxist-Leninists and the revolutionaries in all countries if we are to meet the tests and opportunities facing us. In fact, the need for the unity of the Marxist-Leninists is not only objectively necessary but is increasingly demanded by revolutionaries and the masses throughout the world. In this process, as in all things, ideological and political line is decisive.

As Lenin emphasized, “Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists and opponents and distorters of Marxism”.

In our view unity can only be achieved on the basis of drawing firm and clear lines of demarcation with revisionism and opportunism of all forms. These lines of demarcation are not something which have dropped from the sky or been concocted by sectarians nor can they be treated as mere topics for sterile, academic debates—they reflect the main and decisive forms in which revisionism confronts the revolutionary proletariat and the Marxist-Leninist movement in the world today.

Upholding the contribution of Mao Tsetung to the science of Marxism-Leninism represents a particularly important and pressing question in the international communist movement and among the class conscious workers today. The principle involved is nothing less than whether or not to uphold and build on decisive contributions to the proletarian revolution and the science of Marxism-Leninism made by Mao. Mao Tsetung made important developments of Marxism-Leninism in the area of the anti-imperialist democratic revolution leading to socialism, people’s war and military strategy generally, philosophy (where he made important contributions on the analysis of contradictions, which is the essence of dialectics, and on the theory of knowledge and its links with practise and the mass line), revolutionizing the superstructure and continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as in the struggle against revisionism on the practical and theoretical fronts. It is therefore nothing less than the question of whether to uphold Marxism-Leninism itself. Mao’s theoretical and practical leadership represent a quantitative and qualitative development of Marxism-Leninism on many fronts and the theoretical concentration of the historical experience of the proletarian revolution over the last several decades.

We are still living in the era of Leninism, of imperialism and the proletarian revolution; at the same time we affirm that Mao Tsetung Thought is a new stage in the development of Marxism-Leninism. Without upholding and building on Mao’s contributions it is not possible to defeat revisionism, imperialism and reaction in general.

Closely linked to the above is the need to vigorously oppose the new revisionist rulers in China who have overthrown the dictatorship of the proletariat and are restoring capitalism. They have utterly capitulated to imperialism, and have demanded that others follow suit, at the present time under the signboard of their reactionary “strategic theory of the three worlds” which they have fraudulently tried to pass off to the ignorant as the work of Mao himself.

The Soviet revisionists and those revisionist parties historically linked to them remain bitter enemies of the international proletariat. In recent years the Soviet revisionists have adopted a more militant posture vis a vis the Western imperialist powers. This is consistent with their own requirements as a great imperialist power heading up a rival imperialist bloc. They have on several occasions intervened directly by military means or made use of the Vietnamese and Cuban revisionists who are part of their bloc, to seek to expand their imperialist domination. This is often masked as “internationalism”. In some cases revisionist parties historically tied to the USSR have prompted such counterrevolutionary lines as “peaceful roads” and “historic compromise” with the bourgeoisie; in other cases these revisionist parties prepare military coups and armed actions divorced from the masses. The role and nature of the revisionist parties today must be further analyzed and studied, both in particular cases and in general, but in any event it is completely clear that they stand as bitter enemies of the proletarian revolution and must be unmasked and defeated as a crucial part of developing the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and mobilizing the masses in revolutionary struggle.

The Albanian Party of Labor and its leadership have fallen completely into the revisionist swamp. Shortly after the counterrevolutionary coup in China the PLA attracted a number of genuine revolutionaries because they opposed some of the more hideous features of the Hua-Teng clique in China, especially regarding international line. Very quickly, however, they outdid even Hua and Teng in the virulence of their attack on Mao and Mao Tsetung Thought. The PLA leaders have adopted classic Trotskyite positions on a number of questions, including the nature of the revolution in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries, e.g. excluding people’s war as a form of revolutionary struggle. More significantly their position grows daily closer to the made-in-Moscow revisionist line on a number of cardinal questions and world events, as already shown by their stand on Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia, the workers’ upheaval in Poland, and their attacks on Mao, which are similar to the Soviets’ attacks.

The influence of Trotskyism has been strengthened by revisionism in general and has been especially strengthened recently by the coming to power of the revisionists in China and by the revisionist stands of the PLA. The organizations and Parties which endorse this communique are calling for the struggle against revisionism to be linked to the struggle against the positions of the Trotskyites, which are left in form but deeply rightist in essence, and are especially calling for opposition to the following points: their “purist”, “workerist” line of negating the alliance with the peasantry or other non-proletarian forces, negating in particular the policy of a united front against the reactionary classes in power; the negation of the possibility of seizing power and embarking on the socialist transition period in a single country; and their economist conception of the mass struggles and with regard to the way in which they see the transition to communism as consisting basically of a development of the productive forces.

The signatory organizations and Parties underline the increased danger posed by social democracy which holds power in a number of countries and which continues to serve as a Trojan horse for the interests of the Western imperialists. In addition to its usual conciliatory tactics, in some countries social democracy is attempting to form or influence armed groups in order to play a role in a situation of changing conditions. Marxist-Leninists must steadfastly combat their influence among the masses and must denounce all their tactics.

While it is not only possible but vitally necessary to take important steps now to unify genuine Marxist-Leninists on the basis of clear lines of demarcation that have emerged and in the face of the urgent tasks of the international movement, it is also necessary to carry out collective study, discussion and struggle over many important questions. This is particularly evident in relation to the necessity of developing a much fuller and deeper understanding of the history of the international communist movement. As the Chinese Communist Party pointed out in 1963 when it was a genuine communist party, in its polemics with the Soviet revisionists, with regard to the history of the international communist (and national liberation) movement there are “many experiences and many lessons. There are experiences which people should praise and there are experiences which make people grieve. Communists and revolutionaries in all countries should ponder and seriously study these experiences of success and failure, so as to draw correct conclusions and useful lessons from them”. Today, in light of further momentous experiences, positive and negative, since that time, and with the present situation and the looming possibilities in mind, this orientation assumes all the more profound significance. The need to dare to ponder and analyze more deeply and penetratingly in order to act more boldly is all the more decisive.

Before modern revisionism revealed itself openly in the USSR and various other countries, there already existed within the international communist movement different erroneous conceptions which facilitated its development.

While recognizing the undeniable contributions made by the Third International to the unity of the international proletariat, to the founding of communist parties and to their struggles; and while recognizing the tremendous role played by the October Revolution, which initiated the epoch of proletarian revolutions and opened the way for the construction of socialism in the USSR, communists must endeavor to critically sum up these experiences, making it possible to explain in the light of Marxism-Leninism the seizure of power by the bourgeoisie in that country and in other socialist nations, and also making it possible to learn from the errors and deviations which were committed and to evaluate to what extent they had bearing on the degeneration into opportunism of the majority of the international communist movement. In the face of the demoralization caused by these facts among broad sectors of the masses, and given that the bourgeois sectors are taking advantage of these facts, claiming that they prove the “failure” of Marxism, it falls on us communists to show that it is not scientific socialism which has failed, and that, on the contrary, scientific socialism makes it possible for us to grasp what objective and subjective factors gave rise to these events. Among other things, we must investigate and struggle over the experiences of the Third International and the reasons which led to its self-dissolution; the way in which the relationship between the revolutionary struggle against the bourgeoisie and imperialism and the policy of forming an anti-fascist united front was handled during the last world war, and also the very reasoning behind this policy; the origin of the revisionist tendencies, such as Browderism, which spread faith in the idea that it would be possible to establish a lasting peace and improve the living conditions of the masses on the basis of agreements between the USSR and the imperialist powers who were fighting against the fascist states, and of the tendencies to conciliation which these gave rise to; the deep roots that led to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and other socialist countries, paying particular attention to the way in which the development of the class struggle was handled and the question of how the need to consistently apply the dictatorship of the proletariat was treated in those countries, to the handling of the relationship between politics and ideology, between politics and economic and technical questions, the question of the mass line, the question of the correct handling of contradictions among the people and with the enemy on the basis of mobilizing the masses, the relationship of centralism and democracy within the party and the relationship of the party to the masses. By throwing light on these questions, while staying clear of the slander of the Trotskyites and other enemies of the revolution, we will be able to draw important lessons for the development of the revolution.

In sum, in order to achieve the unity of the Marxist-Leninists, it is essential to deepen the study so as to make an evaluation of the theoretical and practical activity of the communists during the period of the Third International, the Second World War and especially the causes of the coming to power of the revisionists in the countries in which the proletariat held power, particularly in the USSR and in China.

The undersigned Parties and organizations received and discussed a major draft text prepared jointly by the Revolutionary Communist Party of Chile and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. They hold that, on the whole, the text is a positive contribution toward the elaboration of a correct general line for the international communist movement. With this perspective, the text should be circulated and discussed not only in the ranks of those organizations who have signed this communique, but throughout the ranks of the international communist movement. 1

To carry out the struggle against revisionism and to aid the process of developing and struggling for a correct general line in the international communist movement, the undersigned Parties and organizations are launching an international journal. This journal can and will be a crucial weapon which can help unite, ideologically, politically and organizationally, the genuine Marxist-Leninists throughout the world.

These Parties and organizations signing this communique stress the need not only to maintain contact and carry out discussion and struggle with each other but actively to seek out and develop relations with other genuine Marxist-Leninists around the globe and carry out an ideological struggle and political work to win still broader forces of the international movement and the masses to consolidate the revolutionary position and reinforce the revolutionary struggles.

The current conjuncture in the world and in the international movement presents the revolutionary proletariat, the oppressed peoples and the Marxist-Leninists with great tasks, trials and, above all, great opportunities. Marxism-Leninism, the science of the revolutionary proletariat, has always been forged and tempered in the furnace of class struggle. Today we must rise to meet the challenges before us, race to catch up with the rapid developments of the objective conditions, reconstruct the unity of Marxist-Leninists on the basis of a correct line and summing up the experience of the past, fight for proletarian internationalism—and in so doing push ahead the advance toward communism throughout the world.

Joint Communique of

Ceylon Communist Party

Groupe Marxiste-Leniniste du Senegal

Grupo para la Defensa del Marxismo-Leninismo (Spain)

Mao Tsetung-Kredsen (Denmark)

Marxist-Leninist Collective (Britain)

New Zealand Red Flag Group

Nottingham Communist Group (Britain)

Organizzazione Comunista Proletaria Marxista-Leninista (Italy)

Partido Comunista Revoludonario de Chile

Pour l’Intemationale Proletarienne (France)

Reorganization Committee, Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)

Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

Union Comunista Revolucionaria (Dominican Republic)

Примечания
  1. “Basic Principles for the Unity of Marxist-Leninists and for the Line of the International Communist Movement” is available in English, French and Spanish editions from: RCP Publications, P.O. Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654, USA.↩