THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND
KHRUSHCHOV'S REVISIONISM
--COMMENT ON THE OPEN
LETTER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU (VIII)
by the Editorial
Departments of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqi (Red Flag)
March 31, 1964
The present
article will discuss the familiar question of "peaceful
transition". It has become familiar and has attracted everybody's
attention because Khrushchov raised it at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and
rounded it into a complete system in the form of a programme at the 22nd
Congress, where he pitted his revisionist views against the Marxist-Leninist
views. The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU of July 14, 1963
once again struck up this old tune.
In the history
of the international communist movement the betrayal of Marxism and of the
proletariat by the revisionists has always manifested itself most sharply in
their opposition to violent revolution and to the dictatorship of the
proletariat and in their advocacy of peaceful transition from capitalism to
socialism. This is likewise the case with Khrushchov's revisionism. On this
question, Khrushchev is a disciple of Browder and Tito as well as of
Bernstein and Kautsky.
Since the days
of World War II, we have witnessed the emergence of Browderite revisionism,
Titoite revisionism and the theory of structural reform. These varieties of
revisionism are local phenomena in the international communist movement. But
Khrushchov's revisionism, which has emerged and gained ascendancy in the
leadership of the CPSU, constitutes a major question of overall significance
for the international communist movement with a vital bearing on the success
or failure of the entire revolutionary cause of the international
proletariat.
For this
reason, in the present article we are replying to the revisionists in more
explicit terms than before.
A DISCIPLE OF BERNSTEIN AND
KAUTSKY
Beginning with
the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchov put forward the road of
"peaceful transition", i.e., "transition to socialism by the
parliamentary road",[1] which is diametrically
opposed to the road of the October Revolution.
Let us examine
the "parliamentary road" peddled by Khrushchov and his like.
Khrushchov
holds that the proletariat can win a stable majority in parliament under the
bourgeois dictatorship and under bourgeois electoral laws. He says that in
the capitalist countries
. . . the working class, by rallying around itself
the toiling peasantry, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces, and
resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are incapable of giving up
the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, is in a position
to defeat the reactionary forces opposed to the popular interest, to capture
a stable majority in parliament... [2]
Khrushchov
maintains that if the proletariat can win a majority in parliament, this in
itself will amount to the seizure of state power and the smashing of the
bourgeois state machinery. He says that, for the working class,
. . . to win a majority in parliament and transform
it into an organ of the people's power, given a powerful revolutionary
movement in the country, means smashing the military-bureaucratic machine of
the bourgeoisie and setting up a new, proletarian people's state in
parliamentary form.[3]
Khrushchov
holds that if the proletariat can win a stable majority in parliament, this
in itself will enable it to realize the socialist transformation of society.
He says that the winning of a stable parliamentary majority "could
create for the working class of a number of capitalist and former colonial
countries the conditions needed to secure fundamental social changes".[4] Also,
. . . the present situation offers the working
class in a number of capitalist countries a real opportunity to unite the
overwhelming majority of the people under its leadership and to secure the
transfer of the basic means of production into the hands of the people.[5]
The Programme
of the CPSU maintains that "the working class of many countries can,
even before capitalism is overthrown, compel the bourgeoisie to carry out
measures that transcend ordinary reforms".[6] The
Programme even states that under the bourgeois dictatorship it is possible
for a situation to emerge in certain countries, in which "it will be
preferable for the bourgeoisie . . . to agree to the basic means of
production being purchased from it". [7]
The stuff
Khrushchov is touting is nothing original but is simply a reproduction of the
revisionism of the Second International, a revival of Bernsteinism and
Kautskyism.
The main
distinguishing marks of Bernstein's betrayal of Marxism were his advocacy of
the legal parliamentary road and his opposition to violent revolution, the
smashing of the old state machinery and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Bernstein held
that capitalism could "grow into socialism" peacefully. He said
that the political system of modern bourgeois society "should not be
destroyed but should only be further developed",[8]
and that "we are now bringing about by voting, demonstrations and
similar means of pressure reforms which would have required bloody revolution
a hundred years ago."[9]
He held that the
legal parliamentary road was the only way to bring about socialism. He said
that if the working class has "universal and equal suffrage, the social
principle which is the basic condition for emancipation is attained".[10]
He asserted
that "the day will come when it [the working class] will have become
numerically so strong and will be so important for the whole of society that
so to speak the palace of the rulers will no longer be able to withstand its
pressure and will collapse semi-spontaneously".[11]
Lenin said:
The Bernsteinians accepted and accept Marxism minus
its directly revolutionary aspect. They do not regard the parliamentary
struggle as one of the weapons particularly suitable for definite historical
periods, but as the main and almost the sole form of struggle making
"force", "seizure", "dictatorship",
unnecessary. ("The Victory of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Workers'
Party", Collected Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House,
Moscow, 1962, Vol. 10, p. 249.)
Herr Kautsky
was a fitting successor to Bernstein. Like Bernstein, he actively publicized
the parliamentary road and opposed violent revolution and the dictatorship of
the proletariat. He said that under the bourgeois democratic system there is
"no more room for armed struggle for the settlement of class
conflicts"[12] and that "it would be ridiculous
. . . to preach a violent political overthrow".[13]
He attacked Lenin and the Bolshevik Party by comparing to "an impatient
midwife who uses violence to make a pregnant woman give birth in the fifth
month instead of the ninth."[14]
Kautsky was
hopelessly afflicted with parliamentary cretinism. He made the well-known
statement, "The aim of our political struggle remains, as hitherto, the
conquest of state power by winning a majority in parliament and by converting
parliament into the master of the government."[15]
He also said:
The parliamentary republic--with a monarchy at the
top on the English model, or without--is to my mind the base out of which
proletarian dictatorship and socialist society grow. This republic is the
"state of the future" toward which we must strive.[16]
Lenin severely
criticized these absurd statements of Kautsky's.
In denouncing
Kautsky, Lenin declared:
Only scoundrels or simpletons can think that the
proletariat must win the majority in elections carried out under the yoke
of the bourgeoisie, under the yoke of wage-slavery, and that it
should win power afterwards. This is the height of folly or hypocrisy; it is
substituting voting, under the old system and with the old power, for class
struggle and revolution. ("Greetings to the Italian, French and German
Communists", Collected Works, 4th Russian ed, Moscow, Vol. 30,
p. 40.)
Lenin made the
pointed comment that Kautsky's parliamentary road "is nothing, but the
purest and the most vulgar opportunism: repudiating revolution in deeds,
while accepting it in words". ("The State and Revolution", Selected
Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 323.) He said:
By so
"interpreting" the concept "revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat" as to expunge the revolutionary violence of the oppressed
class against its oppressors, Kautsky beat the world record in the liberal
distortion of Marx. ("The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade
Kautsky", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. 2, Part 2,
pp. 47-48.)
Here, we have
quoted Khrushchov as well as Bernstein and Kautsky and Lenin's criticism of
these two worthies at some length in order to show that Khrushchov's
revisionism is modern Bernsteinism and Kautskyism, pure and simple. As with
Bernstein and Kautsky, Khrushchov's betrayal of Marxism is most sharply
manifested in his opposition to revolutionary violence, in what he does
"to expunge revolutionary violence". In this respect, Kautsky and
Bernstein have now clearly lost their title to Khrushchov who has set a new
world record. Khrushchov, the worthy disciple of Bernstein and Kautsky, has
excelled his masters.
VIOLENT REVOLUTION IS A UNIVERSAL
LAW OF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION
The entire
history of the working-class movement tells us that the acknowledgement or
non-acknowledgement of violent revolution as a universal law of proletarian
revolution, of the necessity of smashing the old state machine, and of the
necessity of replacing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the
dictatorship of the proletariat has always been the watershed between Marxism
and all brands of opportunism and revisionism between proletarian
revolutionaries and all renegades from the proletariat.
According to
the basic teachings of Marxism-Leninism, the key question in every revolution
is that of state power. And the key question in the proletarian revolution is
that of the seizure of state power and the smashing of the bourgeois state
machine by violence, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat
and the replacement of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state.
Marxism has
always proclaimed the inevitability of violent revolution. It points out that
violent revolution is the midwife to socialist society, the only road to the
replacement of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the
proletariat, and a universal law of proletarian revolution.
Marxism teaches
us that the state itself is a form of violence. The main components of the
state machine are the army and the police. History shows that all ruling
classes depend upon violence to maintain their rule.
The proletariat
would, of course, prefer to gain power by peaceful means. But abundant
historical evidence indicates that the reactionary classes never give up
power voluntarily and that they are always the first to use violence to
repress the revolutionary mass movement and to provoke civil war, thus
placing armed struggle on the agenda.
Lenin has
spoken of "civil war, without which not a single great revolution in
history has yet been able to get along, and without which not a single
serious Marxist has conceived of the transition from capitalism to
socialism". ("Prophetic Words", Collected Works, 4th
Russian ed., Moscow, Vol. 27, p. 457.)
The great
revolutions in history referred to by Lenin include the bourgeois revolution.
The bourgeois revolution is one in which one exploiting class overthrows
another, and yet it cannot be made without a civil war. Still more is this
the case with the proletarian revolution, which is a revolution to abolish all
exploiting classes and systems.
Regarding the
fact that violent revolution is a universal law of proletarian revolution,
Lenin repeatedly pointed out that "between capitalism and socialism
there lies a long period of 'birth pains'--that violence is always the
midwife of the old society" ("Those Who Are Terrified by the
Collapse of the Old and Those Who Fight for the New", Collected
Works, 4th Russian ed., Vol. 26, p 362), that the bourgeois state "cannot be superseded by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the
proletariat) through the process of 'withering away,' but, as a general rule,
only through a violent revolution", and that "the necessity of
systematically imbuing the masses with this and precisely this view of
violent revolution lies at the root of all the teachings of Marx and
Engels". ("The State and Revolution", Selected Works, FLPH,
Moscow, 1952, Vol. 2, Part 1, pp. 219-20.)
Stalin, too,
said that a violent revolution of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the
proletariat, is "an inevitable and indispensable condition" for the
advance towards socialism in all countries ruled by capital. ("Reply to
the Discussion on the Report on 'The Social-Democratic Deviation in Our
Party'", Works, FLPH, Moscow. 1954, Vol. 8, p. 323.)
Can a radical
transformation of the bourgeois order be achieved without violent revolution,
without the dictatorship of the proletariat? Stalin answered:
Obviously not. To think that such a revolution can
be carried out peacefully, within the framework of bourgeois democracy, which
is adapted to the rule of the bourgeoisie, means that one has either gone out
of one's mind and lost normal human understanding, or has grossly and openly
repudiated the proletarian revolution. ("Concerning Questions of
Leninism", Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. 8, p. 25.)
Basing himself
on the Marxist-Leninist theory of violent revolution and the new experience
of the proletarian revolution and the people's democratic revolution led by
the proletariat, Comrade Mao Tse-tung advanced the celebrated dictum that
"political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
Comrade Mao
Tse-tung said:
. . . revolutions and revolutionary wars are
inevitable in class society and . . . in their absence no leap in social
development can be accomplished, the reactionary ruling classes cannot be
overthrown and the people cannot win political power. ("On
Contradiction", Selected Works, 2nd Chinese ed., Peking, Vol.
1, p. 322.)
He stated:
The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement
of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution.
This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for
China and for all other countries. ("Problems of War and Strategy", Selected Military Writings, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1963,
p. 267.)
He stated
further:
Experience in the class struggle in the era of
imperialism teaches us that it is only by the power of the gun that the
working class and the labouring masses can defeat the armed bourgeoisie and
landlords; in this sense we may say that only with guns can the whole world
be transformed. (Ibid., p. 273.)
To sum up,
violent revolution is a universal law of proletarian revolution. This is a
fundamental tenet of Marxism-Leninism. It is on this most important question
that Khrushchov betrays Marxism-Leninism.
OUR STRUGGLE AGAINST KHRUSHCHOV'S
REVISIONISM
When Khrushchov
first put forward the "parliamentary road" at the 20th Congress of
the CPSU, the Chinese Communist Party considered it a gross error, a
violation of the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism, and absolutely
unacceptable.
As Khrushchov's
revisionism was still in its incipient stage and the leaders of the CPSU had
not as yet provoked open polemics, we refrained for a time from publicly
exposing or criticizing Khrushchov's error of the "parliamentary
road". But, as against his erroneous proposition, we stated the
Marxist-Leninist view in a positive form in our documents and articles. At
the same time we waged the appropriate and necessary struggle against it at
inter-Party talks and meetings among the fraternal Parties.
Summing up the
experience of the Chinese revolution, we clearly stated in the political
report of our Central Committee to the Eighth National Congress of our Party
in September 1956:
While our Party was working for peaceful change, it
did not allow itself to be put off its guard or to give up the people's
arms....
Unlike the reactionaries, the people are not
warlike.... But when the people were compelled to take up arms, they were
completely justified in doing so. To have opposed the people's taking up arms
and to have asked them to submit to the attacking enemy would have been to
follow an opportunist line. Here, the question of following a revolutionary
line or an opportunist line became the major issue of whether our six hundred
million people should or should not capture political power when conditions
were ripe. Our Party followed the revolutionary line and today we have the
People's Republic of China.
On this
question, the Marxist-Leninist view of the Eighth National Congress of the
CPC is opposed to the revisionist view of the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
In December
1956 we explained the road of the October Revolution in a positive way in the
article "More on the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat", thus in fact criticizing the so-called parliamentary road
which Khrushchov set against the road of the October Revolution.
In many private
talks with the leaders of the CPSU, the leading comrades of the Central
Committee of the CPC made serious criticisms of Khrushchov's erroneous views.
We hoped in all sincerity that he would correct his mistakes.
At the time of
the meeting of representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957,
the delegation of the CPC engaged in a sharp debate with the delegation of
the CPSU on the question of the transition from capitalism to socialism.
In the first
draft for the Declaration which it proposed during the preparations for the
Moscow meeting, the Central Committee of the CPSU referred only to the
possibility of peaceful transition and said nothing about the possibility of
non-peaceful transition; it referred only to the parliamentary road and said
nothing about other means of struggle, and at the same time pinned hopes for
the winning of state power through the parliamentary road on "the
concerted actions of Communists and socialists". Naturally the Central
Committee of the CPC could not agree to these wrong views, which depart from
Marxism-Leninism, being written into the programmatic document of all the
Communist and Workers' Parties.
After the
delegation of the CPC made its criticisms, the Central Committee of the CPSU
produced a second draft for the Declaration. Although phrases about the
possibility of non-peaceful transition were added, the formulation of the
question of peaceful transition in this draft still reflected the revisionist
views put forward by Khrushchov at the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
The delegation
of the CPC expressed its disagreement with these erroneous views in clear
terms. On November 10, 1957 it systematically explained its own views on the
question of the transition from capitalism to socialism to the Central
Committee of the CPSU, to which it also presented a written outline.
The main points
made in our written outline are summarized below.
It is
advantageous from the point of view of tactics to refer to the desire for
peaceful transition, but it would be inappropriate to over-emphasize the
possibility of peaceful transition. It is necessary to be prepared at all
times to repulse counter-revolutionary attacks and, at the critical juncture
of the revolution when the working class is seizing state power, to overthrow
the bourgeoisie by armed force if it uses armed force to suppress the
people's revolution (generally speaking, it is inevitable that the
bourgeoisie will do so).
The
parliamentary form of struggle must be fully utilized, but its role is
limited. What is most important is to proceed with the hard work of
accumulating revolutionary strength; peaceful transition should not be
interpreted in such a way as solely to mean transition through a
parliamentary majority. The main question is that of the state machinery,
namely, the smashing of the old state machinery (chiefly the armed forces)
and the establishment of the new slate machinery (chiefly the armed forces).
The social
democratic parties are not parties of socialism; with the exception of
certain Left wings, they are a variant of bourgeois political parties. On the
question of socialist revolution, our position is fundamentally different
from that of the social democratic parties. This distinction must not be
obscured.
These views of
ours are in full accord with Marxism-Leninism.
The comrades of
the delegation of the Central Committee of the CPSU were unable to argue
against them, but they repeatedly asked us to make allowances for their
internal needs, expressing the hope that the formulation of this question in
the draft Declaration might show some connection with its formulation by the
20th Congress of the CPSU.
We had refuted
the wrong views of the leadership of the CPSU and put forward a written outline
of our own views. For this reason and for the sake of the common struggle
against the enemy, the delegation of the CPC decided to meet the repeated
wishes of the comrades of the CPSU and agreed to take the draft of the
Central Committee of the CPSU on this question as the basis, while suggesting
amendments in only a few places.
We hoped that
through this debate the comrades of the CPSU would awaken to their errors and
correct them. But contrary to our hopes, the leaders of the CPSU did not do
so.
At the meeting
of fraternal Parties in 1960, the delegation of the CPC again engaged in
repeated sharp debates with the delegation of the CPSU on the question of the
transition from capitalism to socialism, and thoroughly exposed and
criticized Khrushchov's revisionist views. During the meeting, the Chinese
and the Soviet sides each adhered to its own position, and no agreement could
be reached. In view of the general wish of fraternal Parties that a common
document should be hammered out at the meeting, the delegation of the CPC
finally made a concession on this question again and agreed to the verbatim
transcription of the relevant passages in the 1957 Declaration into the 1960
Statement, again out of consideration for the needs of the leaders of the CPSU.
At the same
time, during this meeting we distributed the Outline of Views on the Question
of Peaceful Transition put forward by the Chinese Communist Party on November
10, 1957, and made it clear that we were giving consideration to the
leadership of the CPSU on this issue for the last time, and would not do so
again.
If comrades now
make the criticism that we were wrong in giving this consideration to the
leaders of the CPSU, we are quite ready to accept this criticism.
As the
formulation of the question of peaceful transition in the Declaration and the
Statement was based on the drafts of the CPSU and in some places retained the
formulation by its 20th Congress, there are serious weaknesses and errors in
the overall presentation, even though a certain amount of patching up was
done. While indicating that the ruling classes never relinquish power
voluntarily, the formulation in the two documents also asserts that state
power can be won in a number of capitalist countries without civil war; while
stating that extra-parliamentary mass struggle should be waged to smash the
resistance of the reactionary forces, it also asserts that a stable majority
can be secured in parliament and that parliament can thus be transformed into
an instrument serving the working people; and while referring to non-peaceful
transition, it fails to stress violent revolution as a universal law. The
leadership of the CPSU has taken advantage of these weaknesses and errors in
the Declaration and the Statement and used them as an excuse for peddling
Khrushchov's revisionism.
It must be
solemnly declared that the Chinese Communist Party has all along maintained
its differing views on the formulation of the question of the transition from
capitalism to socialism in the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960.
We have never concealed our views. We hold that in the interest of the
revolutionary cause of the international proletariat and in order to prevent
the revisionists from misusing these programmatic documents of the fraternal
Parties, it is necessary to amend the formulation of the question in the
Declaration and the Statement through joint consultation of Communist and
Workers' Parties so as to conform to the revolutionary principles of
Marxism-Leninism.
In order to
help readers acquaint themselves with the full views of the Chinese Communist
Party on this question, we are re-publishing the complete text of the Outline
of Views on the Question of Peaceful Transition put forward by the delegation
of the CPC to the Central Committee of the CPSU on November 10, 1957, as an
appendix to this article.
In the last
eight years the struggle of the Marxist-Leninist parties and of the world's
Marxist-Leninists against Khrushchov's revisionism has made great progress.
More and more people have come to recognize the true features of Khrushchov's
revisionism. Nevertheless, the leaders of the CPSU are still resorting to
subterfuge and quibbles, and trying in every possible way to peddle their
nonsense.
Therefore, it
is still necessary for us to refute the fallacy of "peaceful
transition".
SOPHISTRY CANNOT ALTER HISTORY
The leaders of
the CPSU openly distort the works of Marx and Lenin and distort history too
to cover up their betrayal of Marxism-Leninism and justify their revisionist
line.
They argue: Did
not Marx "admit such a possibility [peaceful transition] for England and
America"?[17] In fact, this argument is taken from
the renegade Kautsky who used the self-same method to distort Marx's views
and oppose the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the
proletariat.
It is true that
in the 1870's Marx said that in countries like the United States and Britain
"the workers can reach their goal by peaceful means". But at the
same time he stressed that this possibility was an exception. He said that
"even if this be so, we must also recognize that in the majority of
countries on the continent force must serve as the lever of our
revolution". ("On the Hague Congress", Speech at a Mass Meeting
in Amsterdam, Collected Works of Marx and Engels, 2nd Russian ed.,
Moscow, Vol. 18, p. 154.) What is more, he pointed out,
The English
bourgeoisie has always shown its readiness to accept the decision of the
majority, so long as it has the monopoly of the suffrage. But believe me, at
the moment when it finds itself in the minority on questions which it
considers vitally important, we will have a new slave-holders' war here.
("Record of a Talk Between K. Marx and the Correspondent of The
World", Collected Works of Marx and Engels, 2nd Russian ed.,
Moscow, Vol. 17, p. 637.)
Lenin said in
his criticism of the renegade Kautsky:
The argument that Marx in the 'seventies granted
the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in England and America
is the argument of a sophist, or, to put it bluntly, of a swindler who
juggles with quotations and references. First, Marx regarded this possibility
as an exception even then. Secondly, in those days monopoly capitalism, i.e., imperialism, did not yet exist. Thirdly, in England and America there
was no military then--as there is now--serving as the chief apparatus of the
bourgeois state machine. ("The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade
Kautsky", Collected Works, International Publishers, New York,
1945, Vol. 23, pp. 233-34.)
Lenin said
that, by virtue of its fundamental economic traits, imperialism is
distinguished "by a minimum attachment for peace and freedom, and by a
maximum and universal development of militarism". "To 'fail to
notice' this" in the discussion of the question of peaceful or violent
change is "to stoop to the position of a common or garden variety lackey
of the bourgeoisie." (Ibid., p 357.)
Today, the
leaders of the CPSU have struck up Kautsky's old tune. What is this if not
stooping to the position of a common or garden lackey of the bourgeoisie?
Again, the
leaders of the CPSU argue: Did not Lenin "admit in principle the
possibility of a peaceful revolution "?[18] This is
even worse sophistry.
For a time
after the February Revolution of 1917 Lenin envisaged a situation in which
"in Russia, by way of an exception, this revolution can be a peaceful
revolution". ("First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers'
and Soldiers' Deputies", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1952,
Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 80 ) He called this "an exception" because of
the special circumstances then obtaining: "The essence of the
matter was that the arms were in the hands of the people, and that no
coercion from without was exercised in regard to the people." ("On
Slogans", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. 2, Part 1,
p. 88.) In July 1917 the counter-revolutionary bourgeois government
suppressed the masses by force of arms, drenching the streets of Petrograd
with the blood of workers and soldiers. After this incident Lenin declared
that "all hopes for a peaceful development of the Russian Revolution
have definitely vanished". ("The Political Situation",
Collected Works, International Publishers, New York, 1932, Vol. 21, Book
1, p. 37.) In October 1917 Lenin and the Bolshevik Party resolutely led the
workers and soldiers in an armed uprising and seized state power. Lenin
pointed out in January 1918 that "the class struggle ... has turned into
a civil war". ("People from the Next World", Collected
Works, 4th Russian ed., Moscow, Vol. 26, p. 393.) The Soviet state had
to wage another three and half years of revolutionary war and to make heavy
sacrifices before it smashed both the domestic counter-revolutionary
rebellion and the foreign armed intervention. Only then was the victory of
the revolution consolidated. In 1919 Lenin said that "revolutionary
violence gained brilliant successes in the October Revolution".
("The Successes and Difficulties of Soviet Power", Collected
Works, 4th Russian ed., Moscow, Vol. 29, p. 41.)
Now the leaders
of the CPSU have the impudence to say that the October Revolution was
"the most bloodless of all revolutions"[19] and
was "accomplished almost peacefully".[20] Their
assertions are totally contrary to the historical facts. How can they face
the revolutionary martyrs who shed their blood and sacrificed their lives to
create the world's first socialist state?
When we point
out that world history has thus far produced no precedent for peaceful
transition from capitalism to socialism, the leaders of the CPSU quibble,
saying that "practical experience exists of the achievement of the
socialist revolution in peaceful form". And shutting their eyes to all
the facts, they state, "In Hungary in 1919, the dictatorship of the
proletariat was established by peaceful means."[21]
Is this true?
No, it is not. Let us see what Bela Kun, the leader of the Hungarian
revolution, had to say.
The Communist
Party of Hungary was founded in November 1918. The new-born Party immediately
plunged into revolutionary struggle and proclaimed as the slogans of
socialist evolution: "Disarm the bourgeoisie, arm the proletariat,
establish Soviet power." (Bela Kun, Lessons of the Proletarian
Revolution in Hungary, Russian ed., Moscow, 1960, p. 46.) The Hungarian
Communist Party worked actively in all fields for an armed uprising. It armed
the workers, strove to win over the government troops and organize the
demobilized soldiers, staged armed demonstrations, led the workers in
expelling their bosses and occupying the factories, led the agricultural
workers in seizing large estates, disarmed the reactionary army officers,
troops and police, combined strikes with armed uprisings, and so forth.
In fact, the
Hungarian revolution abounded in armed struggle of various forms and on
various scales. Bela Kun wrote,
From the day of the founding of the Communist Party
to the taking of power, armed clashes with the organs of bourgeois power
occurred with increasing frequency. Starting with December 12, 1913 when the
armed Budapest garrison came out into the streets in a demonstration against
the War Minister of the Provisional Government, . . . there was probably not
a single day on which the press failed to report sanguinary clashes between
the revolutionary workers and soldiers and armed units of the government
forces, and in particular of the police. The Communists organized numerous
uprisings not only in Budapest but in the provinces as well. (Bela Kun, Lessons
of the Proletarian Revolution in Hungary, Russian ed., Moscow, 1960, p.
57.)
The leaders of
the CPSU are telling a glaring lie when they say that the Hungarian
revolution was an example of peaceful transition.
It is alleged
in the Soviet press that the Hungarian bourgeois government "voluntarily
resigned",[22] and this is probably the only ground
the leaders of the CPSU base themselves on. But what were the facts?
Karolyi, the
head of the Hungarian bourgeois government at the time, was quite explicit on
this point. He declared:
I signed a proclamation concerning my own
resignation and the transfer of power to the proletariat, which in reality
had already taken over and proclaimed power earlier . . . I did not hand
over power to the proletariat, as it had already won it earlier, thanks to
its planned creation of a socialist army.
For this
reason, Bela Kun pointed out that to say the bourgeoisie voluntarily handed
political power over to the proletariat was a deceptive "legend".
(Bela Kun, Lessons of the Proletarian Revolution in Hungary, Russian
ed., Moscow, 1960, p. 49.)
The Hungarian
Revolution of 1919 was defeated. In examining the chief lessons of its
defeat, Lenin said that one fatal error committed by the young Hungarian
Communist Party was that it was not firm enough in exercising dictatorship
over the enemy but wavered at the critical moment. Moreover, the Hungarian
Party failed to take correct measures to meet the peasants' demand for the
solution of the land problem and therefore divorced itself from the
peasantry. Another important reason for the defeat of the Revolution was the
amalgamation of the Communist Party and the opportunist Social Democratic
Party.
It is a sheer
distortion of history when the leaders of the CPSU allege that the Hungarian
Revolution of 1918-1919 is a model of "peaceful transition".
Furthermore,
they allege that the working class of Czechoslovakia won "power by the
peaceful road".[23] This is another absurd distortion
of history.
The people's
democratic power in Czechoslovakia was established in the course of the
anti-fascist war; it was not taken from the bourgeoisie
"peacefully". During World War II, the Communist Party led the
people in guerrilla warfare and armed uprisings against the fascists, it
destroyed the German fascist troops and their servile regime in
Czechoslovakia with the assistance of the Soviet Army and established a
national front coalition government. This government was in essence a people's
democratic dictatorship under the leadership of the proletariat, i e., a form
of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In February
1948 the reactionaries inside Czechoslovakia, backed by U.S. imperialism,
plotted a counter-revolutionary coup d'état to overthrow the people's
government by an armed rebellion. But the government led by the Communist
Party immediately deployed its armed forces and organized armed mass
demonstrations, thus shattering the bourgeois plot for a
counter-revolutionary come-back. These facts clearly testify that the
February event was not a "peaceful" seizure of political power by
the working class from the bourgeoisie but a suppression of a
counter-revolutionary bourgeois coup d'état by the working class through its
own state apparatus, and mainly through its own armed forces.
In summarizing
the February event Gottwald said:
Even before the February event we said: one of the
basic changes compared with what existed before the war is precisely that the
state apparatus already serves new classes and not the previous ruling
classes. The February event showed that the state apparatus, in this sense,
played an outstanding role.... (Speech at the plenary session of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Nov. 17, 1948.)
How can the
above instances be regarded as precedents for peaceful transition?
Lenin said,
"Kautsky had to resort to all these subterfuges, sophistries and
fraudulent falsifications only in order to dissociate himself from violent revolution, and to conceal his renunciation of it, his desertion to the liberal labour policy, i.e., to the bourgeoisie." And he added, "That
is where the trouble lies." ("The Proletarian Revolution and the
Renegade Kautsky", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. 2,
Part 2, p. 44.)
Why has
Khrushchov so shamelessly distorted the works of Marx and Lenin, fabricated
history and resorted to subterfuges? Again, that is where the trouble lies.
LIES CANNOT COVER UP REALITY
The principal
argument used by the leaders of the CPSU to justify their anti-revolutionary
line of "peaceful transition" is that historical conditions have
changed.
With regard to
the appraisal of the changes in historical conditions since World War II and
the conclusions to be drawn from them, Marxist-Leninists hold entirely
different views from those of Khrushchov.
Marxist-Leninists
hold that historical conditions have changed fundamentally since the War. The
change is mainly manifested in the great increase in the forces of
proletarian socialism and the great weakening of the forces of imperialism.
Since the War, the mighty socialist camp and a whole series of new and
independent nationalist states have emerged, and there have occurred a
continuous succession of armed revolutionary struggles, a new upsurge in the
mass movements in capitalist countries and the great expansion of the ranks
of the international communist movement. The international proletarian
socialist revolutionary movement and the national democratic revolutionary
movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America have become the two major
historical trends of our time.
In the early
post-war period, Comrade Mao Tse-tung repeatedly pointed out that the world
balance of forces was favourable to us and not to the enemy, and that this
new situation "has opened up still wider possibilities for the
emancipation of the working class and the oppressed peoples of the world and
has opened up still more realistic paths towards it".
("Revolutionary Forces of the World Unite, Fight Against Imperialist
Aggression!", Selected Works, FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV. p.
284.)
He also
indicated,
Make trouble, fail, make trouble again, fail again
. . . till their doom, that is the logic of the imperialists and all
reactionaries the world over in dealing with the people's cause, and they
will never go against this logic. This is a Marxist law. When we say
"imperialism is ferocious", we mean that its nature will never
change, that the imperialists will never lay down their butcher knives, that
they will never become Buddhas, till their doom. ("Cast Away Illusions,
Prepare for Struggle", Selected Works, FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol.
IV, p. 428.)
Marxist-Leninists
base themselves on the fact that the changes in post-war conditions have
become increasingly favourable for revolution and on the law that imperialism
and reaction will never change their nature. Therefore they draw the
conclusion that revolution must be promoted, and they hold that full use must
be made of this very favourable situation and that in the light of the
specific conditions in different countries the development of revolutionary
struggles must be actively promoted and preparations must be made to seize
victory in the revolution.
On the other
hand, using the pretext of these very changes in post-war conditions,
Khrushchov draws the conclusion that revolution must be opposed and
repudiated, and he holds that as a result of the changes in the world balance
of forces imperialism and reaction have changed their nature, the law of
class struggle has changed, and the common road of the October Revolution and
the Marxist-Leninist theory of proletarian revolution have become outmoded.
Khrushchov and
his like are spreading an Arabian Nights tale. They maintain, "Now
favourable international and internal conditions are taking shape for the
working class of a number of capitalist countries to accomplish the socialist
revolution in peaceful form."[24]
They say:
In the period between the first and second world
wars, the reactionary bourgeoisie in many European countries, incessantly
developing and perfecting its police-bureaucratic machine, savagely repressed
the mass movements of the working people and left no possibility for the
achievement of the socialist revolution by the peaceful road.
But according
to them the situation has now changed.[25] They say that
"basic shifts in favour of socialism in the relationship of forces in
the international arena" now create the possibility of "paralyzing
the intervention of international reaction in the affairs of countries
carrying out revolution",[26] and that "this
lessens the possibilities for the unleashing of civil war by the
bourgeoisie".[27]
But the lies of
Khrushchov and his like cannot cover up realities.
Two outstanding
facts since World War II are that the imperialists and the reactionaries are
everywhere reinforcing their apparatus of violence for cruelly suppressing
the masses and that imperialism headed by the United States is conducting
counter-revolutionary armed intervention in all parts of the world.
Today the
United States of America has become more militarized than ever and has
increased its troops to over 2,700,000 men, or eleven times the 1934 total
and nine times the 1939 total. It has so many police and secret service
organizations that even some of the big U.S. capitalists have had to admit
that it tops the world in this respect, having far surpassed Hitlerite
Germany.
Britain's
standing army increased from over 250,000 men in 1934 to over 420,000 in
1963, and its police force from 67,000 in 1934 to 87,000 in 1963.
France's
standing army increased from 650,000 in 1934 to over 740,000 in 1963, and its
police and security forces from 80,000 in 1934 to 120,000 in 1963.
Other
imperialist countries and even the ordinary run of capitalist countries are
no exceptions to this large-scale strengthening of the armed forces and police.
Khrushchov is
zealously using the slogan of general and complete disarmament to immobilize
the people. He has been chanting it for many years now. But in actual fact
there is not even a shadow of general and complete disarmament. Everywhere in
the imperialist camp headed by the United States one finds a general and
complete arms drive and an expansion and strengthening of the apparatus of
violent suppression.
Why are the
bourgeoisie so frenziedly reinforcing their armed forces and police in peace time?
Can it be that their purpose is not to suppress the mass movements of the
working people but rather to guarantee that they can win state power by
peaceful means? Haven't the ruling bourgeoisie committed enough atrocities in
the nineteen years since the War in employing soldiers and policemen to
suppress striking workers and people struggling for their democratic rights?
In the past
nineteen years, U.S. imperialism has organized military blocs and concluded
military treaties with more than forty countries. It has set up over 2,200
military bases and installations in all parts of the capitalist world. Its
armed forces stationed abroad exceed 1,000,000. Its "Strike
Command" directs a mobile land and air force, ready at all times to be
sent anywhere to suppress the people's revolution.
In the past
nineteen years, the U.S. and other imperialists have not only given every
support to the reactionaries of various countries and helped them to suppress
the peoples' revolutionary movements; they have also directly planned and
executed numerous counter-revolutionary armed aggressions and interventions,
i.e., they have exported counter-revolution. U.S. imperialism, for instance,
helped Chiang Kai-shek fight the civil war in China, sent its own troops to
Greece and commanded the attack on the Greek people's liberated areas,
unleashed the war of aggression in Korea, landed troops in Lebanon to
threaten the revolution in Iraq, aided and abetted the Laotian reactionaries
in extending civil war, organized and directed a so-called United Nations
force to suppress the national independence movement in the Congo, and
conducted counter-revolutionary invasions of Cuba. It is still fighting to
suppress the liberation struggle of the people of South Viet Nam. Recently it
has used armed force to suppress the just struggle of the Panamanian people
in defence of their sovereignty and participated in the armed intervention in
Cyprus.
Not only does
U.S. imperialism take determined action to suppress and intervene in all
people's revolutions and national liberation movements, but it also tries to
get rid of bourgeois regimes which show some nationalist colouration. During
these nineteen years, the U.S. Government has engineered numerous
counter-revolutionary military coups d'état in a number of countries in Asia,
Africa and Latin America. It has even used violence to remove puppets of its
own fostering, such as Ngo Dinh Diem, once they have ceased to suit its
purposes--"kill the donkey as soon as you take it from the mill-stone",
as the saying goes.
Facts have
demonstrated that nowadays in order to make revolutions and achieve
liberation all oppressed peoples and nations not only have to cope with
violent suppression by the domestic reactionary ruling classes, but must
prepare themselves fully against armed intervention by imperialism, and
especially U.S. imperialism. Without such preparation and without steadfastly
rebuffing counter-revolutionary violence by revolutionary violence whenever
necessary, revolution, let alone victory, is out of the question.
Without
strengthening their armed forces, without preparing to meet imperialist armed
aggression and intervention and without adhering to the policy of waging
struggles against imperialism, countries which have won independence will not
be able to safeguard their national independence and still less to ensure the
advance of the revolutionary cause.
We would like
to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since you talk so glibly about the new
features of the postwar situation, why have you chosen to omit the most
important and conspicuous one, namely, that the U.S. and other imperialists
are suppressing revolution everywhere? You never weary of talking about
peaceful transition, but why have you never had a single word to say about
how to deal with the bloated apparatus of forcible suppression built up by
the imperialists and reactionaries? You brazenly cover up the bloody
realities of the cruel suppression of the national liberation and popular
revolutionary movements by imperialism and reaction and spread the illusion
that the oppressed nations and peoples can achieve victory by peaceful means.
Isn't it obvious that you are trying to lull the vigilance of the people,
pacify the angry masses with empty promises about the bright future and
oppose their revolution, thus in fact acting as accomplices of imperialism
and the reactionaries of all countries?
On this
question, it is useful to let John Foster Dulles, the late U.S. Secretary of
State, be our "teacher by negative example".
Dulles said in
a speech on June 21, 1956 that all socialist countries had hitherto been
established "through the use of violence". He then said that
"the Soviet rulers now say that they will renounce the use of
violence" and that "we welcome and shall encourage these developments".[28]
As a faithful
champion of the capitalist system, Dulles was of course perfectly aware of
the essential role of force in class struggle. While welcoming Khrushchov's
renunciation of violent revolution, he laid great stress on the bourgeoisie's
need to strengthen its counter-revolutionary violence in order to maintain
its rule. He said in another speech that "of all the tasks of government
the most basic is to protect its citizens [read "reactionary ruling classes"]
against violence.... So in every civilized community the members contribute
toward the maintenance of a police force as an arm of law and order".[29]
Here Dulles was
telling the truth. The political foundation of the rule of imperialism and
all reaction is nothing other than--"a police force". So long as
this foundation is unimpaired, nothing else is of any importance and their
rule will not be shaken. The more the leaders of the CPSU cover up the fact
that the bourgeoisie relies on violence for its rule and spread the fairy
tale of peaceful transition, which was so welcome to Dulles, the more they
reveal their true colours as cronies of the imperialists in opposing
revolution.
REFUTATION OF THE
"PARLIAMENTARY ROAD"
The idea of the
"parliamentary road" which was publicized by the revisionists of
the Second International was thoroughly refuted by Lenin and discredited long
ago. But in Khrushchov's eyes, the parliamentary road seems suddenly to have
acquired validity after World War II.
Is this true?
Of course not.
Events since
World War II have demonstrated yet again that the chief component of the
bourgeois stale machine is armed force and not parliament. Parliament is only
an ornament and a screen for bourgeois rule. To adopt or discard the
parliamentary system, to grant parliament greater or less power, to adopt one
kind of electoral law or another--the choice between these alternatives is
always dictated by the needs and interests of bourgeois rule. So long as the bourgeoisie
controls the military-bureaucratic apparatus, either the acquisition of a
"stable majority in parliament" by the proletariat through
elections is impossible, or this "stable majority" is undependable.
To realize socialism through the "parliamentary road" is utterly
impossible and is mere deceptive talk.
About half the
Communist Parties in the capitalist countries are still illegal. Since these
Parties have no legal status, the winning of a parliamentary majority is, of
course, out of the question.
For example,
the Communist Party of Spain lives under White terror and has no opportunity
to run in elections. It is pathetic and tragic that Spanish Communist leaders
like Ibarruri should follow Khrushchov in advocating "peaceful
transition" in Spain.
With all the
unfair restrictions imposed by bourgeois electoral laws in those capitalist
countries where Communist Parties are legal and can take part in elections,
it is very difficult for them to win a majority of the votes under bourgeois
rule. And even if they get a majority of the votes, the bourgeoisie can
prevent them from obtaining a majority of the seats in parliament by revising
the electoral laws or by other means.
For example,
since World War II, the French monopoly capitalists have twice revised the
electoral law, in each case bringing about a sharp fall in the parliamentary
seats held by the Communist Party of France. In the parliamentary election in
1946, the CPF gained 182 seats. But in the election of 1951, the revision of
the electoral law by the monopoly capitalists resulted in a sharp reduction
in the number of CPF seats to 103, that is, there was a loss of 79 seats. In
the 1956 election, the CPF gained 150 seats. But before the parliamentary
election in 1958, the monopoly capitalists again revised the electoral law
with the result that the number of seats held by the CPF fell very
drastically to 10, that is, it lost 140 seats.
Even if in
certain circumstances a Communist Party should win a majority of the seats in
parliament or participate in the government as a result of an electoral
victory, it would not change the bourgeois nature of parliament or
government, still less would it mean the smashing of the old and the
establishment of a new state machine. It is absolutely impossible to bring
about a fundamental social change by relying on bourgeois parliaments or
governments. With the state machine under its control the reactionary
bourgeoisie can nullify elections, dissolve parliament, expel Communists from
the government, outlaw the Communist Party and resort to brute force to
suppress the masses and the progressive forces.
For instance,
in 1946 the Communist Party of Chile supported the bourgeois Radical Party in
winning an electoral victory, and a coalition government was formed with the
participation of Communists. At the time, the leaders of the Chilean
Communist Party went so far as to describe this bourgeois-controlled
government as a "people's democratic government". But in less than
a year the bourgeoisie compelled them to quit the government, carried out
mass arrests of Communists and in 1948 outlawed the Communist Party.
When a workers'
party degenerates and becomes a hireling of the bourgeoisie, the latter may
permit it to have a majority in parliament and to form a government. This is
the case with the bourgeois social-democratic parties in certain countries.
But this sort of thing only serves to safeguard and consolidate the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; it does not, and cannot, in the least alter
the position of the proletariat as an oppressed and exploited class. Such
facts only add testimony to the bankruptcy of the parliamentary road.
Events since
World War II have also shown that if Communist leaders believe in the
parliamentary road and fall victim to the incurable disease of
"parliamentary cretinism", they will not only get nowhere but will
inevitably sink into the quagmire of revisionism and ruin the revolutionary
cause of the proletariat.
There has
always been a fundamental difference between Marxist-Leninists on the one
hand and opportunists and revisionists on the other on the proper attitude to
adopt towards bourgeois parliaments.
Marxist-Leninists
have always held that under certain conditions the proletarian party should
take part in parliamentary struggle and utilize the platform of parliament
for exposing the reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie, educating the masses
and helping to accumulate revolutionary strength. It is wrong to refuse to
utilize this legal form of struggle when necessary. But the proletarian party
must never substitute parliamentary struggle for proletarian revolution or
entertain the illusion that the transition to socialism can be achieved
through the parliamentary road. It must at all times concentrate on mass
struggles.
Lenin said:
The party of the revolutionary proletariat must
take part in bourgeois parliamentarism in order to enlighten the masses,
which can be done during elections and in the struggle between parties in
parliament. But to limit the class struggle to the parliamentary struggle, or
to regard the latter as the highest and decisive form, to which all the other
forms of struggle are subordinate, means actually deserting to the side of
the bourgeoisie and going against the proletariat. (The Constituent
Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, FLPH,
Moscow, 1954, p. 36.)
He denounced
the revisionists of the Second International for chasing the shadow of
parliamentarism and for abandoning the revolutionary task of seizing state
power. They converted the proletarian party into an electoral party, a
parliamentary party, an appendage of the bourgeoisie and an instrument for
preserving the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In advocating the
parliamentary road, Khrushchov and his followers can only meet with the same
fate as that of the revisionists of the Second International.
REFUTATION OF "OPPOSITION TO
LEFT OPPORTUNISM"
The Open Letter
of the Central Committee of the CPSU fabricates a tissue of lies in its
treatment of the question of proletarian revolution. It asserts that the
Chinese Communist Party favours "advancing the slogan of immediate
proletarian revolution" even in the absence of a revolutionary
situation, that it stands for abandoning "the struggle for the
democratic rights and vital interests of the working people in capitalist
countries",[30] that it makes armed struggle
"absolute",[31] and so on. They frequently pin
such labels as "Left opportunism", "Left adventurism" and
"Trotskyism" on the Chinese Communist Party.
The truth is
that the leaders of the CPSU are making this hullabaloo in order to cover up
their revisionist line which opposes and repudiates revolution. What they are
attacking as "Left opportunism" is in fact nothing but the
Marxist-Leninist revolutionary line.
We have always
maintained that a revolution cannot be made at will and is impossible unless
a revolutionary situation objectively exists. But the outbreak and the
victory of revolution depend not only on the existence of a revolutionary
situation but also on the preparations and efforts made by the subjective
revolutionary forces.
It is
"Left" adventurism if the party of the proletariat does not
accurately appraise both the objective conditions and subjective forces making
for revolution and if it rashly launches a revolution before the conditions
are ripe. But it is Right opportunism, or revisionism, if the proletarian
party makes no active preparations for revolution before the conditions are
ripe, or dare not lead a revolution and seize state power when a
revolutionary situation exists and the conditions are ripe.
Until the time
arrives for seizing state power, the fundamental and most important task for
the proletarian party is to concentrate on the painstaking work of
accumulating revolutionary strength. The active leadership given in
day-to-day struggle must have as its central aim the building up of
revolutionary strength and the preparations for seizing victory in the
revolution when the conditions are ripe. The proletarian party should use the
various forms of day-to-day struggle to raise the political consciousness of
the proletariat and the masses of the people, to train its own class forces,
to temper its fighting capacity and to prepare for revolution ideologically,
politically, organizationally and militarily. It is only in this way that it
will not miss the opportunity of seizing victory when the conditions for
revolution are ripe. Otherwise, the proletarian party will simply let the
opportunity of making revolution slip by even when a revolutionary situation
objectively exists.
While
tirelessly stressing that no revolution should be made in the absence of a
revolutionary situation, the leaders of the CPSU avoid the question of how
the party of the proletariat should conduct day-to-day revolutionary struggle
and accumulate revolutionary strength before there is a revolutionary
situation. In reality, they are renouncing the task of building up
revolutionary strength and preparing for revolution on the pretext of the
absence of a revolutionary situation.
Lenin once gave
an excellent description of the renegade Kautsky's attitude towards the
question of a revolutionary situation. He said of Kautsky that if the
revolutionary crisis has arrived, "then he too is prepared to become a
revolutionary! But then, let us observe, every blackguard. . . would proclaim
himself a revolutionary! If it has not, then Kautsky will turn his back on
revolution!" As Lenin pointed out, Kautsky was like a typical
philistine, and the difference between a revolutionary Marxist and a
philistine is that the Marxist has the courage to "prepare the
proletariat and all the toiling and exploited masses for it
[revolution]". ("The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade
Kautsky", Collected Works, International Publishers, New York,
1945, Vol. 23, pp. 403-404.) People can judge for themselves whether or not
Khrushchov and his followers resemble the Kautsky type of philistine
denounced by Lenin.
We have always
held that the proletarian parties in the capitalist countries must actively
lead the working class and the working people in struggles to oppose monopoly
capital, to defend democratic rights, to improve living conditions, to oppose
imperialist arms expansion and war preparations, to defend world peace and to
give vigorous support to the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed
nations.
In the
capitalist countries which are subject to bullying, control, intervention and
aggression by U.S. imperialism, the proletarian parties should raise the
national banner of opposition to U.S. imperialism and direct the edge of the
mass struggle mainly against U.S. imperialism as well as against monopoly
capital and other reactionary forces at home which are betraying the national
interests. They should unite all the forces that can be united and form a
united front against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.
In recent years
the working class and the working people in many capitalist countries have
been waging broad mass struggles which not only hit monopoly capital and
other reactionary forces at home, but render powerful support to the
revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and
to the countries of the socialist camp. We have always fully appreciated this
contribution.
While actively
leading immediate struggles, Communists should link them with the struggle
for long-range and general interests, educate the masses in a proletarian
revolutionary spirit, ceaselessly raise their political consciousness and
accumulate revolutionary strength in order to seize victory in revolution
when the time is opportune. Our view is in full accord with Marxism-Leninism.
In opposition
to the views of Marxist-Leninists, the leaders of the CPSU spread the notion
that "in the highly-developed capitalist countries, democratic and
socialist tasks are so closely intertwined that there, least of all, is it
possible to draw any sort of lines of demarcation".[32]
This is to substitute immediate for long-range struggles and reformism for
proletarian revolution.
Lenin said that
"no reform can be durable, genuine and serious if it is not supported by
the revolutionary methods of struggle of the masses". A workers' party
that "does not combine this struggle for reforms with the revolutionary
methods of the workers' movement may be transformed into a sect, and may
become torn away from the masses, and . . . this is the most serious threat
to the success of genuine revolutionary socialism". ("To the Secretary
of the 'Socialist Propaganda League' ", Collected Works, 4th
Russian ed., Moscow, Vol. 21, p 389.)
He said that
"every democratic demand . . . is, for the class conscious workers, subordinated to the higher interests of socialism". ("A Caricature of
Marxism and 'Imperialist Economism'", Selected Works, International
Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. 5, p. 292.) Further, in The State and
Revolution Lenin quoted Engels as follows. The forgetfulness of the
great main standpoint in the momentary interests of the day, the struggling
and striving for the success of the moment without consideration for the
later consequences, the sacrifice of the future of the movement for its
present was opportunism, and dangerous opportunism at that.
It was
precisely on this ground that Lenin criticized Kautsky for "praising
reformism and submission to the imperialist bourgeoisie, and blaming and
renouncing revolution". He said that "the proletariat fights for
the revolutionary overthrow of the imperialist bourgeoisie", while
Kautsky "fights for the reformist 'improvement' of imperialism, for
adaptation to it, while submitting to it". ("The Proletarian
Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", Against Revisionism, FLPH,
Moscow, 1959, p. 441 and p. 440.)
Lenin's
criticism of Kautsky is an apt portrayal of the present leaders of the CPSU.
We have always
held that in order to lead the working class and the masses of the people in
revolution, the party of the proletariat must master all forms of struggle
and be able to combine different forms, swiftly substituting one form for
another as the conditions of struggle change. It will be invincible in all
circumstances only if it masters all forms of struggle, such as peaceful and
armed, open and secret, legal and illegal, parliamentary and mass struggle,
as well as both domestic and international struggle.
The victory of
the Chinese revolution was precisely the result of the skilful and thorough
mastery of all forms of struggle--in keeping with the specific
characteristics of the Chinese revolution--by the Communists of China who
learned from the historical experience of international proletarian struggle.
Armed struggle was the chief form in the Chinese revolution, but the
revolution could not have been victorious without the use of other forms of
struggle.
In the course
of the Chinese revolution the Chinese Communist Party fought on two fronts.
It fought both the Right deviation of legalism and the "Left"
illegalist deviation, and properly combined legal with illegal struggle. In
the country as a whole, it correctly combined struggle in the revolutionary
base areas with struggle in the Kuomintang areas, while in the Kuomintang
areas it correctly combined open and secret work, made full use of legal
opportunities and kept strictly to Party rules governing secret work. The
Chinese revolution has brought forth a complexity and variety of forms of
struggle suited to its own specific conditions.
From its long
practical experience, the Chinese Communist Party is fully aware that it is
wrong to reject legal struggle, to restrict the Party's work within narrow
confines and thereby to alienate itself from the masses. But one should never
tolerate the legalism peddled by the revisionists. The revisionists reject
armed struggle and all other illegal struggle, engage only in legal struggle
and activity and confine the Party's activities and mass struggles within the
framework allowed by the ruling classes.
They debase and
even discard the Party's basic programme, renounce revolution and adapt themselves
solely to reactionary systems of law.
As Lenin
rightly pointed out in his criticism, revisionists such as Kautsky were
degraded and dulled by bourgeois legality. "For a mess of pottage given
to the organizations that are recognized by the present police law, the
proletarian right of revolution was sold." ("The Collapse of the
Second International", Collected Works, International
Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. 18, p. 314.)
While the
leaders of the CPSU and their followers talk about the use of all forms of
struggle, in reality they stand for legalism and discard the objective of the
proletarian revolution on the pretext of changing forms of struggle. This is
again substituting Kautskyism for Leninism.
The leaders of
the CPSU often make use of Lenin's great work, "'Left-Wing' Communism,
an Infantile Disorder", to justify their erroneous line and have made it
a "basis" for their attacks on the Chinese Communist Party.
This is of
course futile. Like all his other works, this book of Lenin's can only serve
as a weapon for Marxist-Leninists in the fight against various kinds of
opportunism and can never serve as an instrument of revisionist apologetics.
When Lenin
criticized the "Left-wing" infantile disorder and asked the party
of the proletariat to be skilful in applying revolutionary tactics and to do
better in preparing for revolutions, he had already broken with the
revisionists of the Second International and had founded the Third
International.
Indeed, in
"'Left-Wing' Communism" he stated that the main enemy of the
international working-class movement at the time was Kautsky's type of
opportunism. He repeatedly stressed that unless a break was made with
revisionism there could be no talk of how to master revolutionary tactics.
Those comrades
whom Lenin criticized for their "Left-wing" infantile disorder all
wanted revolution, while the latter-day revisionist Khrushchov is against it,
has therefore to be included in the same category as Kautsky and has no right
whatsoever to speak on the question of combating the "Left-wing"
infantile disorder.
It is most
absurd for the leadership of the CPSU to pin the label of
"Trotskyism" on the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, it is
Khrushchov himself who has succeeded to the mantle of Trotskyism and who
stands with the Trotskyites of today.
Trotskyism
manifests itself in different ways on different questions and often wears the
mask of "ultra-Leftism", but its essence is opposition to
revolution, repudiation of revolution.
As far as the
fundamental fact of their opposition to the proletarian revolution and the
dictatorship of the proletariat is concerned, Trotskyism and the revisionism
of the Second International are virtually the same. This is why Stalin
repeatedly said that Trotskyism is a variety of Menshevism, is Kautskyism and
social democracy, and is the advanced detachment of the counter-revolutionary
bourgeoisie.
In its essence,
the present-day revisionism of Khrushchov also opposes and repudiates
revolution. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that Khrushchov's
revisionism is not only cut from the same cloth as Kautskyism, but also
converges with Trotskyism to oppose revolution. Khrushchov had better pin the
label of Trotskyism on himself.
TWO DIFFERENT LINES, TWO DIFFERENT
RESULTS
History is the
most telling witness. Rich experience has been gained since World War II both
in the international communist movement and in the peoples' revolutionary
struggles. There has been successful as well as unsuccessful experience.
Communists and the revolutionary people of all countries need to draw the
right conclusions from this historical experience.
The countries
in Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America which have succeeded in making a
socialist revolution since the War have done so by following the
revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line and the road of the October Revolution.
Now, in addition to the experience of the October Revolution, there is the
experience of the revolutions of China, the socialist countries in Eastern
Europe, Korea, Viet Nam and Cuba. The victorious revolutions in these
countries have enriched and developed Marxism-Leninism and the experience of
the October Revolution.
From China to
Cuba, all these revolutions without exception were won by armed struggle and
by fighting against armed imperialist aggression and intervention.
The Chinese
people were victorious in their revolution after waging revolutionary wars
for twenty-two years, including the three years of the People's Liberation
War, in which they thoroughly defeated the Chiang Kai-shek reactionaries who
were backed up to the hilt by U.S. imperialism.
The Korean
people carried on fifteen years of revolutionary armed struggle against
Japanese imperialism beginning in the 1930's, built up and expanded their
revolutionary armed forces, and finally achieved victory with the help of the
Soviet Army. After the founding of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
it took another three years of war against U.S. imperialist armed aggression
before the victory of their revolution could be consolidated.
The Vietnamese
people seized state power by the armed uprising of August 1945. Immediately
afterwards, they had to begin fighting a war of national liberation lasting
eight years against French imperialism and to defeat the U.S. imperialist
military intervention, and only then did they triumph in northern Viet Nam.
The people of southern Viet Nam are still waging a heroic struggle against
U.S. imperialist armed aggression.
The Cuban
people started their armed uprising in 1953, and later it took more than two
years of people's revolutionary war before they overthrew the rule of U.S.
imperialism and its Cuban puppet, Batista. After their victorious revolution,
the Cuban people smashed armed invasions by U.S. imperialist mercenaries and
safeguarded the fruits of revolution.
The other
socialist countries too were all established through armed struggle.
What are the
main lessons of the successful proletarian revolutions in the countries
extending from China to Cuba after World War II?
1. Violent
revolution is a universal law of proletarian revolution. To realize the
transition to socialism, the proletariat must wage armed struggle, smash the
old state machine and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
2. The peasants
are the most dependable allies of the proletariat. The proletariat must
closely rely on the peasants, establish a broad united front based on the
worker-peasant alliance, and insist upon proletarian leadership in the
revolution.
3. U.S.
imperialism is the arch enemy of people's revolution in all countries. The
proletariat must hold high the national banner of opposition to U.S.
imperialism and have the courage to fight with firm resolve against the U.S.
imperialists and their lackeys in its own country.
4. The revolution
of the oppressed nations is an indispensable ally of the proletarian
revolution. The workers of all countries must unite, and they must unite with
all the oppressed nations and all the forces opposed to imperialism and its
lackeys to form a broad international united front.
5. To make a
revolution, it is essential to have a revolutionary party. The triumph of the
proletarian revolution and the triumph of the dictatorship of the proletariat
are impossible without a revolutionary proletarian party established in
accordance with the revolutionary theory and style of Marxism-Leninism, a
party which is irreconcilable towards revisionism and opportunism and which
takes a revolutionary attitude towards the reactionary ruling classes and
their state power.
To insist on
revolutionary armed struggle is of primary importance not only to the
proletarian revolution but also to the national democratic revolution of the
oppressed nations. The victory of the Algerian national liberation war has
set a good example in this respect.
The whole
history of the proletarian parties since the War has shown that those parties
which have followed the line of revolution, adopted the correct strategy and
tactics and actively led the masses in revolutionary struggle are able to lead
the revolutionary cause forward step by step to victory and grow vigorously
in strength.
Conversely, all
those parties which have adopted a non-revolutionary opportunist line and
accepted Khrushchov's line of "peaceful transition" are doing
serious damage to the revolutionary cause and turning themselves into
lifeless and reformist parties, or becoming completely degenerate and serving
as tools of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. There is no lack of such
instances.
The comrades of
the Communist Party of Iraq were once full of revolutionary ardour. But
acceptance of Khrushchov's revisionist line was forced on them by outside
pressure, and they lost their vigilance against counter-revolution. In the
armed counter-revolutionary coup d'état, leading comrades heroically
sacrificed their lives, thousands of Iraqi Communists and revolutionaries
were massacred in cold blood, the powerful Iraqi Communist Party was
dispersed, and the revolutionary cause of Iraq suffered a grave setback. This
is a tragic lesson in the annals of proletarian revolution, a lesson written
in blood.
The leaders of
the Algerian Communist Party danced to the baton of Khrushchov and of the
leadership of the French Communist Party and completely accepted the
revisionist line against armed struggle. But the Algerian people refused to
listen to this rubbish. They courageously fought for national independence
against imperialism, waged a war of national liberation for over seven years
and finally compelled the French Government to recognize Algeria's
independence. But the Algerian Communist Party, which followed the
revisionist line of the leadership of the CPSU, forfeited the confidence of
the Algerian people and its position in Algerian political life.
During the
Cuban revolution, some leaders of the Popular Socialist Party refused to
pursue the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line, the correct line of
revolutionary armed struggle, but, following Khrushchov's revisionist line,
advocated "peaceful transition" and opposed violent revolution. In
these circumstances, Marxist-Leninists outside and inside the Cuban Party,
represented by Comrade Fidel Castro, rightly bypassed those leaders who
opposed violent revolution, joined hands and made revolution with the
revolutionary Cuban people, and finally won a victory of great historic
significance.
Certain leaders
of the Communist Party of France of whom Thorez is representative have long
been pursuing a revisionist line, have publicized the "parliamentary
road" in response to Khrushchov's baton, and have actually reduced the
Communist Party to the level of a social democratic party. They have ceased
to give active support to the revolutionary aspirations of the people and
rolled up the national banner of opposition to U.S. imperialism. The result
of their pursuit of this revisionist line is that the Communist Party, which
once had great influence among the people, has become increasingly isolated
from the masses and has deteriorated more and more.
Certain leaders
of the Indian Communist Party, typified by Dange, have long pursued a
revisionist line, hauled down the banner of revolution and failed to lead the
masses in national and democratic revolutionary struggles. The Dange clique
has slid farther and farther down the path of revisionism and degenerated
into national chauvinists, into tools of the reactionary policies of India's
big landlords and big bourgeoisie, and into renegades from the proletariat.
The record
shows that the two fundamentally different lines lead to two fundamentally
different results. All these lessons merit close study.
FROM BROWDER AND TITO TO
KHRUSHCHOV
Khrushchov's
revisionism has deep historical and social roots and bears the imprint of the
times. As Lenin said, "opportunism is no accident, no sin, no slip, no
betrayal on the part of individual persons, but the social product of a whole
historical epoch". ("The Collapse of the Second
International", Collected Works, International Publishers, New
York, 1930, Vol. 18, p. 310.)
While making
great progress since World War II, the international communist movement has
produced its antithesis within its own ranks--an adverse current of
revisionism which is opposed to socialism, Marxism-Leninism and proletarian
revolution. This adverse current was chiefly represented first by Browder,
later by Tito and now by Khrushchov. Khrushchov's revisionism is nothing but
the continuation and development of Browderism and Titoism.
Browder began
to reveal his revisionism around 1935. He worshipped bourgeois democracy,
abandoned making the necessary criticisms of the bourgeois government and
regarded the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a fine thing for Communists,
his slogan being "Communism Is Twentieth Century Americanism".[33]
With the
formation of the international and domestic anti-fascist united fronts during
World War II, he became obsessed with bourgeois "democracy",
"progress" and "reason", prostrated himself before the
bourgeoisie and degenerated into an out-and-out capitulationist.
Browder
propagated a whole set of revisionist views which embellished the bourgeoisie
and opposed and negated revolution.
He declared
that the Teheran Declaration of the Soviet Union, the United States and
Britain ushered in an epoch of "long-term confidence and
collaboration" between capitalism and socialism and was capable of
guaranteeing "a stable peace for generations".[34]
He spread the
notion that the international agreements of the Soviet Union, the United
States and Britain represented "the most vital interests of every nation
and every people in the world without exception"[35]
and that the perspective of inner chaos "is incompatible with the
perspective of international order". Therefore, it was necessary to
oppose "an explosion of class conflict" within the country and
"to minimize, and to place definite limits upon" internal class
struggle.[36]
He spread the
view that a new war would be "a real catastrophic smash-up of a large
part of the world" and "may throw . . . most of the world back into
barbarism for 50 or 100 years", and that the "emphasis upon
agreement that transcends all class divisions"[37]
was necessary in order to wipe out the disaster of war.
He advocated
relying "entirely upon democratic persuasion and conviction"[38] to realize socialism, and declared that after World War
II certain countries "have gained the conditions in which a peaceful
transition to socialism has become possible".[39]
He negated the
independent role of the proletarian parties, saying that "the practical
political aims they [the Communists] hold will for a long time be in
agreement on all essential points with the aims of a much larger body of
non-Communists".[40]
Guided by these
ideas, he dissolved the Communist Party of the U.S.A.
For a time,
Browder's revisionism led the revolutionary cause of the American proletariat
to the brink of the precipice, and it contaminated the proletarian parties of
other countries with the poison of liquidationism.
Browder's
revisionist line was opposed by many American Communists headed by Comrade
William Z. Foster and was rejected and repudiated by many fraternal Parties.
However, the revisionist trend represented by Browderism was not thoroughly
criticized and liquidated by the international communist movement as a whole.
In the new
circumstances after the War, the revisionist trend developed anew among the
Communist ranks in certain countries.
In the
capitalist countries, the growth of the revisionist trend first manifested
itself in the fact that the leaders of certain Communist Parties abandoned the
revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line and embraced the line of "peaceful
transition". This line is clearly typified in Togliatti's theory of
structural reform, which advocates the proletariat's attainment of the
leadership of the state through the legal channels of bourgeois democracy and
the socialist transformation of the national economy through such
nationalization and planning as serve monopoly capital. According to this
line, it is possible to establish new socialist relations of production and
make the transition to socialism without smashing the bourgeois state
machine. In practice, this amounts to making communism degenerate into
social-democracy.
In the
socialist countries, the revisionist trend first appeared in Yugoslavia.
Capitulation to U.S. imperialism is an important characteristic of Titoite
revisionism. The Tito clique have sold themselves body and soul to U.S.
imperialism; they have not only restored capitalism in Yugoslavia but have
become an imperialist instrument for undermining the socialist camp and the
international communist movement and are playing the role of a special
detachment of U.S. imperialism for sabotaging world revolution.
In their
efforts to serve U.S. imperialism and to oppose and abolish proletarian
revolution, the Tito clique have outspokenly asserted that violent revolution
has become "increasingly superfluous as a means of resolving social
contradictions"[41] and that the "evolutionary
process of development toward socialism" through a bourgeois parliament
"is not only possible but has already become a real fact".[42] They virtually equate capitalism with socialism,
asserting that the present-day world "as a whole has deeply 'plunged'
into socialism, become socialist".[43] They also say
that "now the question--socialism or capitalism--is already solved on a
world scale".[44]
Browderite
revisionism, the theory of structural reform and Titoite revisionism--these
have been the chief manifestations of the revisionist trend since World War
II.
Between the
20th and the 22nd Congresses of the CPSU, Khrushchov's revisionist line of
"peaceful transition", "peaceful coexistence" and
"peaceful competition" became a complete system. He has been
hawking this stuff everywhere as his "new creation". Yet it is
nothing new but is merely a rehashed and meretricious combination of
Browderite revisionism, the theory of structural reform and Titoite
revisionism. In international relations, Khrushchov's revisionism practices
capitulation to U.S. imperialism; in the imperialist and capitalist countries
it practices capitulation to the reactionary ruling classes; in the socialist
countries it encourages the development of capitalist forces.
If Bernstein,
Kautsky and the other revisionists of the Second International ran in a
single line and belonged to the same family around the time of World War I,
then the same is true of Browder, Tito and Khrushchov after World War II.
Browder has made
this point clear. He wrote in 1960, "Khrushchov now adopted the 'heresy'
for which I was kicked out of the Communist Party in 1945." And he added
that Khrushchov's new policy "is almost word for word the same line I
advocated fifteen years ago. So my crime has become--at least for the
moment-- the new orthodoxy".[45]
Khrushchov
himself has admitted that he and the Tito clique "belong to one and the
same idea and are guided by the same theory".[46]
In the nature
of the case, Khrushchov's revisionism is even more pernicious than the
revisionism of Bernstein, Kautsky, Browder and Tito. Why? Because the USSR is
the first socialist state, a large country in the socialist camp and the
native land of Leninism. The CPSU is a large party created by Lenin and in
the international communist movement it enjoys a prestige shaped by history.
Khrushchov is exploiting his position as the leader of the CPSU and of the
Soviet Union to push through his revisionist line.
He describes
his revisionist line as a "Leninist" line and utilizes the prestige
of the great Lenin and of the great Bolshevik Party to confuse and deceive
people.
Exploiting the
inherited prestige of the CPSU and the position of a large party and a large
country, he has been waving his baton and employing all kinds of political,
economic and diplomatic measures to force others to accept his revisionist
line.
In line with
the imperialist policy of buying over the labour aristocracy, he is buying
over certain bourgeoisified Communists in the international communist
movement who have betrayed Marxism-Leninism and inducing them to acclaim and
serve the anti-revolutionary line of the leaders of the CPSU.
That is why all
other revisionists, whether past or present, are dwarfed by Khrushchov.
As the
Declaration of 1957 points out, the social source of modern revisionism is
surrender to external imperialist pressure and acceptance of domestic
bourgeois influence.
Like the
old-line revisionists, the modern revisionists answer to the description
given by Lenin: ". . . objectively, they are a political detachment of
the bourgeoisie, . . . they are transmitters of its influence, its agents in
the labour movement." ("The Collapse of the Second
International", Collected Works, International Publishers, New
York, 1930, Vol. 18, p. 310.)
The economic
basis of the emergence of modern revisionism, like that of old-line
revisionism, is in the words of Lenin "an insignificant section of the
'top' of the labour movement". ("Opportunism and the Collapse of
the Second International", Collected Works, International
Publishers, New York, 1930, Vol. 18, p. 389.)
Modern
revisionism is the product of the policies of imperialism and of
international monopoly capital which are both headed by the United States.
Terrified by the policy of nuclear blackmail and corrupted by the policy of
buying over, the modern revisionists are serving as the pawns of U.S.
imperialism and its servile followers in opposing revolution.
The revisionist
Khrushchov is also scared out of his wits by the hysterical war cries of the
U.S. imperialists, and he thinks that this "Noah's ark", the earth,
is threatened with destruction at any moment and he has completely lost
confidence in the future of mankind. Proceeding from national egoism, he
fears that revolutions by the oppressed classes and nations might create
trouble for him and implicate him. Therefore, he tries to oppose every
revolution by all means and, as in the case of the Congo, does not scruple to
take joint action with U.S. imperialism in stamping out a people's
revolution. He thinks that by so doing he can avoid risks and at the same
time conspire with U.S. imperialism to divide the world into spheres of
influence, thus killing two birds with one stone. All this only goes to show
that Khrushchov is the greatest capitulationist in history. The enforcement
of Khrushchov's pernicious policy will inevitably result in inestimable
damage to the great Soviet Union itself.
Why has
Khrushchov's revisionism emerged in the Soviet Union, a socialist state with
a history of several decades? Actually, this is not so strange. For in every
socialist country the question of who wins over whom --socialism or
capitalism--can only be gradually settled over a very long historical period.
So long as there are capitalist forces and there are classes in society,
there is soil for the growth of revisionism.
Khrushchov
asserts that in the Soviet Union classes have been abolished, the danger of
capitalist restoration is ruled out and the building of communism is under
way. All these assertions are lies.
In fact, as a
result of Khrushchov's revisionist rule, of the open declaration that the
Soviet state has changed its nature and is no longer a dictatorship of the
proletariat, and of the execution of a whole series of erroneous domestic and
foreign policies, the capitalist forces in Soviet society have become a
deluge sweeping over all fields of life in the USSR, including the political,
economic, cultural and ideological fields. The social source of Khrushchov's
revisionism lies precisely in the capitalist forces which are ceaselessly
spreading in the Soviet Union.
Khrushchov's
revisionism represents and serves these capitalist forces. Therefore, it will
never bring communism to the Soviet people; on the contrary, it is seriously
jeopardizing the fruits of socialism and is opening the floodgates for the
restoration of capitalism. This is the very road of "peaceful
evolution" craved by U.S. imperialism.
The whole
history of the dictatorship of the proletariat tells us that peaceful
transition from capitalism to socialism is impossible. However, there is
already the Yugoslav precedent for the "peaceful evolution" of
socialism back into capitalism. Now Khrushchov's revisionism is leading the
Soviet Union along this road.
This is the
gravest lesson in the history of the dictatorship of the proletariat. All
Marxist-Leninists, all revolutionaries and the generations to come must under
no circumstances forget this great lesson.
OUR HOPES
Only eight
years have elapsed since the 20th Congress of the CPSU. In this extremely
short period of history, Khrushchov's revisionism has inflicted very great
and grave damage on the Soviet Union and the revolutionary cause of the
international proletariat.
Now is the
time--now it is high time--to repudiate and liquidate Khrushchov's
revisionism!
Here, we would
give the leading comrades of the CPSU a piece of advice: Since so many
opportunists and revisionists have been thrown on to the rubbish heap of
history, why must you obdurately follow their example?
Here, too, we
express the hope that those leading comrades of other fraternal Parties who
have committed revisionist errors will think this over: What have they gained
by following the revisionist line of the leaders of the CPSU? We understand
that, excepting those who have fallen deep into the revisionist quagmire,
quite a number of comrades have been confused and deceived, or compelled to
follow the wrong path. We believe that all those who are proletarian
revolutionaries will eventually choose the revolutionary line and reject the
anti-revolutionary line, will eventually choose Marxism-Leninism and reject
revisionism. We entertain very great hopes in this regard.
Revisionism can
never stop the wheel of history, the wheel of revolution. Revisionist leaders
who do not make revolution themselves can never prevent the genuine Marxists
and the revolutionary people from rising in revolution. In The
Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky Lenin wrote that when
Kautsky became a renegade, the German Marxist Liebknecht could only express
his appeal to the working class in this ways "to push aside such
'leaders,' to free themselves from their stultifying and debasing propaganda,
to rise in revolt in spite of them, without them, and march
over their heads towards revolution!" (Selected Works, FLPH,
Moscow, 1952, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 105.)
When the Second
International's brand of revisionism prevailed in many Parties in Europe,
Lenin attached great significance to the views of the French Communist Paul
Golay.
Golay said
Our adversaries talked loudly of the bankruptcy of
Socialism. That is going a bit too fast. Still, who would dare to assert that
they are entirely wrong? What is dying at present is not Socialism at all,
but one variety of socialism, a sugary socialism without the spirit of
idealism and without passion, with the ways of a paunchy official and of a
substantial paterfamilias, a socialism without boldness or fierce enthusiasm,
a devotee of statistics with its nose buried in friendly agreements with
capitalism, a socialism which is preoccupied solely with reforms and which
has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, a socialism which in the eyes
of the bourgeoisie is a throttle on the popular impatience and an automatic
brake on proletarian audacity. (The Socialism Which Is Dying and the
Socialism Which Must Be Reborn, Lausanne, 1915.)
What a superb
description! Lenin called it the honest voice of a French Communist. People
now ask: Is not modern revisionism precisely the "variety of
socialism" which is dying? They will soon hear the resounding ring of
the honest voices of innumerable Communists inside the Parties dominated by
revisionism.
"A
thousand sails pass by the shipwreck; ten thousand saplings shoot up beyond
the withered tree." Bogus socialism is dying, whereas scientific
socialism is bursting with youthful vigour and is advancing in bigger strides
than ever. Revolutionary socialism with its vitality will overcome all difficulties
and obstacles and advance step by step towards victory until it has won the
whole world.
Let us wind up
this article with the concluding words of the Communist Manifesto:
"The
Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that
their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing
social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic
revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have
a world to win.
"WORKING
MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"
APPENDIX
OUTLINE
OF VIEWS ON THE QUESTION OF PEACEFUL TRANSITION
(A
Written Outline Presented by the Delegation of the CPC to the Central
Committee of the CPSU on November 10, 1957)
I. On the question
of the transition from capitalism to socialism, it would be more flexible to
refer to the two possibilities, peaceful transition and non-peaceful
transition, than to just one, and this would place us in a position where we
can have the initiative politically at any time.
1.
Referring to the possibility of peaceful transition indicates that for us the
use of violence is primarily a matter of self-defence. It enables the
Communist Parties in the capitalist countries to sidestep attacks on them on
this issue, and it is politically advantageous--advantageous for winning the
masses and also for depriving the bourgeoisie of its pretexts for such
attacks and isolating it.
2.
If practical possibilities for peaceful transition were to arise in
individual countries in the future when the international or domestic
situation changes drastically, we could then make timely use of the
opportunity to win the support of the masses and solve the problem of state
power by peaceful means.
3.
Nevertheless, we should not tie our own hands because of this desire. The
bourgeoisie will not step down from the stage of history voluntarily. This is
a universal law of class struggle. In no country should the proletariat and
the Communist Party slacken their preparations for the revolution in any way.
They must be prepared at all times to repulse counter-revolutionary attacks
and, at the critical juncture of the revolution when the working class is
seizing state power, to overthrow the bourgeoisie by armed force if it uses
armed force to suppress the people's revolution (generally speaking, it is
inevitable that the bourgeoisie will do so)
II. In the
present situation of the international communist movement, it is advantageous
from the point of view of tactics to refer to the desire for peaceful
transition. But it would be inappropriate to over-emphasize the possibility
of peaceful transition. The reasons are:
1.
Possibility and reality, the desire and whether or not it can be fulfilled,
are two different matters. We should refer to the desire for peaceful
transition, but we should not place our hopes mainly on it and therefore
should not over-emphasize this aspect.
2.
If too much stress is laid on the possibility of peaceful transition, and
especially on the possibility of seizing state power by winning a majority in
parliament it is liable to weaken the revolutionary will of the proletariat,
the working people and the Communist Party and disarm them ideologically.
3.
To the best of our knowledge, there is still not a single country where this
possibility is of any practical significance. Even if it is slightly more
apparent in a particular country, over-emphasizing this possibility is
inappropriate because it does not conform with the realities in the
overwhelming majority of countries. Should such a possibility actually occur
in some country, the Communist Party there must on the one hand strive to
realize it, and on the other hand always be prepared to repulse the armed
attacks of the bourgeoisie.
4.
The result of emphasizing this possibility will neither weaken the
reactionary nature of the bourgeoisie nor lull them.
5.
Nor will such emphasis make the social democratic parties any more
revolutionary.
6.
Nor will such emphasis make Communist Parties grow any stronger. On the
contrary, if some Communist Parties should as a result obscure their
revolutionary features and thus become confused with the social democratic
parties in the eyes of the people, they would only be weakened.
7.
It is very hard to accumulate strength and prepare for the revolution, and
after all parliamentary struggle is easy in comparison. We must fully utilize
the parliamentary form of struggle, but its role is limited. What is most
important is to proceed with the hard work of accumulating revolutionary
strength.
III. To obtain
a majority in parliament is not the same as smashing the old state machinery
(chiefly the armed forces) and establishing new state machinery (chiefly the
armed forces). Unless the military-bureaucratic state machinery of the bourgeoisie
is smashed, a parliamentary majority for the proletariat and their reliable
allies will either be impossible (because the bourgeoisie will amend the
constitution whenever necessary in order to facilitate the consolidation of
their dictatorship) or undependable (for instance, elections may be declared
null and void, the Communist Party may be outlawed, parliament may be
dissolved, etc.).
IV. Peaceful
transition to socialism should not be interpreted in such a way as solely to
mean transition through a parliamentary majority. The main question is that
of the state machinery. In the 1870's, Marx was of the opinion that there was
a possibility of achieving socialism in Britain by peaceful means, because
"at that time England was a country in which militarism and bureaucracy
were less pronounced than in any other". For a period after the February
Revolution, Lenin hoped that through "all power to the Soviets" the
revolution would develop peacefully and triumph, because at that time "the
arms were in the hands of the people". Neither Marx nor Lenin meant that
peaceful transition could be realized by using the old state machinery. Lenin
repeatedly elaborated on the famous saying of Marx and Engels, "The
working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and
wield it for its own purposes."
V. The social
democratic parties are not parties of socialism. With the exception of
certain Left wings, they are parties serving the bourgeoisie and capitalism.
They are a variant of bourgeois political parties. On the question of
socialist revolution, our position is fundamentally different from that of
the social democratic parties. This distinction must not be obscured. To
obscure this distinction only helps the leaders of the social democratic parties
to deceive the masses and hinders us from winning the masses away from the
influence of the social democratic parties. However, it is unquestionably
very important to strengthen our work with respect to the social democratic
parties and strive to establish a united front with their left and middle
groups.
VI. Such is our
understanding of this question. We do hold differing views on this question,
but out of various considerations we did not state our views after the 20th
Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Since a joint
Declaration is to be issued, we must now explain our views. However, this
need not prevent us from attaining common language in the draft Declaration.
In order to show a connection between the formulation of this question in the
draft Declaration and the formulation of the 20th Congress of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, we agree to take the draft put forward today by
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as a basis,
while proposing amendments in certain places.
NOTES
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, "Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress", The 20th Congress of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Russian ed., Moscow. 1956, p. 39.
[2] N. S.
Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress, FLPH, Moscow, 1956,. p. 45.
[3] N. S.
Khrushchov, "For New Victories for the World Communist Movement", World
Marxist Review, Jan. 1961.
[4] N. S.
Khrushchov, Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union to the 20th Party Congress, FLPH, Moscow, 1956. p. 46.
[6] "Programme
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", The Road to Communism, FLPH, Moscow, 1961, p. 482.
[8] E.
Bernstein, The Prerequisites for Socialism and the Tasks of the
Social-Democratic Party, German ed., Berlin 1923, p. 11.
[10] E.
Bernstein, What Is Socialism? German ed., Berlin, 1922. p.28.
[11] E. Bernstein, The Political Mass Strike and
the Political Situation of the Social-Democratic Party in Germany,
German ed., Berlin, 1905, p. 37.
[12] K. Kautsky, The Materialist Interpretation of
History, German ed., Berlin, 1927, pp. 431-32.
[13] K Kautsky, Social Democracy Versus Communism, Rand
School Press, New York, 1946, p. 117.
[14] K. Kautsky, The Proletarian Revolution and Its
Programme, German ed., Berlin, 1922, p. 90.
[15] K. Kautsky, "New Tactics", Neue
Zeit, No. 46, 1912.
[16] K. Kautsky's argument quoted by G. K. Soselia, Revisionism
and the Marxist Theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Russian
ed., Moscow, 1960, p. 46.
[17] O. V. Kuusinen and others. Foundations of
Marxism-Leninism, Russian ed., Moscow, 1959, p. 526.
[18] A. Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's Theory
of Socialist Revolution and the Present Day", Kommunist, No.
13, Moscow, 1960.
[19] F. Konstantinov, "Lenin and Our Own
Times", Kommunist, No. 5, Moscow, 1960.
[20] A. Mikoyan, Speech at the 20th Congress, The
20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Russian ed.,
Moscow, 1956, Vol. 1,. p. 313.
[21] "Marxism-Leninism--the Basis of Unity of the
Communist Movement", editorial article in Kommunist, No. 15, Moscow,
1963.
[22] "How the World Revolutionary Process Is
Developing", Sovietskaya Rossia, August 1, 1983.
[23] L. I. Brezhnev, Speech at the 12th Congress of the
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Pravda, Dec. 6, 1962.
[24] A. Butenko, "War and Revolution", Kommunist, No. 4, Moscow, 1961.
[25] O. V,
Kuusinen and others, Foundations of Marxism-Leninism, Russian ed.,
Moscow, 1959, p. 528.
[26] A.
Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's Theory of Socialist Revolution and
the Present Day", Kommunist, No. 13, Moscow, 1960.
[27] A.
Butenko, "War and Revolution", Kommunist, No. 4, Moscow,
1961.
[28]
J. F.
Dulles' Address at the 41st Annual Convention of Kiwanis International, June
21, 1956.
[29] J. F.
Dulles Speech at the Annual Luncheon of the Associated Press on April 22,
1957, New York Times, April 23, 1957.
[30] "Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of the Soviet
Union", New Times, No. 29, 1963.
[31] "Marxism-Leninism--the Basis of Unity of the Communist Movement",
editorial article in Kommunist, No. 15, Moscow, 1963.
[32] A.
Beliakov and F. Burlatsky, "Lenin's Theory of Socialist Revolution and
the Present Day", Kommunist, No. 13, Moscow, 1960.
[33] Cited
in William Z. Foster's History of the Communist Party of the United
States, International Publishers, New York, 1952. p. 337.
[34] E.
Browder, Teheran, Our Path in War and Peace, International
Publishers, New York, 1944, p. 23 and p. 27.
[36] E.
Browder, Teheran and America, Workers Library Publishers New York,
1944, p. 17 and p. 28.
[37] E.
Browder, Communists and National Unity, Workers Library Publishers,
New York, 1944, pp. 9-10.
[38] E.
Browder, The Road to Victory, Workers Library Publishers, New York,
1941, p. 22.
[39] E.
Browder, World Communism and U.S. Foreign Policy, published by The
Author, New York City, 1948, p. 19.
[40] E.
Browder, Teheran, Our Path in War and Peace, International
Publishers, New York, 1944, p. 117.
[41] I.
Kosanovi, Historical Materialism, 1958.
[42] E.
Kardelj, "Socialist Democracy in Yugoslav Practice", a lecture
delivered before activists of the Norwegian Labour Party in Oslo on Oct. 8,
1954.
[43] M. Todorovi, "On the Declaration Concerning Relations Between the LCY and the CPSU", Kommynuct (Belgrade), Nos. 7-8, 1956. [BACK] [44]M. Perovi, Politika
Ekonomija, Belgrade, 1958, 2nd ed., p. 466.
[45] E.
Browder, "How Stalin Ruined the American Communist Party", Harper's
Magazine, New York, March 1960.
[46] N. S.
Khrushchov's Interview with Foreign Correspondents at Brioni in Yugoslavia,
August 28, 1963.
|
||