ON KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM
AND
ITS HISTORICAL LESSONS FOR THE WORLD
COMMENT ON THE OPEN LETTER
OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE CPSU (IX)
by the Editorial Department of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily)
and Hongqi (Red Flag)
July 14, 1964
CONTENTS
SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT
ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE EXIST IN
THE SOVIET UNION
THE SOVIET PRIVILEDGED STRATUM AND THE REVISIONIST
KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE
REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED STATE OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE
REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THE ENTIRE
PEOPLE
KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM
HISTORICAL LESSONS OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT
SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT
What is the correct
conception of socialist society? Do classes and class struggle exist
throughout the stage of socialism? Should the dictatorship of the proletariat
be maintained and the socialist revolution be carried through to the end? Or
should the dictatorship of the proletariat be abolished so as to pave the way
for capitalist restoration? These questions must be answered correctly
according to the basic theory of Marxism-Leninism and the historical
experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The replacement
of capitalist society by socialist society is a great leap in the historical
development of human society. Socialist society covers the important
historical period of transition from class to classless society. It is by
going through socialist society that mankind will enter communist society.
The socialist
system is incomparably superior to the capitalist system. In socialist
society, the dictatorship of the proletariat replaces bourgeois dictatorship
and the public ownership of the means of production replaces private
ownership. The proletariat, from being an oppressed and exploited class,
turns into the ruling class and a fundamental change takes place in the
social position of the working people. Exercising dictatorship over a few
exploiters only, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat practises
the broadest democracy among the masses of the working people, a democracy
which is impossible in capitalist society. The nationalization of industry
and collectivization of agriculture open wide vistas for the vigorous
development of the social productive forces, ensuring a rate of growth
incomparably greater than that in any older society.
However, one
cannot but see that socialist society is a society born out of capitalist
society and is only the first phase of communist society. It is not yet a
fully mature communist society in the economic and other fields. It is
inevitably stamped with the birth marks of capitalist society. When defining
socialist society Marx said:
What we
have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from
capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally
and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society
from whose womb it emerges.[1]
Lenin also
pointed out that in socialist society, which is the first phase of communism,
"Communism cannot as yet be fully ripe economically and entirely free
from traditions or traces of capitalism".[2]
In socialist
society, the differences between workers and peasants, between town and country,
and between manual and mental labourers still remain, bourgeois rights are
not yet completely abolished, it is not possible "at once to eliminate
the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of articles of
consumption 'according to the amount of labour performed' (and not according
to needs)",[3] and therefore differences in wealth still exist.
The disappearance of these differences, phenomena and bourgeois rights can
only be gradual and long drawn out. As Marx said, only after these differences
have vanished and bourgeois rights have completely disappeared, will it be
possible to realize full communism with its principle, "from each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Marxism-Leninism
and the practice of the Soviet Union, China and other socialist countries all
teach us that socialist society covers a very, very long historical stage.
Throughout this stage, the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat goes on and the question of "who will win" between the
roads of capitalism and socialism remains, as does the danger of the
restoration of capitalism.
In its Proposal
Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement dated
June 14, 1963, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party states:
For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes power,
class struggle continues as an objective law independent of man's will,
differing only in form from what it was before the taking of power.
After the
October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number of times that:
a) The
overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the
"paradise" they have been deprived of.
b) New
elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the
petty-bourgeois atmosphere.
c) Political
degenerates and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the working
class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence
and the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere of the petty bourgeoisie.
d) The
external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist
country are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists'
threat of armed intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish
peaceful disintegration. Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin's.
In socialist
society, the overthrown bourgeoisie and other reactionary classes remain
strong for quite a long time, and indeed in certain respects are quite
powerful. They have a thousand and one links with the international
bourgeoisie. They are not reconciled to their defeat and stubbornly continue
to engage in trials of strength with the proletariat. They conduct open and
hidden struggles against the proletariat in every field. Constantly parading
such signboards as support for socialism, the Soviet system, the Communist
Party and Marxism-Leninism, they work to undermine socialism and restore
capitalism. Politically, they persist for a long time as a force antagonistic
to the proletariat and constantly attempt to overthrow the dictatorship of
the proletariat. They sneak into the government organs, public organizations,
economic departments and cultural and educational institutions so as to
resist or usurp the leadership of the proletariat. Economically, they employ
every means to damage socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist
collective ownership and to develop the forces of capitalism. In the
ideological, cultural and educational fields, they counterpose the bourgeois
world outlook to the proletarian world outlook and try to corrupt the
proletariat and other working people with bourgeois ideology.
The
collectivization of agriculture turns individual into collective farmers and
provides favourable conditions for the thorough remoulding of the peasants.
However, until collective ownership advances to ownership by the whole people
and until the remnants of private economy disappear completely, the peasants
inevitably retain some of the inherent characteristics of small producers. In
these circumstances spontaneous capitalist tendencies are inevitable, the
soil for the growth of new rich peasants still exists and polarization among
the peasants may still occur.
The activities
of the bourgeoisie as described above, its corrupting effects in the political,
economic, ideological and cultural and educational fields, the existence of
spontaneous capitalist tendencies among urban and rural small producers, and
the influence of the remaining bourgeois rights and the force of habit of the
old society all constantly breed political degenerates in the ranks of the
working class and Party and government organizations, new bourgeois elements
and embezzlers and grafters in state enterprises owned by the whole people
and new bourgeois intellectuals in the cultural and educational institutions
and intellectual circles. These new bourgeois elements and these political
degenerates attack socialism in collusion with the old bourgeois elements and
elements of other exploiting classes which have been overthrown but not eradicated.
The political degenerates entrenched in the leading organs are particularly
dangerous, for they support and shield the bourgeois elements in organs at
lower levels.
As long as
imperialism exists, the proletariat in the socialist countries will have to
struggle both against the bourgeoisie at home and against international
imperialism. Imperialism will seize every opportunity and try to undertake
armed intervention against the socialist countries or to bring about their
peaceful disintegration. It will do its utmost to destroy the socialist
countries or to make them degenerate into capitalist countries. The
international class struggle will inevitably find its reflec tion within the
socialist countries.
Lenin said:
The
transition from capitalism to Communism represents an entire historical
epoch. Until this epoch has terminated, the exploiters inevitably cherish the
hope of restoration, and this hope is converted into attempts at restoration.[4]
He also pointed
out:
The
abolition of classes requires a long, difficult and stubborn class
struggle, which after the overthrow of the power of capital, after the destruction of the bourgeois state, after the establishment of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, does not disappear (as the vulgar
representatives of the old Socialism and the old Social-Democracy imagine),
but merely changes its forms and in many respects becomes more fierce.[5]
Throughout the
stage of socialism the class struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie in the polit ical, economic, ideological and cultural and
educational fields cannot be stopped. It is a protracted, repeated, tor tuous
and complex struggle. Like the waves of the sea it sometimes rises high and
sometimes subsides, is now fairly calm and now very turbulent. It is a
struggle that decides the fate of a socialist society. Whether a socialist
society will advance to communism or revert to capitalism depends upon the
outcome of this protracted struggle.
The class
struggle in socialist society is inevitably reflected in the Communist Party.
The bourgeoisie and international imperialism both understand that in order
to make a socialist country degenerate into a capitalist country, it is first
necessary to make the Communist Party degenerate into a revisionist party.
The old and new bourgeois elements, the old and new rich peasants and the
degenerate elements of all sorts constitute the social basis of revisionism,
and they use every possible means to find agents within the Communist Party.
The existence of bourgeois influence is the internal source of revisionism
and surrender to imperialist pressure the external source. Throughout the
stage of socialism, there is inevitable struggle between Marxism-Leninism and
various kinds of opportunism -- mainly revisionism -- in the Communist
Parties of socialist countries. The characteristic of this revisionism is
that, denying the existence of classes and class struggle, it sides with the
bourgeoisie in attacking the proletariat and turns the dictatorship of the
proletariat into the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
In the light of
the experience of the international working-class movement and in accordance
with the objective law of class struggle, the founders of Marxism pointed out
that the transition from capitalism to communism, from class to classless
society, must depend on the dictatorship of the proletariat and that there is
no other road.
Marx said that
"the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the
proletariat".[6] He also said:
Between
capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary
transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a
political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat.[7]
The development
of socialist society is a process of uninterrupted revolution. In explaining
revolutionary socialism Marx said:
This
socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class
dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition
of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of
production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations
that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of
all the ideas that result from these social relations.[8]
In his struggle
against the opportunism of the Second International, Lenin creatively expounded
and developed Marx's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He
pointed out:
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of class struggle
but its continuation in new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is
class struggle waged by a proletariat which has been victorious and has taken
political power in its hands against a bourgeoisie that has been defeated but
not destroyed, a bourgeoisie that has not vanished, not ceased to offer
resistance, but that has intensified its resistance.[9]
He also said:
The
dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle -- bloody and
bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and
administrative -- against the forces and traditions of the old society.[10]
In his
celebrated work On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People and in other works, Comrade Mao Tse-tung, basing himself on the fundamental
principles of Marxism-Leninism and the historical experience of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, gives a comprehensive and systematic
analysis of classes and class struggle in socialist society, and creatively
develops the Marxist-Leninist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Comrade Mao
Tse-tung examines the objective laws of socialist society from the viewpoint
of materialist dialectics. He points out that the universal law of the unity
and struggle of opposites operating both in the natural world and in human
society is applicable to socialist society, too. In socialist society, class
contradictions still remain and class struggle does not die out after the
socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production. The
struggle between the two roads of socialism and capitalism runs through the
entire stage of socialism. To ensure the success of socialist construction
and to prevent the restoration of capitalism, it is necessary to carry the
socialist revolution through to the end on the political, economic,
ideological and cultural fronts. The complete victory of socialism cannot be
brought about in one or two generations; to resolve this question thoroughly
requires five or ten generations or even longer.
Comrade Mao
Tse-tung stresses the fact that two types of social contradictions exist in
socialist society, namely, contradictions among the people and contradictions
between ourselves and the enemy, and that the former are very numerous. Only
by distinguishing between the two types of contradictions, which are
different in nature, and by adopting different measures to handle them
correctly is it possible to unite the people, who constitute more than 90 per
cent of the population, defeat their enemies, who constitute only a few per
cent, and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The
dictatorship of the proletariat is the basic guarantee for the consolidation
and development of socialism, for the victory of the proletariat over the
bourgeoisie and of socialism in the struggle between the two roads.
Only by
emancipating all mankind can the proletariat ultimately emancipate itself.
The historical task of the dictatorship of the proletariat has two aspects,
one internal and the other international. The internal task consists mainly
of completely abolishing all the exploiting classes, developing socialist
economy to the maximum, enhancing the communist consciousness of the masses,
abolishing the differences between ownership by the whole people and
collective ownership, between workers and peasants, between town and country
and between mental and manual labourers, eliminating any possibility of the
re-emergence of classes and the restoration of capitalism and providing
conditions for the realization of a communist society with its principle,
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs". The international task consists mainly of preventing attacks by
international imperialism (including armed intervention and disintegration by
peaceful means) and of giving support to the world revolution until the
people of all countries finally abolish imperialism, capitalism and the
system of exploitation. Before the fulfilment of both tasks and before the
advent of a full communist society, the dictatorship of the proletariat is
absolutely necessary.
Judging from
the actual situation today, the tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat
are still far from accomplished in any of the socialist countries. In all
socialist countries without exception, there are classes and class struggle,
the struggle between the socialist and the capitalist roads, the question of
carrying the socialist revolution through to the end and the question of
preventing the restoration of capitalism. All the socialist countries still
have a very long way to go before the differences between ownership by the
whole people and collective ownership, between workers and peasants, between
town and country and between mental and manual labourers are eliminated,
before all classes and class differences are abolished and a communist
society with its principle, "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs", is realized. Therefore, it is necessary for all
the socialist countries to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In these
circumstances, the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the
revisionist Khrushchov clique is nothing but the betrayal of socialism and
communism.
In announcing
the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, the
revisionist Khrushchov clique base themselves mainly on the argument that
antagonistic classes have been eliminated and that class struggle no longer
exists.
But what is the
actual situation in the Soviet Union? Are there really no antagonistic
classes and no class struggle there?
Following the
victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat
was established in the Soviet Union, capitalist private ownership was
destroyed and socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist
collective ownership were established through the nationalization of industry
and the collectivization of agriculture, and great achievements in socialist
construction were scored during several decades. All this constituted an
indelible victory of tremendous historic significance won by the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people under the leadership of Lenin
and Stalin.
However, the
old bourgeoisie and other exploiting classes which had been overthrown in the
Soviet Union were not eradicated and survived after industry was nationalized
and agriculture collectivized. The political and ideological influence of the
bourgeoisie remained. Spontaneous capitalist tendencies continued to exist
both in the city and in the countryside. New bourgeois elements and kulaks
were still incessantly generated. Throughout the long intervening period, the
class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and the struggle
between the socialist and capitalist roads have continued in the political,
economic and ideological spheres.
As the Soviet
Union was the first, and at the time the only, country to build socialism and
had no foreign experience to go by, and as Stalin departed from
Marxist-Leninist dialectics in his understanding of the laws of class
struggle in socialist society, he prematurely declared after agriculture was
basically collectivized that there were "no longer antagonistic
classes"[11] in the Soviet Union and that it was "free of
class conflicts",[12] one-sidedly stressed the internal homogeneity of
socialist society and overlooked its contradictions, failed to rely upon the
working class and the masses in the struggle against the forces of capitalism
and regarded the possibility of the restoration of capitalism as associated
only with armed attack by international imperialism. This was wrong both in
theory and in practice. Nevertheless, Stalin remained a great
Marxist-Leninist. As long as he led the Soviet Party and state, he held fast to
the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist course, pursued a
Marxist-Leninist line and ensured the Soviet Union's victorious advance along
the road of socialism.
Ever since
Khrushchov seized the leadership of the Soviet Party and state, he has pushed
through a whole series of revisionist policies which have greatly hastened
the growth of the forces of capitalism and again sharpened the class struggle
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and the struggle between the
roads of socialism and capitalism in the Soviet Union.
Scanning the
reports in Soviet newspapers over the last few years, one finds numerous
examples demonstrating not only the presence of many elements of the old
exploiting classes in Soviet society, but also the generation of new
bourgeois elements on a large scale and the acceleration of class
polarization.
Let us first
look at the activities of the various bourgeois elements in the Soviet
enterprises owned by the whole people.
Leading
functionaries of some state-owned factories and their gangs abuse their
positions and amass large fortunes by using the equipment and materials of
the factories to set up "underground workshops" for private
production, selling the products illicitly and dividing the spoils. Here are
some examples.
In a Leningrad
plant producing military items, the leading functionaries placed their own
men in "all key posts" and "turned the state enterprise into a
private one". They illicitly engaged in the production of non-military
goods and from the sale of fountain pens alone embezzled 1,200,000 old
roubles in three years. Among these people was a man who "was a Nepman .
. . in the 1920's" and had been a "lifelong thief''.[13]
In a
silk-weaving mill in Uzbekistan, the manager ganged up with the chief engineer,
the chief accountant, the chief of the supply and marketing section, heads of
workshops and others, and they all became "new-born entrepreneurs".
They purchased more than ten tons of artificial and pure silk through various
illegal channels in order to manufacture goods which "did not pass
through the accounts". They employed workers without going through the
proper procedures and enforced "a twelve-hour working day''.[[14]
The manager of
a furniture factory in Kharkov set up an "illegal knitwear
workshop" and carried on secret operations inside the factory. This man
"had several wives, several cars, several houses, 176 neck-ties, about a
hundred shirts and dozens of suits". He was also a big gambler at the
horse-races.[15]
Such people do
not operate all by themselves. They invariably work hand in glove with functionaries
in the state departments in charge of supplies and in the commercial and
other departments. They have their own men in the police and judicial
departments who protect them and act as their agents. Even high-ranking
officials in the state organs support and shield them. Here are a few
examples.
The chief of
the workshops affiliated to a Moscow psychoneurological dispensary and his
gang set up an "underground enterprise", and by bribery
"obtained fifty-eight knitting machines" and a large amount of raw
material. They entered into business relations with "fifty-two
factories, handicraft co-operatives and collective farms" and made three
million roubles in a few years. They bribed functionaries of the Department
for Combating Theft of Socialist Property and Speculation, controllers,
inspectors, instructors and others.[16]
The manager of
a machinery plant in the Russian Federation, together with the deputy manager
of a second machinery plant and other functionaries, or forty-three persons
in all, stole more than nine hundred looms and sold them to factories in
Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the Caucasus and other places, whose leading
functionaries used them for illicit production.[17]
In the Kirghiz
SSR, a gang of over forty embezzlers and grafters, having gained control of
two factories, organized underground production and plundered more than
thirty million roubles' worth of state property. This gang included the
Chairman of the Planning Commission of the Republic, a Vice-Minister of
Commerce, seven bureau chiefs and division chiefs of the Republic's Council
of Ministers, National Economic Council and State Control Commission, as well
as "a big kulak who had fled from exile".[18]
These examples
show that the factories which have fallen into the clutches of such
degenerates are socialist enterprises only in name, that in fact they have
become capitalist enterprises by which these persons enrich themselves. The
relationship of such persons to the workers has turned into one between
exploiters and exploited, between oppressors and oppressed. Are not such
degenerates who possess and make use of means of production to exploit the
labour of others out-and-out bourgeois elements? Are not their accomplices in
government organizations, who work hand in glove with them, participate in many
types of exploitation, engage in embezzlement, accept bribes, and share the
spoils, also out-and-out bourgeois elements?
Obviously all
these people belong to a class that is antagonistic to the proletariat --
they belong to the bourgeoisie. Their activities against socialism are
definitely class struggle with the bourgeoisie attacking the proletariat.
Now let us look
at the activities of various kulak elements on the collective farms.
Some leading
collective-farm functionaries and their gangs steal and speculate at will,
freely squander public money and fleece the collective farmers. Here are some
examples.
The chairman of
a collective farm in Uzbekistan "held the whole village in terror".
All the important posts on this farm "were occupied by his in-laws and
other relatives and friends". He squandered "over 132,000 roubles
of the collective farm for his personal 'needs'". He had a car, two
motor-cycles and three wives, each with "a house of her own''.[19]
The chairman of
a collective farm in the Kursk Region regarded the farm as his
"hereditary estate". He conspired with its accountant, cashier,
chief warehouse-keeper, agronomist, general-store manager and others.
Shielding each other, they "fleeced the collective farmers" and pocketed
more than a hundred thousand roubles in a few years.[20]
The chairman of
a collective farm in the Ukraine made over 50,000 roubles at its expense by
forging purchase certificates and cash-account orders in collusion with its
woman accountant, who had been praised for keeping "model accounts"
and whose deeds had been displayed at the Moscow Exhibition of Achievements
of the National Economy.[21]
The chairman of
a collective farm in the Alma-Ata Region specialized in commercial
speculation. He bought "fruit juice in the Ukraine or Uzbekistan, and
sugar and alcohol from Djambul", processed them and then sold the wine
at very high prices in many localities. In this farm a winery was created
with a capacity of over a million litres a year, its speculative commercial
network spread throughout the Kazakhstan SSR, and commercial speculation
became one of the farm's main sources of income.[22]
The chairman of
a collective farm in Byelorussia considered himself "a feudal princeling
on the farm" and acted "personally" in all matters. He lived
not on the farm but in the city or in his own splendid villa, and was always
busy with "various commercial machinations" and "illegal
deals". He bought cattle from the outside, represented them as the
products of his collective farm and falsified output figures. And yet
"not a few commendatory newspaper reports" had been published about
him and he had been called a "model leader".[23]
These examples
show that collective farms under the control of such functionaries virtually
become their private property. Such men turn socialist collective economic
enterprises into economic enterprises of new kulaks. There are often people
in their superior organizations who protect them. Their relationship to the
collective farmers has likewise become that of oppressors to oppressed, of
exploiters to exploited. Are not such neo-exploiters who ride on the backs of
the collective farmers one hundred-per-cent neo-kulaks?
Obviously, they
all belong to a class that is antagonistic to the proletariat and the
labouring farmers, belong to the kulak or rural bourgeois class. Their
anti-socialist activities are precisely class struggle with the bourgeoisie
attacking the proletariat and the labouring farmers.
Apart from the
bourgeois elements in state enterprises and collective farms, there are many
others in both town and country in the Soviet Union.
Some of them
set up private enterprises for private production and sale; others organize
contractor teams and openly undertake construction jobs for state or
co-operative enterprises; still others open private hotels. A "Soviet
woman capitalist" in Leningrad hired workers to make nylon blouses for
sale, and her "daily income amounted to 700 new roubles''.[24] The owner of a workshop in the Kursk Region made felt boots for sale
at speculative prices. He had in his possession 540 pairs of felt boots,
eight kilogrammes of gold coins, 3,000 ; metres of high-grade textiles, 20
carpets, 1,200 kilogrammes of wool and many other valuables.[25] A private entrepreneur in the Gomel Region "hired workers and
artisans" and in the course of two years secured contracts for the
construction and overhauling of furnaces in twelve factories at a high price.[26] In the Orenburg Region there are "hundreds of
private hotels and trans-shipment points", and "the money of the collective
farms and the state is continuously streaming into the pockets of the
hostelry owners".[27]
Some engage in commercial
speculation, making tremendous profits through buying cheap and selling dear
or bringing goods from far away. In Moscow there are a great many speculators
engaged in the re-sale of agricultural produce. They "bring to Moscow
tons of citrus fruit, apples and vegetables and re-sell them at speculative
prices". "These profit-grabbers are provided with every facility,
with market inns, store-rooms and other services at their disposal".[28] In the Krasnodar Territory, a speculator set up
her own agency and "employed twelve salesmen and two stevedores".
She transported "thousands of hogs, hundreds of quintals of grain and
hundreds of tons of fruit" from the rural areas to the Don Basin and
moved "great quantities of stolen slag bricks, whole wagons of
glass" and other building materials from the city to the villages. She
reaped huge profits out of such re-sale.[29]
Others
specialize as brokers and middlemen. They have wide contacts and through them
one can get any thing in return for a bribe. There was a broker in Leningrad
who "though he is not the Minister of Trade, controls all the
stocks", and "though he holds no post on the railway, disposes of
wagons". He could obtain "things the stocks of which are strictly
controlled, from outside the stocks". "All the store-houses in
Leningrad are at his service." For delivering goods, he received huge
"bonuses" -- 700,000 roubles from one timber combine in 1960 alone.
In Leningrad, there is "a whole group" of such brokers.[30]
These private
entrepreneurs and speculators are engaged in the most naked capitalist exploitation.
Isn't it clear that they belong to the bourgeoisie, the class antagonistic to
the proletariat?
Actually the
Soviet press itself calls these people "Soviet capitalists",
"new-born entrepreneurs", "private entrepreneurs",
"newly-emerged kulaks", "speculators",
"exploiters", etc. Aren't the revisionist Khrushchov clique
contradicting themselves when they assert that antagonistic classes do not
exist in the Soviet Union?
The facts cited
above are only a part of those published in the Soviet press. They are enough
to shock people, but there are many more which have not been published, many
bigger and more serious cases which are covered up and shielded. We have
quoted the above data in order to answer the question whether there are
antagonistic classes and class struggle in the Soviet Union. These data are
readily available and even the revisionist Khrushchov clique are unable to
deny them.
These data
suffice to show that the unbridled activities of the bourgeoisie against the
proletariat are widespread in the Soviet Union, in the city as well as the
countryside, in industry as well as agriculture, in the sphere of production
as well as the sphere of circulation, all the way from the economic
departments to Party and government organizations, and from the grass-roots
to the higher leading bodies. These anti-socialist activities are nothing if
not the sharp class struggle of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.
It is not
strange that attacks on socialism should be made in a socialist country by old
and new bourgeois elements. There is nothing terrifying about this so long as
the leadership of the Party and state remains a Marxist-Leninist one. But in
the Soviet Union today, the gravity of the situation lies in the fact that
the revisionist Khrushchov clique have usurped the leadership of the Soviet
Party and state and that a privilegded bourgeois stratum has emerged in
Soviet society.
We shall deal
with this problem in the following section.
THE SOVIET PRIVILEGED STRATUM AND THE REVISIONIST
KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE
The privileged
stratum in contemporary Soviet society is composed of degenerate elements
from among the leading cadres of Party and government organizations,
enterprises and farms as well as bourgeois intellectuals; it stands in
opposition to the workers, the peasants and the overwhelming majority of the
intellectuals and cadres of the Soviet Union.
Lenin pointed
out soon after the October Revolution that bourgeois and petty-bourgeois
ideologies and force of habit were encircling and influencing the proletariat
from all directions and were corrupting certain of its sections. This
circumstance led to the emergence from among the Soviet officials and
functionaries both of bureaucrats alienated from the masses and of new
bourgeois elements. Lenin also pointed out that although the high salaries
paid to the bourgeois technical specialists staying on to work for the Soviet
regime were necessary, they were having a corrupting influence on it.
Therefore,
Lenin laid great stress on waging persistent struggles against the influence
of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies, on arousing the broad masses to
take part in government work, on ceaselessly exposing and purging bureaucrats
and new bourgeois elements in the Soviet organs, and on creating conditions
that would bar the existence and reproduction of the bourgeoisie. Lenin
pointed out sharply that "without a systematic and determined struggle
to improve the apparatus, we shall perish before the basis of socialism is
created".[31]
At the same
time, he laid great stress on adherence to the principle of the Paris Commune
in wage policy, that is, all public servants were to be paid wages
corresponding to those of the workers and only bourgeois specialists were to
be paid high salaries. From the October Revolution to the period of Soviet
economic rehabilitation, Lenin's directives were in the main observed; the
leading personnel of the Party and government organizations and enterprises
and Party members among the specialists received salaries roughly equivalent
to the wages of workers.
At that time,
the Communist Party and the government of the Soviet Union adopted a number
of measures in the sphere of politics and ideology and in the system of
distribution to prevent leading cadres in any department from abusing their
powers or degenerating morally or politically.
The Communist
Party of the Soviet Union headed by Stalin adhered to the dictatorship of the
proletariat and the road of socialism and waged a staunch struggle against
the forces of capitalism. Stalin's struggles against the Trotskyites,
Zinovievites and Bukharinites were in essence a reflection within the Party
of the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and of the
struggle between the two roads of socialism and capitalism. Victory in these
struggles smashed the vain plot of the bourgeoisie to restore capitalism in
the Soviet Union.
It cannot be
denied that before Stalin's death high salaries were already being paid to
certain groups and that some cadres had already degenerated and become
bourgeois elements. The Central Committee of the CPSU pointed out in its
report to the 19th Party Congress in October 1952 that degeneration and
corruption had appeared in certain Party organizations. The leaders of these
organizations had turned them into small communities composed exclusively of
their own people, "setting their group interests higher than the
interests of the Party and the state". Some executives of industrial
enterprises "forget that the enterprises entrusted to their charge are
state enterprises, and try to turn them into their own private domain".
"Instead of safeguarding the common husbandry of the collective
farms", some Party and Soviet functionaries and some cadres in
agricultural departments "engage in filching collective-farm
property". In the cultural, artistic and scientific fields too, works
attacking and smearing the socialist system had appeared and a monopolistic
"Arakcheyev regime" had emerged among the scientists.
Since
Khrushchov usurped the leadership of the Soviet Party and state, there has
been a fundamental change in the state of the class struggle in the Soviet
Union.
Khrushchov has
carried out a series of revisionist policies serving the interests of the
bourgeoisie and rapidly swelling the forces of capitalism in the Soviet
Union.
On the pretext
of "combating the personality cult", Khrushchov has defamed the
dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system and thus in fact
paved the way for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. In
completely negating Stalin, he has in fact negated Marxism-Leninism which was
upheld by Stalin and opened the floodgates for the revisionist deluge.
Khrushchov has
substituted "material incentive" for the socialist principle,
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his
work". He has widened, and not narrowed, the gap between the incomes of
a small minority and those of the workers, peasants and ordinary intellectuals.
He has supported the degenerates in leading positions, encouraging them to
become even more unscrupulous in abusing their powers and to appropriate the
fruits of labour of the Soviet people. Thus he has accelerated the
polarization of classes in Soviet society.
Khrushchov
sabotages the socialist planned economy, applies the capitalist principle of
profit, develops capitalist free competition and undermines socialist
ownership by the whole people.
Khrushchov
attacks the system of socialist agricultural planning, describing it as
"bureaucratic" and "unnecessary". Eager to learn from the
big proprietors of American farms, he is encouraging capitalist management,
fostering a kulak economy and undermining the socialist collective economy.
Khrushchov is
peddling bourgeois ideology, bourgeois liberty, equality, fraternity and
humanity, inculcating bourgeois idealism and metaphysics and the reactionary
ideas of bourgeois individualism, humanism and pacifism among the Soviet
people, and debasing socialist morality. The rotten bourgeois culture of the
West is now fashionable in the Soviet Union, and socialist culture is
ostracized and attacked.
Under the
signboard of "peaceful coexistence", Khrushchov has been colluding
with U.S. imperialism, wrecking the socialist camp and the international
communist movement, opposing the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed
peoples and nations, practising great-power chauvinism and national egoism
and betraying proletarian internationalism. All this is being done for the
protection of the vested interests of a handful of people, which he places
above the fundamental interests of the peoples of the Soviet Union, the
socialist camp and the whole world.
The line
Khrushchov pursues is a revisionist line through and through. Guided by this
line, not only have the old bourgeois elements run wild but new bourgeois
elements have appeared in large numbers among the leading cadres of the
Soviet Party and government, the chiefs of state enterprises and collective
farms, and the higher intellectuals in the fields of culture, art, science
and technology.
In the Soviet
Union at present, not only have the new bourgeois elements increased in
number as never before, but their social status has fundamentally changed. Before
Khrushchov came to power, they did not occupy the ruling position in Soviet
society. Their activities were restricted in many ways and they were subject
to attack. But since Khrushchov took over, usurping the leadership of the
Party and the state step by step, the new bourgeois elements have gradually
risen to the ruling position in the Party and government and in the economic,
cultural and other departments, and formed a privileged stratum in Soviet
society.
This privileged
stratum is the principal component of the bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union
today and the main social basis of the revisionist Khrushchov clique. The
revisionist Khrushchov clique are the political representatives of the Soviet
bourgeoisie, and particularly of its privileged stratum.
The revisionist
Khrushchov clique have carried out one purge after another and replaced one
group of cadres after another throughout the country, from the central to the
local bodies, from leading Party and government organizations to economic and
cultural and educational departments, dismissing those they do not trust and
planting their proteges in leading posts.
Take the
Central Committee of the CPSU as an example. The statistics show that nearly
seventy per cent of the members of the Central Committee of the CPSU who were
elected at its 19th Congress in 1952 were purged in the course of the 20th
and 22nd Congresses held respectively in 1956 and 1961. And nearly fifty per
cent of the members of the Central Committee who were elected at the 20th
Congress were purged at the time of the 22nd Congress.
Or take the
local organizations. On the eve of the 22nd Congress, on the pretext of
"renewing the cadres", the revisionist Khrushchov clique, according
to incomplete statistics, removed from office forty-five per cent of the
members of the Party Central Committees of the Union Republics and of the
Party Committees of the Territories and Regions, and forty per cent of the
members of the Municipal and District Party Committees. In 1963, on the
pretext of dividing the Party into "industrial" and
"agricultural" Party committees, they further replaced more than
half the members of the Central Committees of the Union Republics and of the
Regional Party Committees.
Through this
series of changes the Soviet privileged stratum has gained control of the
Party, the government and other important organizations. The members of this
privileged stratum have converted the function of serving the masses into the
privilege of dominating them. They are abusing their powers over the means of
production and of livelihood for the private benefit of their small clique.
The members of
this privileged stratum appropriate the fruits of the Soviet people's labour
and pocket in comes that are dozens or even a hundred times those of the average
Soviet worker and peasant. They not only secure high incomes in the form of
high salaries, high awards, high royalties and a great variety of personal
subsidies, but also use their privileged position to appropriate public
property by graft and bribery. Completely divorced from the working people of
the Soviet Union, they live the parasitical and decadent life of the
bourgeoisie.
The members of
this privileged stratum have become utterly degenerate ideologically, have
completely departed from the revolutionary traditions of the Bolshevik Party
and discarded the lofty ideals of the Soviet working class. They are opposed
to Marxism-Leninism and socialism. They betray the revolution and forbid
others to make revolution. Their sole concern is to consolidate their
economic position and political rule. All their activities revolve around the
private interests of their own privileged stratum.
Having usurped
the leadership of the Soviet Party and state, the Khrushchov clique are
turning the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of the Soviet Union with its
glorious revolutionary history into a revisionist party; they are turning the
Soviet state under the dictatorship of the proletariat into a state under the
dictatorship of the revisionist Khrushchov clique; and, step by step, they
are turning socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist collective
ownership into ownership by the privileged stratum.
People have
seen how in Yugoslavia, although the Tito clique still displays the banner of
"socialism", a bureaucrat bourgeoisie opposed to the Yugoslav
people has gradually come into being since the Tito clique took the road of
revisionism, transforming the Yugoslav state from a dictatorship of the
proletariat into the dictatorship of the bureaucrat bourgeoisie and its
socialist public economy into state capitalism. Now people see the Khrushchov
clique taking the road al ready travelled by the Tito clique. Khrushchov
looks to Belgrade as his Mecca, saying again and again that he will learn
from the Tito clique's experience and declaring that he and the Tito clique
"belong to one and the same idea and are guided by the same
theory".[32] This is not at all surprising.
As a result of
Khrushchov's revisionism, the first socialist country in the world built by
the great Soviet people with their blood and sweat is now facing an
unprecedented danger of capitalist restoration.
The Khrushchov
clique are spreading the tale that "there are no longer antagonistic
classes and class struggle in the Soviet Union" in order to cover up the
facts about their own ruthless class struggle against the Soviet people.
The Soviet
privileged stratum represented by the revisionist Khrushchov clique
constitutes only a few per cent of the Soviet population. Among the Soviet
cadres its numbers are also small. It stands diametrically opposed to the
Soviet people, who constitute more than 90 per cent of the total population,
and to the great majority of the Soviet cadres and Communists. The
contradiction between the Soviet people and this privileged stratum is now
the principal contradiction inside the Soviet Union, and it is an
irreconcilable and antagonistic class contradiction.
The glorious
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was built by Lenin, and the great
Soviet people displayed epoch-making revolutionary initiative in the October
Socialist Revolution, they showed their heroism and stamina in defeating the
White Guards and the armed intervention by more than a dozen imperialist
countries, they scored unprecedentedly brilliant achievements in the struggle
for industrialization and agricultural collectivization, and they won a
tremendous victory in the Patriotic War against the German fascists and saved
all mankind. Even under the rule of the Khrushchov clique, the mass of the
members of the CPSU and the Soviet people are carrying on the glorious
revolutionary traditions nurtured by Lenin and Stalin, and they still uphold
socialism and aspire to communism.
The broad
masses of the Soviet workers, collective farmers and intellectuals are
seething with discontent against the oppression and exploitation practised by
the privileged stratum. They have come to see ever more clearly the
revisionist features of the Khrushchov clique which is betraying socialism
and restoring capitalism. Among the ranks of the Soviet cadres, there are
many who still persist in the revolutionary stand of the proletariat, adhere
to the road of socialism and firmly oppose Khrushchov's revisionism. The
broad masses of the Soviet people, of Communists and cadres are using various
means to resist and oppose the revisionist line of the Khrushchov clique, so
that the revisionist Khrushchov clique cannot so easily bring about the
restoration of capitalism. The great Soviet people are fighting to defend the
glorious traditions of the Great October Revolution, to preserve the great
gains of socialism and to smash the plot for the restoration of capitalism.
At the 22nd
Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov openly raised the banner of opposition to the
dictatorship of the proletariat, announcing the replacement of the state of
the dictatorship of the proletariat by the "state of the whole
people". It is written in the Programme of the CPSU that the
dictatorship of the proletariat "has ceased to be indispensable in the
U.S.S.R." and that "the state, which arose as a state of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, has, in the new, contemporary stage, become
a state of the entire people".
Anyone with a
little knowledge of Marxism-Leninism knows that the concept of the state is a
class concept. Lenin pointed out that "the distinguishing feature of the
state is the existence of a separate class of people in whose hands power is
concentrated".[33] The state is a weapon of class struggle, a machine
by means of which one class represses another. Every state is the
dictatorship of a definite class. So long as the state exists, it cannot
possibly stand above class or belong to the whole people.
The proletariat
and its political party have never concealed their views; they say explicitly
that the very aim of the proletarian socialist revolution is to overthrow
bourgeois rule and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the
victory of the socialist revolution, the proletariat and its party must
strive unremittingly to fulfil the historical tasks of the dictatorship of
the proletariat and eliminate classes and class differences, so that the
state will wither away. It is only the bourgeoisie and its parties which in
their attempt to hoodwink the masses try by every means to cover up the class
nature of state power and describe the state machinery under their control as
being "of the whole people" and "above class".
The fact that
Khrushchov has announced the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat
in the Soviet Union and advanced the thesis of the "state of the whole
people" demonstrates that he has replaced the Marxist-Leninist teachings
on the state by bourgeois falsehoods.
When
Marxist-Leninists criticized their fallacies, the revisionist Khrushchov
clique hastily defended themselves and tried hard to invent a so-called theoretical
basis for the "state of the whole people". They now assert that the
historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat mentioned by Marx
and Lenin refers only to the transition from capitalism to the first stage of
communism and not to its higher stage. They further assert that "the
dictatorship of the proletariat will cease to be necessary before the state
withers away"[34] and that after the end of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, there is yet another stage, the "state of the whole
people".
These are
out-and-out sophistries.
In his Critique
of the Gotha Programme, Marx advanced the well-known axiom that the
dictatorship of the proletariat is the state of the period of transition from
capitalism to communism. Lenin gave a clear explanation of this Marxist
axiom.
He said:
In his Critique
of the Gotha Programme Marx wrote: "Between capitalist and communist
society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into
the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in
which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat."
Up to now this axiom
has never been disputed by Socialists, and yet it implies the recognition of
the existence of the state right up to the time when victorious
socialism has grown into complete communism.[35]
Lenin further
said:
The
essence of Marx's teaching on the state has been mastered only by those who
understand that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not
only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical
period which separates capitalism from "classless society",
from Communism.[36]
It is perfectly
clear that according to Marx and Lenin, the historical period throughout
which the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat exists, is not merely
the period of transition from capitalism to the first stage of communism, as
alleged by the revisionist Khrushchov clique, but the entire period of
transition from capitalism to "complete communism", to the time
when all class differences will have been eliminated and "classless
society" realized, that is to say, to the higher stage of communism.
It is equally
clear that the state in the transition period referred to by Marx and Lenin
is the dictatorship of the proletariat and not anything else. The
dictatorship of the proletariat is the form of the state in the entire period
of transition from capitalism to the higher stage of communism, and also the
last form of the state in human history. The withering away of the
dictatorship of the proletariat will mean the withering away of the state.
Lenin said:
Marx
deduced from the whole history of Socialism and of the political struggle
that the state was bound to disappear, and that the transitional form of its
disappearance (the transition from state to nonstate) would be the
"proletariat organized as the ruling class''.[37]
Historically
the dictatorship of the proletariat may take different forms from one country
to another and from one period to another, but in essence it will remain the
same. Lenin said:
The
transition from capitalism to Communism certainly cannot but yield a
tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will
inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat.[38]
It can thus be
seen that it is absolutely not the view of Marx and Lenin but an invention of
the revisionist Khrushchov that the end of the dictatorship of the
proletariat will precede the withering away of the state and will be followed
by yet another stage, "the state of the whole people".
In arguing for
their anti-Marxist-Leninist views, the revisionist Khrushchov clique have
taken great pains to find a sentence from Marx and distorted it by quoting it
out of context. They have arbitrarily described the future nature of the
state [Staatswesen in German] of communist society referred to by
Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme as the "'state
of communist society', which is no longer a dictatorship of the
proletariat".[39] They gleefully announced that the Chinese would
not dare to quote this from Marx. Apparently the revisionist Khrushchov
clique think it is very helpful to them.
As it happens,
Lenin seems to have foreseen that revisionists would make use of this phrase
to distort Marxism. In his Marxism on the State, Lenin gave an
excellent explanation of it. He said, ". . . the dictatorship of the
proletariat is a 'political transition period'. . . . But Marx goes on to
speak of 'the future nature of the state of communist society'!! Thus,
there will be a state even in 'communist society'!! Is there not a
contradiction in this?" Lenin answered, "No." He then tabulated
the three stages in the process of development from the bourgeois state to
the withering away of the state:
The first stage -- in capitalist society, the state is needed by the
bourgeoisie -- the bourgeois state.
The
second stage -- in the period of transition from capitalism to communism, the
state is needed by the proletariat -- the state of the dictatorship of the
proletariat.
The
third stage -- in communist society, the state is not necessary, it withers
away.
He concluded:
"Complete consistency and clarity!!"
In Lenin's
tabulation, only the bourgeois state, the state of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and the withering away of the state are to be found. By precisely
this tabulation Lenin made it clear that when communism is reached the state
withers away and becomes non-existent.
Ironically
enough, the revisionist Khrushchov clique also quoted this very passage from
Lenin's Marxism on the State in the course of defending their error.
And then they proceeded to make the following idiotic statement:
In our
country the first two periods referred to by Lenin in the opinion quoted
already belong to history. In the Soviet Union a state of the whole people -- a communist state system, the state of the first phase of communism,
has arisen and is developing.[40]
If the first
two periods referred to by Lenin have already become a thing of the past in
the Soviet Union, then the state should be withering away, and where could a
"state of the whole people" come from? If the state is not yet
withering away, then it ought to be the dictatorship of the proletariat and
under absolutely no circumstances a "state of the whole people".
In arguing for
their "state of the whole people", the revisionist Khrushchov
clique exert themselves to vilify the dictatorship of the proletariat as
undemocratic. They assert that only by replacing the state of the
dictatorship of the proletariat by the "state of the whole people"
can democracy be further developed and turned into "genuine democracy
for the whole people". Khrushchov has pretentiously said that the
abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat exemplifies "a line of
energetically developing democracy" and that "proletarian democracy
is becoming socialist democracy of the whole people".[41]
These
utterances can only show that their authors either are completely ignorant of
the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the state or are maliciously distorting
them.
Anyone with a
little knowledge of Marxism-Leninism knows that the concept of democracy as a
form of the state, like that of dictatorship, is a class one. There can only
be class democracy, there cannot be "democracy for the whole
people".
Lenin said:
Democracy
for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e.,
exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people --
this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from
capitalism to Communism.[42]
Dictatorship
over the exploiting classes and democracy among the working people -- these
are the two aspects of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is only under
the dictatorship of the proletariat that democracy for the masses of the
working people can be developed and expanded to an unprecedented extent.
Without the dictatorship of the proletariat there can be no genuine democracy
for the working people.
Where there is
bourgeois democracy there is no proletarian democracy, and where there is
proletarian democracy there is no bourgeois democracy. The one excludes the
other. This is inevitable and admits of no compromise. The more thoroughly
bourgeois democracy is eliminated, the more will proletarian democracy
flourish. In the eyes of the bourgeoisie, any country where this occurs is
lacking in democracy. But actually this is the promotion of proletarian
democracy and the elimination of bourgeois democracy. As proletarian
democracy develops, bourgeois democracy is eliminated.
This
fundamental Marxist-Leninist thesis is opposed by the revisionist Khrushchov
clique. In fact, they hold that so long as enemies are subjected to dictatorship
there is no democracy and that the only way to develop democracy is to
abolish the dictatorship over enemies, stop suppressing them and institute
"democracy for the whole people".
Their view is
cast from the same mould as the renegade Kautsky's concept of "pure
democracy".
In criticizing
Kautsky Lenin said:
. . .
"pure democracy" is not only an ignorant phrase, revealing a
lack of understanding both of the class struggle and of the nature of the
state, but also a thrice empty phrase, since in communist society democracy
will wither away in the process of changing and becoming a habit, but
will never be "pure" democracy.[43]
He also pointed
out:
The
dialectics (course) of the development is as follows: from absolutism to
bourgeois democracy; from bourgeois to proletarian democracy; from
proletarian democracy to none.[44]
That is to say,
in the higher stage of communism proletarian democracy will wither away along
with the elimination of classes and the withering away of the dictatorship of
the proletariat.
To speak
plainly, as with the "state of the whole people", the
"democracy for the whole people" proclaimed by Khrushchov is a
hoax. In thus retrieving the tattered garments of the bourgeoisie and the
old-line revisionists, patching them up and adding a label of his own,
Khrushchov's sole purpose is to deceive the Soviet people and the
revolutionary people of the world and cover up his betrayal of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and his opposition to socialism.
What is the
essence of Khrushchov's "state of the whole people"?
Khrushchov has
abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and
established a dictatorship of the revisionist clique headed by himself, that
is, a dictatorship of a privileged stratum of the Soviet bourgeoisie.
Actually his "state of the whole people" is not a state of the
dictatorship of the proletariat but a state in which his small revisionist
clique wield their dictatorship over the masses of the workers, the peasants
and the revolutionary intellectuals. Under the rule of the Khrushchov clique,
there is no democracy for the Soviet working people, there is democracy only
for the handful of people belonging to the revisionist Khrushchov clique, for
the privileged stratum and for the bourgeois elements, old and new.
Khrushchov's "democracy for the whole people" is nothing but
out-and-out bourgeois democracy, i.e., a despotic dictatorship of the
Khrushchov clique over the Soviet people.
In the Soviet
Union today, anyone who persists in the proletarian stand, upholds
Marxism-Leninism and has the courage to speak out, to resist or to fight is
watched, followed, summoned, and even arrested, imprisoned or diagnosed as
"mentally ill" and sent to "mental hospitals". Recently
the Soviet press has declared that it is necessary to "fight"
against those who show even the slightest dissatisfaction, and called for
"relentless battle" against the "rotten jokers"[45] who are so bold as to make sarcastic remarks about
Khrushchov's agricultural policy. It is particularly astonishing that the
revisionist Khrushchov clique should have on more than one occasion bloodily
suppressed striking workers and the masses who put up resistance.
The formula of
abolishing the dictatorship of the proletariat while keeping a state of the
whole people reveals the secret of the revisionist Khrushchov clique; that
is, they are firmly opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat but will not
give up state power till their doom. The revisionist Khrushchov clique know
the paramount importance of controlling state power. They need the state
machinery for repressing the Soviet working people and the Marxist-Leninists.
They need it for clearing the way for the restoration of capitalism in the
Soviet Union. These are Khrushchov's real aims in raising the banners of the
"state of the whole people" and "democracy for the whole
people".
REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED PARTY OF THE ENTIRE
PEOPLE
At the 22nd
Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov openly raised another banner, the alteration
of the proletarian character of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He
announced the replacement of the party of the proletariat by a "party of
the entire people". The programme of the CPSU states, "As a result
of the victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and the consolidation of the
unity of Soviet society, the Communist Party of the working class has become
the vanguard of the Soviet people, a party of the entire people." The
Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says that the CPSU "has
become a political organization of the entire people".
How absurd!
Elementary
knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that, like the state, a political
party is an instrument of class struggle. Every political party has a class
character. Party spirit is the concentrated expression of class character.
There is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class political party and
there never has been, nor is there such a thing as a "party of the
entire people" that does not represent the interests of a particular
class.
The party of
the proletariat is built in accordance with the revolutionary theory and
revolutionary style of Marxism-Leninism; it is the party formed by the
advanced elements who are boundlessly faithful to the historical mission of
the proletariat, it is the organized vanguard of the proletariat and the
highest form of its organization. The party of the proletariat represents the
interests of the proletariat and the concentration of its will.
Moreover, the
party of the proletariat is the only party able to represent the interests of
the people, who constitute over ninety per cent of the total population. The
reason is that the interests of the proletariat are identical with those of
the working masses, that the proletarian party can approach problems in the
light of the historical role as the proletariat and in terms of the present
and future interests of the proletariat and the working masses and of the
best interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, and that it can
give correct leadership in accordance with Marxism-Leninism.
In addition to
its members of working-class origin, the party of the proletariat has members
of other class origins. But the latter do not join the Party as
representatives of other classes. From the very day they join the Party they
must abandon their former class stand and take the stand of the proletariat.
Marx and Engels said:
If people
of this kind from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first
condition must be that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois,
petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should whole-heartedly adopt
the proletarian outlook.[46]
The basic
principles concerning the character of the proletarian party were long ago
elucidated by Marxism-Leninism. But in the opinion of the revisionist
Khrushchov clique these principles are "stereotyped formulas",
while their "party of the entire people" conforms to the
"actual dialectics of the development of the Communist Party".[47]
The revisionist
Khrushchov clique have cudgelled their brains to think up arguments
justifying their "party of the entire people". They have argued
during the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties in July 1963 and in
the Soviet press that they have changed the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union into a "party of the entire people" because:
1. The
CPSU expresses the interests of the whole people.
2. The
entire people have accepted the Marxist-Leninist world outlook of the working
class, and the aim of the working class -- the building of communism -- has
become the aim of the entire people.
3. The
ranks of the CPSU consist of the best representatives of the workers,
collective farmers and intellectuals. The CPSU unites in its own ranks
representatives of over a hundred nationalities and peoples.
4. The
democratic method used in the Party's activities is also in accord with its
character as the Party of the entire people.
It is obvious
even at a glance that none of these arguments adduced by the revisionist Khrushchov
clique shows a serious approach to a serious problem.
When Lenin was
fighting the opportunist muddle-heads, he remarked:
Can
people obviously incapable of taking serious problems seriously, themselves
be taken seriously? It is difficult to do so, comrades, very difficult! But
the question which certain people cannot treat seriously is in itself so
serious that it will do no harm to examine even patently frivolous replies to
it.[48]
Today, too, it
will do no harm to examine the patently frivolous replies given by the
revisionist Khrushchov clique to so serious a question as that of the party
of the proletariat.
According to
the revisionist Khrushchov clique, the Communist Party should become a
"party of the entire people" because it expresses the interests of
the entire people. Does it not then follow that from the very beginning it
should have been a "party of the entire people" instead of a party
of the proletariat?
According to
the revisionist Khrushchov clique, the Communist Party should become a
"party of the entire people" because "the entire people have
accepted the Marxist-Leninist world outlook of the working class". But
how can it be said that everyone has accepted the Marxist-Leninist world
outlook in Soviet society where sharp class polarization and class struggle
are taking place? Can it be said that the tens of thousands of old and new
bourgeois elements in your country are all Marxist-Leninists? If
Marxism-Leninism has really be come the world outlook of the entire people,
as you allege, does it not then follow that there is no difference in your
society between Party and non-Party and no need whatsoever for the Party to
exist? What difference does it make if there is a "party of the entire
people" or not?
According to
the revisionist Khrushchov clique, the Communist Party should become a
"party of the entire people" because its membership consists of
workers, peasants and intellectuals and all nationalities and peoples. Does
this mean then that before the idea of the "party of the entire
people" was put forward at its 22nd Congress none of the members of the
CPSU came from classes other than the working class? Does it mean that
formerly the members of the Party all came from just one nationality, to the
exclusion of other nationalities and peoples? If the character of a party is
determined by the social background of its membership, does it not then
follow that the numerous political parties in the world whose members also
come from various classes, nationalities and peoples are all "parties of
the entire people"?
According to
the revisionist Khrushchov clique, the Party should be a "party of the
entire people" because the methods it uses in its activities are
democratic. But from its outset, a Communist Party is built on the basis of the
principle of democratic centralism and should always adopt the mass line and
the democratic method of persuasion and education in working among the
people. Does it not then follow that a Communist Party is a "party of
the entire people" from the first day of its founding?
Briefly, none
of the arguments listed by the revisionist Khrushchov clique holds water.
Besides making
a great fuss about a "party of the entire people", Khrushchov has
also divided the Party , into an "industrial Party" and an
"agricultural Party" on the pretext of "building the Party
organs on the production principle".[49]
The revisionist
Khrushchov clique say that they have done so because of "the primacy of
economics over politics under socialism"[50] and
because they want to place "the economic and production problems, which
have been pushed to the forefront by the entire course of the communist
construction, at the centre of the activities of the Party
organizations" and make them "the cornerstone of all their work".[51] Khrushchov said, "We say bluntly that the
main thing in the work of the Party organs is production."[52] And what is more, they have foisted these views on
Lenin, claiming that they are acting in accordance with his principles.
However, anyone
at all acquainted with the history of the CPSU knows that, far from being
Lenin's views, they are anti-Leninist views and that they were views held by
Trotsky. On this question, too, Khrushchov is a worthy disciple of Trotsky.
In criticizing
Trotsky and Bukharin, Lenin said:
Politics are the concentrated expression of economics. . . . Politics
cannot but have precedence over economics. To argue differently means
forgetting the A B C of Marxism.
He continued:
. . .
without a proper political approach to the subject the given class cannot
maintain its rule, and consequently cannot solve its own production
problems.[53]
The facts are
crystal clear: the real purpose of the revisionist Khrushchov clique in
proposing a "party of the entire people" was completely to alter
the proletarian character of the CPSU and transform the Marxist-Leninist
Party into a revisionist party.
The great
Communist Party of the Soviet Union is confronted with the grave danger of
degenerating from a party of the proletariat into a party of the bourgeoisie
and from a Marxist-Leninist into a revisionist party.
Lenin said:
A party
that wants to exist cannot allow the slightest wavering on the question of
its existence or any agreement with those who may bury it.[54]
At present, the
revisionist Khrushchov clique is again confronting the broad membership of
the great Communist Party of the Soviet Union with precisely this serious
question.
KHRUSHCHOV'S PHONEY COMMUNISM
At the 22nd
Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchov announced that the Soviet Union had already
entered the period of the extensive building of communist society. He also
declared that "we shall, in the main, have built a communist society
within twenty years".[55] This is pure fraud.
How can there
be talk of building communism when the revisionist Khrushchov clique are
leading the Soviet Union onto the path of the restoration of capitalism and
when the Soviet people are in grave danger of losing the fruits of socialism?
In putting up
the signboard of "building communism" Khrushchov's real aim is to
conceal the true face of his revisionism. But it is not hard to expose this
trick. Just as the eyeball of a fish cannot be allowed to pass as a pearl, so
revisionism cannot be allowed to pass itself off as communism.
Scientific
communism has a precise and definite meaning. According to Marxism-Leninism,
communist society is a society in which classes and class differences are
completely eliminated, the entire people have a high level of communist
consciousness and morality as well as boundless enthusiasm for and initiative
in labour, there is a great abundance of social products and the principle of
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs" is applied, and in which the state has withered away.
Marx declared:
In the
higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the
individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis
between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not
only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have
also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the
springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the
narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society
inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs![56]
According to
Marxist-Leninist theory, the purpose of upholding the dictatorship of the
proletariat in the period of socialism is precisely to ensure that society
develops in the direction of communism. Lenin said that "forward
development, i.e., towards Communism, proceeds through the dictatorship of
the proletariat, and cannot do otherwise''.[57] Since the revisionist Khrushchov clique have
abandoned the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, it is
going backward and not forward, going backward to capitalism and not forward
to communism.
Going forward
to communism means moving towards the abolition of all classes and class
differences. A communist society which preserves any classes at all, let
alone exploiting classes, is inconceivable. Yet Khrushchov is fostering a new
bourgeoisie, restoring and extending the system of exploitation and
accelerating class polarization in the Soviet Union. A privileged bourgeois
stratum opposed to the Soviet people now occupies the ruling position in the
Party and government and in the economic, cultural and other departments. Can
one find an iota of communism in all this?
Going forward
to communism means moving towards a unitary system of the ownership of the
means of production by the whole people. A communist society in which several
kinds of ownership of the means of production coexist is inconceivable. Yet
Khrushchov is creating a situation in which enterprises owned by the whole
people are gradually degenerating into capitalist enterprises and farms under
the system of collective ownership are gradually degenerating into units of a
kulak economy. Again, can one find an iota of communism in all this?
Going forward
to communism means moving towards a great abundance of social products and
the realization of the principle of "from each according to his ability,
to each according to his needs". A communist society built on the
enrichment of a handful of persons and the impoverishment of the masses is
inconceivable. Under the socialist system the great Soviet people developed
the social productive forces at unprecedented speed. But the evils of Khrushchov's
revisionism are creating havoc in the Soviet socialist economy. Constantly
beset with innumerable contradictions, Khrushchov makes frequent changes in
his economic policies and often goes back on his own words, thus throwing the
Soviet national economy into a state of chaos. Khrushchov is truly an
incorrigible wastrel. He has squandered the grain reserves built up under
Stalin and brought great difficulties into the lives of the Soviet people. He
has distorted and violated the socialist principle of distribution of
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his
work", and enabled a handful of persons to appropriate the fruits of the
labour of the broad masses of the Soviet people. These points alone are
sufficient to prove that the road taken by Khrushchov leads away from
communism.
Going forward
to communism means moving towards enhancing the communist consciousness of
the masses. A communist society with bourgeois ideas running rampant is
inconceivable. Yet Khrushchov is zealously reviving bourgeois ideology in the
Soviet Union and serving as a missionary for the decadent American culture.
By propagating material incentive, he is turning all human relations into
money relations and encouraging individualism and selfishness. Because of him,
manual labour is again considered sordid and love of pleasure at the expense
of other people's labour is again considered honourable. Certainly, the
social ethics and atmosphere promoted by Khrushchov are far removed from
communism, as far as far can be.
Going forward
to communism means moving towards the withering away of the state. A
communist society with a state apparatus for oppressing the people is in
conceivable. The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is actually no
longer a state in its original sense, because it is no longer a machine used
by the exploiting few to oppress the overwhelming majority of the people but
a machine for exercising dictatorship over a very small number of exploiters,
while democracy is practised among the overwhelming majority of the people.
Khrushchov is altering the character of Soviet state power and changing the
dictatorship of the proletariat back into an instrument whereby a handful of
privileged bourgeois elements exercise dictatorship over the mass of the
Soviet workers, peasants and intellectuals. He is continuously strengthening
his dictatorial state apparatus and intensifying his repression of the Soviet
people. It is indeed a great mockery to talk about communism in these
circumstances.
A comparison of
all this with the principles of scientific communism readily reveals that in
every respect the revisionist Khrushchov clique are leading the Soviet Union
away from the path of socialism and onto the path of capitalism and, as a
consequence, further and further away from, instead of closer to, the
communist goal of "from each according to his ability, to each according
to his needs".
Khrushchov has
ulterior motives when he puts up the signboard of communism. He is using it
to fool the Soviet people and cover up his effort to restore capitalism. He
is using it to deceive the international proletariat and the revolutionary
people the world over and betray proletarian internationalism. Under this
signboard, the Khrushchov clique has itself abandoned proletarian
internationalism and is seeking a partnership with U.S. imperialism for the
partition of the world; moreover, it wants the fraternal socialist countries
to serve its own private interests and not to oppose imperialism or to
support the revolutions of the oppressed peoples and nations, and it wants
them to accept its political, economic and military control and be its
virtual dependencies and colonies. Furthermore, the Khrushchov clique wants
all the oppressed peoples and nations to serve its private interests and
abandon their revolutionary struggles, so as not to disturb its sweet dream
of partnership with imperialism for the division of the world, and instead
submit to enslavement and oppression by imperialism and its lackeys.
In short,
Khrushchov's slogan of basically "building a communist society within
twenty years" in the Soviet Union is not only false but also
reactionary.
The revisionist
Khrushchov clique say that the Chinese "go to the length of questioning
the very right of our Party and people to build communism".[58] This is a despicable attempt to fool the Soviet people and poison the
friendship of the Chinese and Soviet people. We have never had any doubt that
the great Soviet people will eventually enter into communist society. But
right now the revisionist Khrushchov clique are damaging the socialist fruits
of the Soviet people and taking away their right to go forward to communism.
In the circumstances, the issue confronting the Soviet people is not how to
build communism but rather how to resist and oppose Khrushchov's effort to
restore capitalism.
The revisionist
Khrushchov clique also say that "the CPC leaders hint that, since our
Party has made its aim a better life for the people, Soviet society is being 'bourgeoisified',
is 'degenerating'".[59] This trick of deflecting the Soviet people's
dissatisfaction with the Khrushchov clique is deplorable as well as stupid.
We sincerely wish the Soviet people an increasingly better life. But
Khrushchov's boasts of "concern for the well-being of the people"
and of "a better life for every man" are utterly false and
demagogic. For the masses of the Soviet people life is already bad enough at
Khrushchov's hands. The Khrushchov clique seek a "better life" only
for the members of the privileged stratum and the bourgeois elements, old and
new, in the Soviet Union. These people are appropriating the fruits of the
Soviet people's labour and living the life of bourgeois lords. They have
indeed become thoroughly bourgeoisified.
Khrushchov's
"communism" is in essence a variant of bourgeois socialism. He does
not regard communism as complefely abolishing classes and class differences
but describes it as "a bowl accessible to all and brimming with the
products of physical and mental labour".[60] He does
not regard the struggle of the working class for communism as a struggle for
the thorough emancipation of all mankind as well as itself but describes it
as a struggle for "a good dish of goulash". There is not an iota of
scientific communism in his head but only the image of a society of bourgeois
philistines.
Khrushchov's
"communism" takes the United States for its model. Imitation of the
methods of management of U.S. capitalism and the bourgeois way of life has
been raised by Khrushchov to the level of state policy. He says that he
"always thinks highly" of the achievements of the United States. He
"rejoices in these achievements, is a little envious at times''.[61] He extols to the sky a letter by Roswell Garst, a
big U.S. farmer, which propagates the capitalist system;[62] actually he has taken it as his agricultural
programme. He wants to copy the United States in the sphere of industry as
well as that of agriculture and, in particular, to imitate the profit motive of
U.S. capitalist enterprises. He shows great admiration for the American way
of life, asserting that the American people "do not live badly"[63] under the rule and enslave ment of monopoly capital. Going further,
Khrushchov is hopeful of building communism with loans from U.S. imperialism.
During his visits to the United States and Hungary, he expressed on more than
one occasion his readiness "to take credits from the devil
himself".
Thus it can be
seen that Khrushchov's "communism" is indeed "goulash communism",
the "communism of the American way of life" and "communism
seeking credits from the devil". No wonder he often tells
representatives of Western monopoly capital that once such
"communism" is realized in the Soviet Union, "you will go
forward to communism without any call from me".[64]
There is
nothing new about such "communism". It is simply another name for
capitalism. It is only a bourgeois label, sign or advertisement. In
ridiculing the old-line revisionist parties which set up the signboard of
Marxism, Lenin said:
Wherever
Marxism is popular among the workers, this political tendency, this
"bourgeois labour party," will swear by the name of Marx. It cannot
be prohibited from doing this, just as a trading firm cannot be prohibited
from using any particular label, sign, or advertisement.[65]
It is thus
easily understandable why Khrushchov's "communism" is appreciated
by imperialism and monopoly capital. The U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk
has said:
. . . to
the extent that goulash and the second pair of trousers and questions of that
sort become more important in the Soviet Union, I think to that extent a
moderating influence has come into the present scene.[66]
And the British
Prime Minister Douglas-Home has said:
Mr.
Khrushchov said that the Russian brand of communism puts education and
goulash first. That is good; goulash-communism is better than war-communism,
and I am glad to have this confirmation of our view that fat and comfortable
Communists are better than lean and hungry Communists.[67]
Khrushchov's
revisionism entirely caters to the policy of "peaceful evolution"
which U.S. imperialism is pursuing with regard to the Soviet Union and other
socialist countries. John Foster Dulles said:
. . .
there was evidence within the Soviet Union of forces toward greater
liberalism which, if they persisted, could bring about a basic change within
the Soviet Union.[68]
The liberal
forces Dulles talked about are capitalist forces. The basic change Dulles
hoped for is the degeneration of socialism into capitalism. Khrushchov is
effecting exactly the "basic change" Dulles dreamed of.
How the
imperialists are hoping for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet
Union! How they are rejoicing!
We would advise
the imperialist lords not to be happy too soon. Notwithstanding all the
services of the revisionist Khrushchov clique, nothing can save imperialism
from its doom. The revisionist ruling clique suffer from the same kind of
disease as the imperialist ruling clique; they are extremely antagonistic to
the masses of the people who comprise over ninety per cent of the world's
population, and therefore they, too, are weak and powerless and are paper
tigers. Like the clay Buddha that tried to wade across the river, the
revisionist Khrushchov clique cannot even save themselves, so how can they
endow imperialism with long life?
Khrushchov's
revisionism has inflicted heavy damage on the international communist
movement, but at the same time it has educated the Marxist-Leninists and
revolutionary people throughout the world by negative example.
If it may be
said that the Great October Revolution provided Marxist-Leninists in all
countries with the most important positive experience and opened up the road
for the proletarian seizure of political power, then on its part Khrushchov's
revisionism may be said to have provided them with the most important
negative experience, enabling Marxist-Leninists in all countries to draw the
appropriate lessons for preventing the degeneration of the proletarian party
and the socialist state.
Historically
all revolutions have had their reverses and their twists and turns. Lenin
once asked:
. . . if
we take the matter in its essence, has it ever happened in history that a new
mode of production took root immediately, without a long succession of
setbacks, blunders and relapses?[69]
The
international proletarian revolution has a history of less than a century
counting from 1871 when the proletariat of the Paris Commune made the first
heroic attempt at the seizure of political power, or barely half a century
counting from the October Revolution. The proletarian revolution, the
greatest revolution in human history, replaces capitalism by socialism and
private ownership by public ownership and uproots all the systems of
exploitation and all the exploiting classes. It is all the more natural that
so earth-shaking a revolution should have to go through serious and fierce class
struggles, inevitably traverse a long and tortuous course beset with
reverses.
History
furnishes a number of examples in which proletarian rule suffered defeat as a
result of armed suppression by the bourgeoisie, for instance, the Paris
Commune and the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919. In contemporary times,
too, there was the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary in 1956, when
the rule of the proletariat was almost overthrown. People can easily perceive
this form of capitalist restoration and are more alert and watchful against
it.
However, they
cannot easily perceive and are often off their guard or not vigilant against
another form of capitalist restoration, which therefore presents a greater
danger. The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat takes the road of
revisionism or the road of "peaceful evolution" as a result of the
degeneration of the leadership of the Party and the state. A lesson of this
kind was provided some years ago by the revisionist Tito clique who brought
about the degeneration of socialist Yugoslavia into a capitalist country. But
the Yugoslav lesson alone has not sufficed to arouse people's attention
fully. Some may say that perhaps it was an accident.
But now the revisionist
Khrushchov clique have usurped the leadership of the Party and the state, and
there is grave danger of a restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, the
land of the Great October Revolution with its history of several decades in
building socialism. And this sounds the alarm for all socialist countries,
including China, and for all the Communist and Workers' Parties, including
the Communist Party of China. Inevitably it arouses very great attention and
forces Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people the world over to ponder
deeply and sharpen their vigilance.
The emergence
of Khrushchov's revisionism is a bad thing, and it is also a good thing. So
long as the countries where socialism has been achieved and also those that
will later embark on the socialist road seriously study the lessons of the
"peaceful evolution" promoted by the revisionist Khrushchov clique
and take the appro priate measures, they will be able to prevent this kind of
"peaceful evolution" as well as crush the enemy's armed attacks.
Thus, the victory of the world proletarian revolution will be more certain.
The Communist
Party of China has a history of forty-three years. During its protracted
revolutionary struggle, our Party combated both Right and "Left"
opportunist errors and the Marxist-Leninist leadership of the Central
Committee headed by Comrade Mao Tse-tung was established. Closely integrating
the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of
revolution and construction in China, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has led the
Chinese people from victory to victory. The Central Committee of the Chinese
Communist Party and Comrade Mao Tse-tung have taught us to wage unremitting
struggle in the theoretical, political and organizational fields, as well as
in practical work, so as to combat revisionism and prevent a restoration of
capitalism. The Chinese people have gone through protracted revolutionary
armed struggles and possess a glorious revolutionary tradition. The Chinese
People's Liberation Army is armed with Mao Tse-tung's thinking and
inseparably linked to the masses. The numerous cadres of the Chinese
Communist Party have been educated and tempered in rectification movements
and sharp class struggles. All these factors make it very difficult to
restore capitalism in our country.
But let us look
at the facts. Is our society today thoroughly clean? No, it is not. Classes
and class struggle still remain, the activities of the overthrown reactionary
classes plotting a comeback still continue, and we still have speculative
activities by old and new bourgeois elements and desperate forays by
embezzlers, grafters and degenerates. There are also cases of degeneration in
a few primary organizations; what is more, these degenerates do their utmost
to find protectors and agents in the higher leading bodies. We should not in
the least slacken our vigilance against such phenomena but must keep fully
alert.
The struggle in
the socialist countries between the road of socialism and the road of
capitalism -- between the forces of capitalism attempting a comeback and the
forces opposing it -- is unavoidable. But the restoration of capitalism in
the socialist countries and their degeneration into capitalist countries are
certainly not unavoidable. We can prevent the restoration of capitalism so
long as there is a correct leadership and a correct understanding of the
problem, so long as we adhere to the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line,
take the appropriate measures and wage a prolonged, unremitting struggle. The
struggle between the socialist and capitalist roads can become a driving
force for social advance.
How can the
restoration of capitalism be prevented? On this question Comrade Mao Tse-tung
has formulated a set of theories and policies, after summing up the practical
experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat in China and studying the
positive and negative experience of other countries, mainly of the Soviet
Union, in accordance with the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, and has
thus enriched and developed the Marxist Leninist theory of the dictatorship
of the proletariat.
The main
contents of the theories and policies advanced by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in
this connection are as follows:
FIRST, it is
necessary to apply the Marxist-Leninist law of the unity of opposites to the
study of socialist society. The law of contradiction in all things, i.e.,
the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of materialist
dialectics. It operates everywhere, whether in the natural world, in human
society, or in human thought. The opposites in a contradiction both unite and
struggle with each other, and it is this that forces things to move and
change. Socialist society is no exception. In socialist society there are two
kinds of social contradictions, namely, the contradictions among the people
and those between ourselves and the enemy. These two kinds of social
contradictions are entirely different in their essence, and the methods for
handling them should be different, too. Their correct handling will result in
the increasing consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the
further strengthening and development of socialist society. Many people
acknowledge the law of the unity of opposites but are unable to apply it in
studying and handling questions in socialist society. They refuse to admit
that there are contradictions in socialist society -- that there are not only
contradictions between ourselves and the enemy but also contradictions among
the people -- and they do not know how to distinguish between these two kinds
of social contradictions and how to handle them correctly, and are therefore
unable to deal correctly with the question of the dictatorship of the
proletariat.
SECOND,
socialist society covers a very long historical period. Classes and class
struggle continue to exist in this society, and the struggle still goes on
between the road of socialism and the road of capitalism. The socialist
revolution on the economic front (in the ownership of the means of
production) is insufficient by itself and cannot be consolidated. There must
also be a thorough socialist revolution on the political and ideological
fronts. Here a very long period of time is needed to decide "who will
win" in the struggle between socialism and capitalism. Several decades
won't do it; success requires anywhere from one to several centuries. On the
question of duration, it is better to prepare for a longer rather than a
shorter period of time. On the question of effort, it is better to regard the
task as difficult rather than easy. It will be more advantageous and less
harmful to think and act in this way. Anyone who fails to see this or to
appreciate it fully will make tremendous mistakes. During the historical
period of socialism it is necessary to maintain the dictatorship of the
proletariat and carry the socialist revolution through to the end if the
restoration of capitalism is to be prevented, socialist construction carried
forward and the conditions created for the transition to communism.
THIRD, the
dictatorship of the proletariat is led by the working class, with the
worker-peasant alliance as its basis. This means the exercise of dictatorship
by the working class and by the people under its leadership over the
reactionary classes and individuals and those elements who oppose socialist
transformation and socialist construction. Within the ranks of the people
democratic centralism is practised. Ours is the broadest democracy beyond the
bounds of possibility for any bourgeois state.
FOURTH, in both
socialist revolution and socialist construction it is necessary to adhere to
the mass line, boldly to arouse the masses and to unfold mass movements on a
large scale. The mass line of "from the masses, to the masses" is
the basic line in all the work of our Party. It is necessary to have firm
confidence in the majority of the people and, above all, in the majority of
the worker-peasant masses. We must be good at consulting the masses in our
work and under no circumstances alienate ourselves from them. Both commandism
and the attitude of one dispensing favours have to be fought. The full and
frank expression of views and great debates are important forms of
revolutionary struggle which have been created by the people of our country
in the course of their long revolutionary fight, forms of struggle which rely
on the masses for resolving contradictions among the people and
contradictions between ourselves and the enemy.
FIFTH, whether
in socialist revolution or in socialist construction, it is necessary to
solve the question of whom to rely on, whom to win over and whom to oppose.
The proletariat and its vanguard must make a class analysis of socialist
society, rely on the truly dependable forces that firmly take the socialist
road, win over all allies that can be won over, and unite with the masses of
the people, who constitute more than ninety-five per cent of the population,
in a common struggle against the enemies of socialism. In the rural areas,
after the collectivization of agriculture it is necessary to rely on the poor
and lower middle peasants in order to consolidate the dictatorship of the
proletariat and the worker-peasant alliance, defeat the spontaneous
capitalist tendencies and constantly strengthen and extend the positions of
socialism.
SIXTH, it is
necessary to conduct extensive socialist education movements repeatedly in
the cities and the countryside. In these continuous movements for educating
the people we must be good at organizing the revolutionary class forces,
enhancing their class consciousness, correctly handling contradictions among
the people and uniting all those who can be united. In these movements it is
necessary to wage a sharp, tit-for-tat struggle against the anti-socialist,
capitalist and feudal forces -- the landlords, rich peasants,
counter-revolutionaries and bourgeois rightists, and the embezzlers, grafters
and degenerates -- in order to smash the attacks they unleash against
socialism and to remould the majority of them into new men.
SEVENTH, one of
the basic tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat is actively to expand
the socialist economy. It is necessary to achieve the modernization of
industry, agriculture, science and technology, and national defence step by
step under the guidance of the general policy of developing the national
economy with agriculture as the foundation and industry as the leading
factor. On the basis of the growth of production, it is necessary to raise
the living standards of the people gradually and on a broad scale.
EIGHTH,
ownership by the whole people and collective ownership are the two forms of
socialist economy. The transition from collective ownership to ownership by
the whole people, from two kinds of ownership to a unitary ownership by the
whole people, is a rather long process. Collective ownership itself develops
from lower to higher levels and from smaller to larger scale. The people's
commune which the Chinese people have created is a suitable form of
organization for the solution of the question of this transition.
NINTH,
"Let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought
contend" is a policy for stimulating the growth of the arts and the
progress of science and for promoting a flourishing socialist culture.
Education must serve proletarian politics and must be combined with
productive labour. The working people should master knowledge and the
intellectuals should be come habituated to manual labour. Among those engaged
in science, culture, the arts and education, the struggle to promote
proletarian ideology and destroy bourgeois ideology is a protracted and
fierce class struggle. It is necessary to build up a large detachment of
working-class intellectuals who serve socialism and who are both "red
and expert", i.e., who are both politically conscious and
professionally competent, by means of the cultural revolution, and
revolutionary practice in class struggle, the struggle for production and
scientific experiment.
TENTH, it is
necessary to maintain the system of cadre participation in collective
productive labour. The cadres of our Party and state are ordinary workers and
not overlords sitting on the backs of the people. By taking part in
collective productive labour, the cadres maintain extensive, constant and
close ties with the working people. This is a major measure of fundamental
importance for a socialist system; it helps to overcome bureaucracy and to
prevent revisionism and dogmatism.
ELEVENTH, the
system of high salaries for a small number of people should never be applied.
The gap between the incomes of the working personnel of the Party, the
government, the enterprises and the people's communes, on the one hand, and
the incomes of the mass of the people, on the other, should be rationally and
gradually narrowed and not widened. All working personnel must be prevented
from abusing their power and enjoying special privileges.
TWELFTH, it is
always necessary for the people's armed forces of a socialist country to be
under the leadership of the Party of the proletariat and under the
supervision of the masses, and they must always maintain the glorious
tradition of a people's army, with unity between the army and the people and
between officers and men. It is necessary to keep the system under which
officers serve as common soldiers at regular intervals. It is necessary to
practise military democracy, political democracy and economic democracy.
Moreover, militia units should be organized and trained all over the country,
so as to make everybody a soldier. The guns must forever be in the hands of
the Party and the people and must never be allowed to become the instruments
of careerists.
THIRTEENTH, the
people's public security organs must always be under the leadership of the
Party of the proletariat and under the supervision of the mass of the people.
In the struggle to defend the fruits of socialism and the people's interests,
the policy must be applied of relying on the combined efforts of the broad
masses and the security organs, so that not a single bad person escapes or a
single good person is wronged. Counter-revolutionaries must be suppressed
whenever found, and mistakes must be corrected whenever discovered.
FOURTEENTH, in
foreign policy, it is necessary to uphold proletarian internationalism and
oppose great-power chauvinism and national egoism. The socialist camp is the
product of the struggle of the international proletariat and working people.
It belongs to the proletariat and working people of the whole world as well
as to the people of the socialist countries. We must truly put into effect
the fighting slogans, "Workers of all countries, unite!" and
"Workers and oppressed nations of the world, unite!", resolutely
combat the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counter-revolutionary policies of
imperialism and reaction and support the revolutionary struggles of all the
oppressed classes and oppressed nations. Relations among socialist countries
should be based on the principles of independence, complete equality and the
proletarian internationalist principle of mutual support and mutual
assistance. Every socialist country should rely mainly on itself for its
construction. If any socialist country practises national egoism in its
foreign policy, or, worse yet, eagerly works in partnership with imperialism
for the partition of the world, such conduct is degenerate and a betrayal of
proletarian internationalism.
FIFTEENTH, as
the vanguard of the proletariat, the Communist Party must exist as long as
the dictatorship of the proletariat exists. The Communist Party is the
highest form of organization of the proletariat. The leading role of the
proletariat is realized through the leadership of the Communist Party. The
system of Party committees exercising leadership must be put into effect in
all departments. During the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
the proletarian party must maintain and strengthen its close ties with the
proletariat and the broad masses of the working people, maintain and develop
its vigorous revolutionary style, uphold the principle of integrating the
universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of its own
country, and persist in the struggle against revisionism, dogmatism and
opportunism of every kind.
In the light of
the historical lessons of the dictatorship of the proletariat Comrade Mao
Tse-tung has stated:
Class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment
are the three great revolutionary movements for building a mighty socialist
country. These movements are a sure guarantee that Communists will be free
from bureaucracy and immune against revisionism and dogmatism, and will
forever remain invincible. They are a reliable guarantee that the proletariat
will be able to unite with the broad working masses and realize a democratic
dictatorship. If, in the absence of these movements, the landlords, rich
peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements and ogres of all kinds were
allowed to crawl out, while our cadres were to shut their eyes to all this
and in many cases fail even to differentiate between the enemy and ourselves
but were to collaborate with the enemy and become corrupted and demoralized,
if our cadres were thus dragged into the enemy camp or the enemy were able to
sneak into our ranks, and if many of our workers, peasants, and intellectuals
were left defenceless against both the soft and the hard tactics of the
enemy, then it would not take long, perhaps only several years or a decade,
or several decades at most, before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a
national scale inevitably occurred, the Marxist-Leninist party would undoubtedly
become a revisionist party or a fascist party, and the whole of China would
change its colour.[70]
Comrade Mao
Tse-tung has pointed out that, in order to guarantee that our Party and
country do not change their colour, we must not only have a correct line and
correct policies but must train and bring up millions of successors who will
carry on the cause of proletarian revolution.
In the final
analysis, the question of training successors for the revolutionary cause of
the proletariat is one of whether or not there will be people who can carry
on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary cause started by the older generation
of proletarian revolutionaries, whether or not the leadership of our Party
and state will remain in the hands of proletarian revolutionaries, whether or
not our descendants will continue to march along the correct road laid down
by Marxism-Leninism, or, in other words, whether or not we can successfully
prevent the emergence of Khrushchovite revisionism in China. In short, it is
an extremely important question, a matter of life and death for our Party and
our country. It is a question of fundamental importance to the proletarian
revolutionary cause for a hundred, a thousand, nay ten thousand years. Basing
themselves on the changes in the Soviet Union, the imperialist prophets are
pinning their hopes of "peaceful evolution" on the third or fourth
generation of the Chinese Party. We must shatter these imperialist prophecies.
From our highest organizations down to the grass-roots, we must everywhere
give constant attention to the training and upbringing of successors to the
revolutionary cause.
What are the
requirements for worthy successors to the revolutionary cause of the
proletariat?
They must be
genuine Marxist-Leninists and not revisionists like Khrushchov wearing the
cloak of Marxism-Leninism.
They must be
revolutionaries who whole-heartedly serve the majority of the people of China
and the whole world, and must not be like Khrushchov who serves both the
interests of the handful of members of the privileged bourgeois stratum in
his own country and those of foreign imperialism and reaction.
They must be
proletarian statesmen capable of uniting and working together with the
overwhelming majority. Not only must they unite with those who agree with
them, they must also be good at uniting with those who disagree and even with
those who formerly opposed them and have since been proved wrong. But they
must especially watch out for careerists and conspirators like Khrushchov and
prevent such bad elements from usurping the leadership of the Party and
government at any level.
They must be
models in applying the Party's democratic centralism, must master the method
of leadership based on the principle of "from the masses, to the
masses", and must cultivate a democratic style and be good at listening
to the masses. They must not be despotic like Khrushchov and violate the
Party's democratic centralism, make surprise attacks on comrades or act
arbitrarily and dictatorially.
They must be
modest and prudent and guard against arrogance and impetuosity; they must be
imbued with the spirit of self-criticism and have the courage to correct
mistakes and shortcomings in their work. They must not cover up their errors
like Khrushchov, and claim all the credit for themselves and shift all the
blame on others.
Successors to
the revolutionary cause of the proletariat come forward in mass struggles and
are tempered in the great storms of revolution. It is essential to test and
know cadres and choose and train successors in the long course of mass
struggle.
The above
series of principles advanced by Comrade Mao Tse-tung are creative
developments of Marxism-Leninism, to the theoretical arsenal of which they
add new weapons of decisive importance for us in preventing the restoration
of capitalism. So long as we follow these principles, we can consolidate the
dictatorship of the proletariat, ensure that our Party and state will never
change colour, successfully conduct the socialist revolution and socialist
construction, help all peoples' revolutionary movernents for the overthrow of
imperialism and its lackeys, and guarantee the future transition from
socialism to communism.
*
* *
Regarding the
emergence of the revisionist Khrushchov clique in the Soviet Union, our
attitude as Marxist-Leninists is the same as our attitude towards any
"disturbance" -- first, we are against it; second, we are not
afraid of it.
We did not wish
it and are opposed to it, but since the revisionist Khrushchov clique have
already emerged, there is nothing terrifying about them, and there is no need
for alarm. The earth will continue to revolve, history will continue to move
forward, the people of the world will, as always, make revolutions, and the
imperialists and their lackeys will inevitably meet their doom.
The historic
contributions of the great Soviet people will remain forever glorious; they
can never be tarnished by the revisionist Khrushchov clique's betrayal. The
broad masses of the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals and
Communists of the Soviet Union will eventually surmount all the obstacles in
their path and march towards communism.
The Soviet
people, the people of all the socialist countries and the revolutionary
people the world over will certainly learn lessons from the revisionist
Khrushchov clique's betrayal. In the struggle against Khrushchov's
revisionism, the international communist movement has grown and will continue
to grow mightier than ever before.
Marxist-Leninists
have always had an attitude of revolutionary optimism towards the future of
the cause of the proletarian revolution. We are profoundly convinced that the
brilliant light of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of socialism and of
Marxism-Leninism will shine forth over the Soviet land. The proletariat is
sure to win the whole world and communism is sure to achieve complete and
final victory on earth.
NOTES
[1] Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected
Works of Marx and Engels, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow
1958, Vol. 2, p. 23.
[BACK]
[2] Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected
Works, FLPH Moscow, 1952, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 302.
[BACK]
[3] Ibid., p. 296.
[BACK]
[4] Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade
Kautsky", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 61.
[BACK]
[5] Lenin, "Greetings to the Hungarian Workers",
Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, pp. 210-11.
[BACK]
[6] "Marx to J. Weydemeyer, March 5, 1852", Selected
Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 452.
[BACK]
[7] Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected
Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 32-33.
[BACK]
[8] Marx, "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to
1850", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 1,
p. 223.
[BACK]
[9] Lenin, "Foreword to the
Speech 'On Deception of the People with Slogans of Freedom and
Equality'", Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry,
FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 302.
[BACK]
[10] Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism,
an Infantile Disorder", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2,
Part 2, p. 367.
[BACK]
[11] Stalin, "On the Draft
Constitution of the U.S.S.R.", Problems of Leninism, FLPH,
Moscow, 1954, p. 690.
[BACK]
[12] Stalin, "Report to the
Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) on the Work of the Central
Committee", Problems of Leninism, FLPH, Moscow, p. 777.
[BACK]
[13] Krasnava Zvezda, May 19, 1962.
[BACK]
[14] Pravda Vostoka, Oct. 8, 1963.
[BACK]
[15] Pravda Ukrainv, May 18, 1962.
[BACK]
[16] Izvestia, Oct. 20, 1963,
and Izvestia Sunday Supplement, No. 12, 1964.
[BACK]
[17] Komsomolskaya Pravda, Aug.
9, 1963.
[BACK]
[18] Sovietskaya Kirghizia,
Jan. 9, 1962.
[BACK]
[19] Selskaya Zhizn, June 26,
1962.
[BACK]
[20] Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta,
No. 35, 1963.
[BACK]
[21] Selskaya Zhizn, Aug, 14, 1963.
[BACK]
[22] Pravda, Jan. 14, 1962.
[BACK]
[23] Pravda, Feb. 6, 1961.
[BACK]
[24] Izvestia, April 9, 1963.
[BACK]
[25] Sovietskaya Rossiya, Oct. 9, 1960.
[BACK]
[26] Izvestia, Oct. 18, 1960.
[BACK]
[27] Selskaya Zhizn, July 17, 1963.
[BACK]
[28] Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, No. 27, 1963.
[BACK]
[29] Literaturnaya Gazeta, July 27 and Aug. 17, 1963.
[BACK]
[30] Sovietskaya Rossiya, Jan. 27, 1961.
[BACK]
[31] Lenin, "Plan of the Pamphlet
'On the Food Tax'", Collected Works, 4th Russian ed., Moscow,
Vol. 32, p. 301.
[BACK]
[32] N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with
Foreign Correspondents at Brioni in Yugosavia, Aug. 28, 1963.
[BACK]
[33] Lenin, "The Economic Content of Narodism and the
Criticism of It in Mr. Struve's Book", Collected Works, FLPH,
Moscow, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 419.
[BACK]
[34] Pravda editorial board's
article, "Programme for the Building of Communism", Aug. 18, 1961.
[BACK]
[35] Lenin, "The Discussion on
Self-Determination Summed Up", Collected Works, International
Publishers, New York, 1942, Vol. 19, pp. 269-70.
[BACK]
[36] Lenin, "The State and
Revolution", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 1, p.
234.
[BACK]
[37] Ibid., pp. 256-57.
[BACK]
[38] Ibid., p. 234.
[BACK]
[39] M. A. Suslov, Report at the
Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU, February 1964. (New
Times, English ed., No. 15, 1964, p. 62.)
[BACK]
[40] "From the Party of the Working Class to the Party of
the Whole Soviet People", editorial board's article of Partyinaya
Zhizn, Moscow, No. 8, 1964.
[BACK]
[41] N. S. Khrushchov, "Report of the Central Committee
of the CPSU", and "On the Programme of the CPSU", delivered at
the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, October 1961.[BACK]
[42] Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works,
FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 291.
[BACK]
[43] Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade
Kautsky", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 48.
[BACK]
[44] Lenin, Marxism on the State, Russian ed., Moscow, 1958,
p. 42.
[BACK]
[45] Izvestia, Mar. 10, 1964.
[BACK]
[46] "Marx and Engels to A.
Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Bracke and Others ("Circular Letter"),
Sept. 17-18, 1879", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH,
Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 484-85.
[BACK]
[47] "From the Party of the Working
Class to the Party of the Whole Soviet People", editorial board's
article of Partyinaya Zhizn, Moscow, No. 8, 1964.
[BACK]
[48] Lenin, "Clarity First and Foremost!", Collected
Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1964, Vol. 20, p. 544.
[BACK]
[49] N. S. Khrushchov, Report at the Plenary Meeting of the
Central Committee of the CPSU, November 1962.
[BACK]
[50] "Study, Know, Act", editorial of Economicheskaya
Gazeta, No. 50, 1962.
[BACK]
[51] "The Communist and Production", editorial of Kommunist,
No. 2, 1963.
[BACK]
[52] N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Election Meeting of the
Kalinin Constituency of Moscow, Feb. 27, 1963.
[BACK]
[53] Lenin, "Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Present
Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin", Selected Works,
International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. 9, pp. 54 and 55.
[BACK]
[54] Lenin, "How Vera Zasulich Demolishes
Liquidationism", Collected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1963, Vol. 19, p.
414.
[BACK]
[55] N. S. Khrushchov, "On the Programme of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union", at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October
1961.
[BACK]
[56] Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected
Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 24.
[BACK]
[57] Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected
Works, FLPH Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 291.
[BACK]
[58] M. A. Suslov, Report at the Plenary Meeting of the
Central Committee of the CPSU, February 1964.
[BACK]
[59] "Open Letter of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to Party Organizations
and All Communists in the Soviet Union", July 14, 1963.
[BACK]
[60] N. S. Khrushchov, Speech for the
Austrian Radio and Television, July 7, 1960.
[BACK]
[61] N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Leaders of U.S. Congress
and Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sept. 16, 1959.
[BACK]
[62] N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Plenary Meeting of the
Central Committee of the CPSU, February 1964.
[BACK]
[63] N. S. Khrushchov, Talk at a Meeting with Businessman and
Public Leaders in Pittsburgh, U.S.A., Sept. 24, 1959.
[BACK]
[64] N. S. Khrushchov, Talk at a Meeting with French
Parliamentarians, Mar. 25, 1960.
[BACK]
[65] Lenin, "Imperialism and the Split in
Socialism", Selected Works, International Publishers, New York,
Vol. 11, p. 761.
[BACK]
[66] Dean Rusk, Interview on British Broadcasting Corporation
Television, May 10, 1964.
[BACK]
[67] A. Douglas-Home, Speech at
Norwich, England, Apr. 6, 1964.
[BACK]
[68] J. F. Dulles, press conference,
May 15, 1956.
[BACK]
[69] Lenin, "A Great Beginning", Selected Works,
FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 229.
[BACK]
[70] Mao Tse-tung, Note on "The
Seven Well-Written Documents of the Chekiang Province Concerning Cadres'
Participation in Physical Labour", May 9, 1963.
[BACK]
| FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS |
PEKING 1964 |
|