THE QUESTION IS NOT ONE OF SUBJECTIVE IMAGINATION
BUT OF THE LAWS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
In recent years, some so-called Marxist-Leninists have made endless speeches, written many prolix articles and flooded the market with books and pamphlets on the subject of war and peace. But they have refused to make a serious investigation of the root cause of war, of the difference between just and unjust wars and of the road to the elimination of war.
The anarchists demanded that the state should be done away with overnight. Certain self-styled Marxist-Leninists now call for the emergence some fine morning of a "world without weapons, without armies, without wars" while the system of capitalism and exploitation still exists. They proudly assert that this is a "great epoch-making discovery", "a revolutionary change in human consciousness", and a "creative contribution" to Marxism-Leninism, and that one of the crimes of the "dogmatists" is an obtuse failure to accept this scientific offering of theirs.
Apparently, Comrade Togliatti and some other Italian comrades are zealously peddling this offering. They claim that the only strategy for the creation of a new world "without war" is the "strategy of peaceful coexistence" as they interpret it. But the content of this "strategy of peaceful coexistence" differs radically from the policy of peaceful coexistence propounded by Lenin after the October Revolution and supported by all Marxist-Leninists.
In present-day, peace-time Italy, which is ruled by monopoly capital, there are over four hundred thousand troops in the standing army for the oppression of the people, about one hundred thousand police, nearly eighty thousand gendarmes, and U.S. military bases equipped with missiles. When Togliatti and other comrades demand "peace and peaceful coexistence" in such a country, what do they really mean? If the demand means that the Italian government should follow a policy of peace and neutrality and of peaceful coexistence with the socialist countries, that is of course correct. But, apart from this, do you also demand of the Italian working class and other oppressed masses that they should practise "peace and peaceful coexistence" with the monopoly capitalist class? Does this sort of peace and peaceful coexistence imply that the U.S. imperialists will voluntarily remove their military bases from Italy and that the Italian monopoly capitalists will voluntarily lay down their arms and disband their troops? And if this is impossible, how is "peace and peaceful coexistence" to be realized between the oppressors and the oppressed in Italy? By a logical extension of this point, how can a "world without war" be created in this way?
Would it not indeed be a fine thing if there were to emerge a "world without weapons, without armies, without wars"? Why should it not have our approval and applause?
However, as Marxist-Leninists see it, the question is clearly not one of subjective imagination but of the laws of social development.
In "Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War", written in 1936, Comrade Mao Tse-tung said: "War, this monster of mutual slaughter among men, will be finally eliminated by the progress of human society."[1]
During the War of Resistance Against Japan in 1938, Comrade Mao Tse-tung
again expressed this ideal when he said in "On Protracted War", "Fascism
and imperialism wish to perpetuate war, but we wish to put an end to it in
the not too distant future."[2]
____________________________
In the same work, he stated that the war then being fought by the Chinese nation for its own liberation was a war for perpetual peace. He said that "our War of Resistance Against Japan takes on the character of a struggle for perpetual peace".[1]
He wrote there that war is a product of the "emergence of classes".[1] He continued,
Once man has eliminated capitalism, he will attain the era of perpetual peace, and there will be no more need for war. Neither armies, nor warships, nor military aircraft, nor poison gas will then be needed. Thereafter and for all time, mankind will never again know war.[1]
These theses of Comrade Mao Tse-tung's fully accord with those reiterated by Lenin on the question of war and peace.
In 1905, the year in which the first Russian Revolution broke out, Lenin wrote:
Social-Democracy has never taken a sentimental view of war. It unreservedly condemns war as a bestial means of settling conflicts in human society. But Social-Democracy knows that so long as society is divided into classes, so long as there is exploitation of man by man, wars are inevitable. This exploitation cannot be destroyed without war, and war is always and everywhere begun by the exploiters themselves, by the ruling and oppressing classes.[2]
In 1915, during the first imperialist world war, Lenin wrote that Marxists
have always condemned wars between nations as a barbarous and bestial affair. Our attitude towards war, however, differs in principle from that of' the bourgeois pacifists (the partisans and preachers of peace) and the Anarchists. We differ from the first in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars on the one hand and class struggles inside of a country on the other, we understand the impossibility of eliminating wars without eliminating classes and creating Socialism, and in that we fully recognize the justice, the progressivism and necessity of civil wars, i.e., wars of an oppressed class against the oppressor, of slaves against the slave-holders, of serfs against the landowners, of wage-workers against the bourgeoisie. We Marxists differ from both the pacifists and the Anarchists in that we recognize the necessity of an historical study (from the point of view of Marx's dialectical materialism) of each war individually.[1]
During World War I, Lenin as a most conscientious Marxist devoted himself to studying the problem of war, of which he made an extensive and rigorous scientific analysis. He sharply denounced the many absurdities regarding war and peace put about by the opportunists and revisionists of Kautsky's ilk and he showed mankind the correct road to the elimination of war.
Today, however, some self-styled Leninists talk drivel on the question of war and peace without the least inclination to pause and consider how Lenin studied the question of war or to consider any of his scientific conclusions on the question of war and peace. Nevertheless, they vociferously accuse others of betraying Lenin and claim that they alone are the "reincarnations of Lenin".
____________________________
IS THE AXIOM "WAR IS THE CONTINUATION OF
POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS" OUT OF DATE?
Some people may perhaps say, "There's no need for you to be so garrulous. We are just as familiar with Lenin's views on the question of war and peace, but now conditions are different and Lenin's theses have become out of date."
It was the Tito clique which first openly treated Lenin's fundamental theory on war and peace as outmoded. They claim that, with the emergence of atomic weapons, the axiom that "war is the continuation of politics by other means", which Lenin stressed as the theoretical basis for studying all wars and for determining the nature of different kinds of wars, is no longer applicable. In their view, war has ceased to be the continuation of the politics of one class or another and has lost its class content, and there is, no longer any distinction between just and unjust wars. The assertion of Togliatti and other comrades that with modern military technique the nature of war has changed in fact repeats what the Tito clique has been saying for a long time.
Clearly, the imperialists and the reactionaries of various countries will not divest themselves of their armaments and stop suppressing the oppressed people and nations, or abandon their aggressive and subversive activities against the socialist countries simply because the modern revisionists deny the axiom that "war is the continuation of politics by other means", nor will they on that account stop clashing with one another in their scramble for super-profits. The modern revisionists are actually striving to influence the oppressed people and nations by such assertions, and want to put false notions into their heads, as though the imperialists' war moves to hold down the oppressed people and nations, their arms expansion and war preparations, their direct and indirect armed conflicts for the seizure of markets and spheres of influence were not all the continuation of imperialist politics. For example, in their view, the U.S. imperialist war to suppress the people of southern Viet Nam and the war engineered by the new and old colonialists in the Congo are not to be considered the continuation of imperialist politics.
Are the war the U.S. imperialists are carrying on in southern Viet Nam and the armed conflict in the Congo between the new and old colonialists to be regarded as wars or not? If they are not to be regarded as wars, what are they? If they are wars, is there not a connection between them and the system of U.S. imperialism and its politics? And what kind of connection?
Togliatti and certain other comrades of the C.P.I. hold that it is "possible to avoid small local wars".[1] They also hold that "war would become impossible in human society even if socialism has not yet been realized everywhere".[1] In all likelihood, these conclusions were reached by Togliatti and other comrades after their "fresh deliberations" on "our doctrine itself". Now, these remarks by Togliatti and other comrades were made in November 1960. Let us leave aside the events prior to that year. In the year 1960 alone, there occurred in different parts of the world various kinds of military conflicts and armed interventions which are mostly of the category Togliatti and other comrades call "small local wars":
____________________________
The war waged by the French colonial forces to suppress the Algerian national liberation movement went on for its sixth year.During this year the U.S. imperialists and their running dog Ngo Dinh Diem continued their brutal suppression of the people of southern Viet Nam, arousing still greater armed resistance by the latter.
In January and February, armed clashes broke out between Syria and Israel, which was supported by the United States.
On February 5, four thousand U.S. marines landed in the Dominican Republic in Latin America, intervening in its internal affairs by force of arms.
On May 1, an American U-2 plane intruded over the Soviet Union and was shot down by Soviet rocket units.
On July 10, Belgium launched armed intervention in the Congo. Three days later, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution under which a "United Nations force" arrived in the Congo to put down the national liberation movement there.
In August, the United States aided and abetted the Savannakhet clique in provoking civil war in Laos.
Perhaps the events of 1960 do not fall within the scope of discussion of Togliatti and other comrades. Well then, do world events of 1961 and 1962 serve to bear out their prediction?
Let us review the facts.
The French colonial forces continued their criminal war of suppression against the Algerian national liberation movement until they were forced to accept a ceasefire in March 1962. By then, the war had lasted more than seven years. The "special war" waged by the U.S. imperialists against the people in southern Viet Nam is still going on.The "United Nations force" (mainly Indian troops) serving U.S. neo-colonialism continued its suppression of the Congolese people. Early in 1961, Lumumba, national hero of the Congo, was murdered by the hirelings of the U.S. and Belgian imperialists and on their instructions. From September 1961 to the end of the following year, the U.S.-manipulated "United Nations force" mounted three armed attacks on Katanga, which was under the control of the British, French and Belgian old colonialists.
In March 1961, the Portuguese colonialists, supported by U.S. imperialism, massed their forces and began their large-scale suppression and massacre of the people of Angola who are demanding national independence. This bloody atrocity is still going on.
On April 17, 1961, U.S. mercenaries staged an armed invasion of Cuba and were wiped out at Giron Beach by the heroic army and people of Cuba within seventy-two hours.
On July 1, 1961, British troops' landed in Kuwait. On the 19th, French troops attacked the port of Bizerta in Tunisia.
On November 19 and 20, 1961, the United States again intervened in the Dominican Republic by armed force, using naval and air units.
On January 15, 1962, the Dutch colonialists' naval forces attacked Indonesian naval units off the coast of West Irian.
In April 1962, the Indonesian people launched a guerrilla campaign in West Irian against the Dutch colonialists.
In May 1962, the United States plotted to expand the civil war in Laos and prepared direct intervention by armed force. On the 17th, U.S. forces entered Thailand, and on the 24th Britain announced the dispatch of an air squadron to Thailand. These military moves by the United States and Britain posed a direct threat to peace in Southeast Asia. After resolute struggle on the part of the Laotian people and concerted efforts by the socialist countries and the neutral nations, a Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos and a protocol to the declaration were signed on July 23, 1962, at the enlarged Geneva Conference for the peaceful settlement of the Laotian question.
On August 24, 1962, U.S. armed vessels bombarded the seaside residential areas of Havana, the Cuban capital.
On September 26, 1962, when a military coup d'etat took place in the Yemen, the United States instigated Saudi Arabian armed intervention.
During 1962, the Nehru government of India made repeated armed intrusions into Chinese territory with U.S. imperialist support. On October 20, the Nehru government launched a massive military attack along the Sino-Indian border.
On October 22, 1962, the United States, resorting to piracy, imposed a military blockade and carried out a war provocation against Cuba which shocked the world. The Cuban people gained a great victory in their struggle to defend the sovereignty of their fatherland, supported as they were by the people of the socialist and all other countries in the world.
During these two years, ruthless exploitation, brutal repression and armed intervention by the imperialists and their lackeys continued to evoke armed resistance by the people in many countries and by many oppressed nations, such as the armed uprising of the Brunei people against Britain on December 8, 1962.
Time and again events have confirmed Lenin's statement that "war is always
and everywhere begun by the exploiters themselves, by the ruling and oppressing
classes", and that "war is the continuation of politics by other means".
Present and future realities will continue to bear out these truths enunciated
by Lenin.
WHAT HAS EXPERIENCE PAST AND PRESENT
TO TEACH US?
Since the imperialists and reactionaries incessantly foment wars in various regions of the world to serve their own political ends, it is impossible for anybody to prevent the oppressed people and nations from waging wars of resistance against oppression.
Certain self-styled Marxist-Leninists may not regard the many wars cited above as wars at all. They acknowledge only wars which take place in "highly developed civilized regions". Actually, such ideas are nothing new.
Lenin long ago criticized the absurd view that wars outside Europe were not
wars. Lenin said sarcastically in a speech in 1917 that there were ". . .
wars which we, Europeans, do not consider to be wars, because all too often
they resembled not wars, but the most brutal slaughter, extermination of
unarmed peoples."[1]
People exactly like those Lenin criticized are still to be found today. They
think that all is quiet in the world so long as there is no war in their
own locality or neighbourhood. They do not consider it worth their while
to bother whether the imperialists and their lackeys are ravaging and
slaughtering people in other localities,
____________________________
or engaging in military intervention and armed conflicts or provoking wars there. They only worry lest the "sparks" of resistance by the oppressed nations and people in these places might lead to disaster and disturb their own tranquillity. They see no need whatsoever to examine how wars in these places originate, what social classes are waging these wars, and what the nature of these wars is. They simply condemn these wars in an undiscriminating and arbitrary fashion. Can this approach be regarded as Leninist?
There are certain other self-styled Marxist-Leninists who think only of war between the socialist and imperialist camps whenever war is mentioned, as if there could be no wars to speak of other than one between the two camps. This thesis, too, was first invented by the Titoites, and now there are certain people who are singing the same tune. They are simply unwilling to face reality or to give thought to the facts of history.
If these people's memories are not too short, they will remember that when World War I started, there was no socialist country in existence, let alone a socialist camp. All the same, a world war broke out.
If their memories are not too short, they may also recall World War II. From September 1939 to June 1941 when the German-Soviet war began, a war had been going on for almost two years in the capitalist world and among the imperialist countries themselves. This was not a war between socialist and imperialist countries. The Soviet Union, after Hitler attacked it, became the main force in the war against the fascist hordes, but even after June 1941 the war could not be looked upon as one simply between the socialist and imperialist countries. In addition to the land of socialism, the U.S.S.R., a number of capitalist countries--Great Britain, the United States and France--were part of the anti-fascist front and so were many colonial and semi-colonial countries suffering from oppression and aggression.
It is therefore clear that both world wars originated in the contradictions inherent in the capitalist world and in the conflict of interests between the imperialist powers, and that both were unleashed by the imperialist countries.
World wars do not originate in the socialist system. A socialist country has no antagonistic social contradictions, which are peculiar to the capitalist countries, and it is absolutely unnecessary and impermissible for a socialist country to embark on wars of expansion. No world war can ever be started by a socialist country.
Thanks to the victories of the socialist countries and to the victories of
the national-democratic revolutionary movement in many countries, great new
changes continue to take place in the world situation. Togliatti and other
comrades say that in view of the changes in the world balance of forces the
imperialists can no longer do as they like. There is nothing wrong with this
statement. As a matter of fact, the point was made by Lenin not long after
the October Revolution. Basing himself on an appraisal of the changes in
the balance of class forces at that time, Lenin said: "The hands of the
international bourgeoisie are now no longer free."[1] But when the world
balance of forces is becoming more and more favourable to socialism and to
the people of all countries, and when we say that the imperialists can no
longer do as they please, does this now mean the spontaneous disappearance
of the possibility of all sorts of conflicts arising from the contradictions
inherent in the capitalist world, has it meant so in the past, and will it
mean so in the future? Does it mean that the imperialist countries have ceased
to dream about, and prepare for, attacks on the socialist countries? Does
it mean that the imperialist countries have stopped their aggression against
and oppression of the colonial and semi-colonial countries? Does it mean
that the imperialist countries will no longer fight each other to the death
over markets and spheres of influence? Does it mean that the monopoly capitalist
class has given up its brutal grinding down and suppression of the people
at home? Nothing of the kind.
____________________________
The question of war and peace can never be understood unless it is seen in the light of social relations, of the social system, and of the laws of social development.
That old-line opportunist Kautsky held that "war is a product of the arms drive", and that "if there is a will to reach agreement on disarmament", it will "eliminate one of the most serious causes of war".[1] Lenin sharply criticized these anti-Marxist views of Kautsky and other old-line opportunists who examined the causes of war without reference to the social system and the system of exploitation.
In "The War Program of the Proletarian Revolution" Lenin pointed out that
"only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able,
without betraying its world-historical mission, to throw all armaments on
the scrap heap; and the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only
when this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before."[1] Such
is the law of social development, and it cannot be otherwise.
____________________________
Being incapable of explaining the question of war and peace from the historical and class angle, the modern revisionists always talk about peace and about war in general terms without making any distinction between just and unjust wars. Some people are trying to persuade others that the people's liberation would be "incamparably easier" after general and complete disarmament, when the oppressors would have no weapons in their hands. In our opinion this is nonsensical and totally unrealistic and is putting the cart before the horse. As pointed out by Lenin, such people try to "reconcile two hostile classes and two hostile political lines by means of a little word which 'unites' the most divergent things".[2]
On the lips of the modern revisionists, "peace" and "the strategy of peaceful
coexistence" amount to pinning the hope of world peace on the "wisdom" of
the imperialist rulers, instead of relying on the unity and struggle of the
people of the world. The modern revisionists are resorting to every method
to fetter the struggles of the people in all countries, are trying to paralyse
their revolutionary will and induce them to abandon revolutionary action,
and thus weakening the forces fighting against imperialism and for world
peace. This can only result in increasing the reactionary arrogance of the
imperialist forces of aggression and war and in increasing the danger of
a world war.
____________________________
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM, OR THE THEORY THAT
"WEAPONS DECIDE EVERYTHING"?
The modern revisionists hold that with the emergence of atomic weapons the laws of social development have ceased to operate and the fundamental Marxist-Leninist theory concerning war and peace is outmoded. Comrade Togliatti holds the same view. The Renmin Ribao editorial of December 31, 1962 has already discussed our main differences with Comrade Togliatti on the question of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. We shall now go into this question further.
Marxist-Leninists give proper and adequate weight to the role of modern weapons and military techniques in the organization of armies and in war. Marx's pamphlet, Wage-Labour and Capital, contains the well-known passage:
With the invention of a new instrument of warfare, firearms, the whole internal organization of the army necessarily changed; the relationships within which individuals can constitute an army and act as an army were transformed and the relations of different armies to one another also changed.[1]
But no Marxist-Leninist has ever been an exponent of the theory that "weapons
decide everything".
____________________________
Lenin said after the October Revolution, "He wins in war who has the greater reserves, the greater sources of strength, the greater endurance in the mass of its people." Again, "We have more of all of this than the Whites have, and more than 'universally-mighty' Anglo-French imperialism, that colossus with feet of clay."[1]
To elucidate the point, we might quote another passage from Lenin. He said:
In every war, victory is conditioned in the final analysis by the spiritual state of those masses who shed their blood on the field of battle.... This comprehension by the masses of the aims and reasons of the war has an immense significance and guarantees victory.[2]
On the question of war, it is a fundamental Marxist-Leninist principle to
give full weight to the role of man in war. But this principle
has often been forgotten by some self-styled Marxist-Leninists. When atomic
weapons appeared at the end of World War II, some people became confused,
thinking that atom bombs could decide the outcome of war. Comrade Mao Tse-tung
said at that time: "These comrades show even less judgement than a British
peer" and "these comrades are more backward than Mountbatten."[3] The British
peer, Mountbatten then Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Southeast Asia,
had declared that the worst possible mistake would
____________________________
be to believe that the atom bomb could end the war in the Far East.[1]
Of course, Comrade Mao Tse-tung took the destructiveness of atomic weapons into full account. He said, "The atom bomb is a weapon of mass slaughter."[2] The Chinese Communist Party has always held that nuclear weapons are unprecedentedly destructive and that humanity will suffer unprecedented havoc if a nuclear war should break out. For this reason, we have always stood for the total banning of nuclear weapons, that is, the complete prohibition of their testing, manufacture, stockpiling and use, and for the destruction of existing nuclear weapons. At the same time, we have always held that in the final analysis atomic weapons cannot change the laws governing the historical development of society, cannot decide the final outcome of war, cannot save imperialism from its doom or prevent the proletariat and people of all countries and the oppressed nations from winning victory in their revolutions.
____________________________
Stalin said in September 1946,
I do not believe the atomic bomb to be as serious a force as certain politicians are inclined to regard it. Atomic bombs are intended for intimidating the weak-nerved, but they cannot decide the outcome of war since atomic bombs are by no means sufficient for the purpose. Certainly, monopolist possession of the secret of the atomic bomb does create a threat, but at least two remedies exist against it: (a) monopolist possession of the atomic bomb cannot last long; (b) use of atomic bomb will be prohibited.[1]
These words of Stalin's showed his great foresight.
After World War I, some imperialist countries noisily advertised a military theory, according to which quick victory in war could be won through air supremacy and surprise attacks. Events in World War II exposed its bankruptcy. With the appearance of nuclear weapons, some imperialists have again noisily advertised this kind of theory and resorted to nuclear blackmail, asserting that nuclear weapons could quickly decide the outcome of war. Their theory will definitely go bankrupt too. But the modern revisionists, such as the Tito clique, are serving the U.S. and other imperialists, preaching and trumpeting this theory in order to intimidate the people of all countries.
The policy of nuclear blackmail employed by the U. S. imperialists reveals their evil ambition to enslave the world, and at the same time it reveals their fear.
It must be pointed out that if the imperialists should start using nuclear weapons, they will bring fatal consequences upon themselves.
First, if the imperialists should start using nuclear weapons to attack other
countries, they will find themselves completely isolated in the world. For
such an attack will be the greatest possible crime against human justice
and will proclaim the attackers to be the enemy of all mankind.
____________________________
Second, when they menace other countries with nuclear weapons, the imperialists put their own people first under threat and fill them with dread of such weapons. By clinging to the policy of nuclear blackmail, the imperialists will gradually arouse the people in their own countries to rise against them. One of the U.S. airmen who dropped the first atom bombs on Japan has attempted suicide because of post-war condemnation of atomic bombing by the people of the whole world, and has been sent to a mental hospital many times. This instance, in itself, shows to what extent the nuclear war policy of U.S. imperialism has been discredited.
Third, the imperialists unleash wars for the purpose of seizing territory, expanding markets, and plundering the wealth and enslaving the working people of other countries. The destructiveness of nuclear weapons, however, compels the imperialists to think twice, because the consequences of the employment of such weapons would conflict with the actual interests they are seeking.
Fourth, the secret of nuclear-weapons has long since ceased to be a monopoly. Those who possess nuclear weapons and guided missiles cannot prevent other countries from possessing the same. In their vain hope of obliterating their opponents with nuclear weapons, the imperialists are, in fact, subjecting themselves to the danger of being obliterated.
Above, we have dealt with some of the consequences which will inevitably arise if the imperialists use nuclear weapons in war. It is also one of the important reasons why we have always maintained that it is possible to conclude an agreement for a total ban on nuclear weapons.
It must also be pointed out that the policy of frantic expansion of nuclear arms pursued by the imperialists, and particularly the U.S. imperialists, aggravates the crises within the capitalist-imperialist system itself:
First, the unprecedentedly onerous military expenditures imposed on the people in the imperialist countries and the increasingly lopsided militarization of the national economy are arousing the growing opposition of the people to the imperialist governments and their policy of arms expansion and war preparation.
Second, the imperialists' arms drive, and especially their nuclear arms drive, exacerbates the struggle among the imperialist powers and among the monopoly :groups in each imperialist country.
Engels said in Anti-Dühring, written in the 1870s, "Militarism dominates and is swallowing Europe. But this militarism also bears within itself the seed of its own destruction."[1]
Today there is all the more reason to say that the policy of nuclear arms expansion pursued by the U.S. and other imperialists is dominating and swallowing North America and Western Europe, but that this policy, this new militarism, bears within itself the seed of the destruction of the imperialist system.
It can therefore be seen that the policy of nuclear arms expansion pursued by the U.S. imperialists and their partners is bound to be self-defeating. If they dare to use nuclear weapons in war, the result will be their own destruction.
What should one conclude from all this? Contrary to the pronouncements of Togliatti and other comrades about the "total destruction" of mankind, the only possible conclusions are:
____________________________
First, mankind will destroy nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons will not destroy mankind.
Second, mankind will destroy the cannibal system of imperialism, the imperialist system will not destroy mankind.
Togliatti and other comrades hold that with the appearance of nuclear weapons
"the destiny of humanity today is uncertain".[1] They hold that with the
existence of nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear war, there is no
longer any point in talking about the choice of a social system. If one follows
their argument, then what happens to the law of social development according
to which the capitalist system will inevitably be replaced by the socialist
and communist system? And what happens to the truth elucidated by Lenin--that
imperialism is parasitic, decaying and moribund capitalism? Does not their
view represent real "fatalism", "scepticism" and "pessimism"?
____________________________
We stated in the article "Long Live Leninism!":
As long as the people of all countries enhance their awareness and are fully prepared, with the socialist camp also possessing modern weapons, it is certain that if the U.S. or other imperialists refuse to reach an agreement on the banning of atomic and nuclear weapons and should dare to fly in the face of the will of all the peoples by launching a war using atomic and nuclear weapons, the result will only be the very speedy destruction of these monsters themselves encircled by the peoples of the world, and certainly not the so-called annihilation of mankind. We consistently oppose the launching of criminal wars by imperialism, because imperialist war would impose enormous sacrifices upon the peoples of various countries (including the peoples of the United States and other imperialist countries). But should the imperialists impose such sacrifices on the peoples of various countries, we believe that, just as the experience of the Russian revolution and the Chinese revolution shows, those sacrifices would be rewarded. On the ruins of imperialism, the victorious people would very swiftly create a civilization thousands of times higher than the capitalist system and a truly beautiful future for themselves.
Is this not the truth?
During the past few years, however, some self-styled Marxist-Leninists have wantonly distorted and condemned these Marxist-Leninist theses, stubbornly describing the ruins of imperialism as "the ruins of mankind" and equating the destiny of the imperialist system with that of mankind. In fact, this view is a defence of the imperialist system. If these people had read some of the Marxist-Leninist classics, it would have been clear to them that building a new system on the ruins of the old was a formulation used by Marx, Engels and Lenin.
Engels said in Anti-Dühring, "The bourgeoisie broke up the
feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society, .
. . "[1] Did the ruins of the feudal system, which Engels spoke of, mean
the "ruins of mankind"?
____________________________
In his article "The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat", written in December 1919, Lenin spoke of the proletariat "organizing socialism on the ruins of capitalism".[1] Did the ruins of capitalism, which Lenin mentioned, mean the "ruins of mankind"?
To describe the ruins of the old systems mentioned by Marxist-Leninists as the "ruins of mankind" is to substitute frivolous quibbling for serious debate. Can this be the non-"discordant note" which Togliatti and the other comrades want? Is this the polemic carried on in an "admissible tone" which they demand? In fact, at the time of the collapse of Italian fascism, Comrade Togliatti himself said, "A great task rests upon us: we should establish a new Italy on the ruins of fascism, on the ruins of reactionary tyranny."[2]
Every serious Marxist-Leninist must consider the possibility of the imperialists adopting the most criminal means to inflict the heaviest sacrifices and the keenest suffering on the people of all counties. The purpose of such consideration is to awaken the people, mobilize and organize them more effectively, and to find the correct course of struggle for liberation and a way to deliver mankind from suffering, a way to win peace in the face of the threats of imperialism, and a way effective in preventing a nuclear war.
That no socialist country will ever start an aggressive war is known by
everybody, even by the U.S. imperialists as well as by all the other imperialists
and reactionaries. The national defence of each socialist country is designed
for protection against external aggression, and absolutely not for attacking
other countries. If the aggressors should impose a war on a socialist country,
then the war waged by the socialist country would above all be a war of
self-defence.
____________________________
Possession of nuclear weapons by the socialist countries has a purely defensive purpose, the purpose of preventing the imperialists from unleashing nuclear war. Therefore, with nuclear superiority in their hands, the socialist countries will never attack other countries with such weapons; they will not permit themselves to launch such attacks, nor will they have any need to do so. Being firmly opposed to the policy of nuclear blackmail, the socialist countries advocate the total banning and destruction of nuclear weapons. Such is the attitude, line and policy of the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party of China on the question of nuclear weapons. Such is the attitude, line and policy of all Marxist-Leninists. The modern revisionists deliberately distort our attitude, line and policy on this question and fabricate mean and vulgar slanders and lies; their purpose is to cover up the nuclear blackmail of the imperialists and to conceal their own adventurism and capitulationism on the question of nuclear weapons. It must be pointed out that adventurism and capitulationism on this question are very dangerous and are an expression of the worst kind of irresponsibility.
A STRANGE FORMULATION
In accordance with the nature of their social system, socialist countries give sympathy and support to all oppressed people and oppressed nations in their struggles for liberation. But socialist countries will never launch external wars as a substitute for revolutionary struggles by the peoples of other countries. The emancipation of the people of each country is their own task--this is the firm standpoint held since the time of Marx by all true Communists, including the Communists who wield state power. It is identical with the standpoint consistently advocated by all Marxist-Leninists that "revolution cannot be exported or imported".
If the people of any country do not want a revolution, no one can impose it from without; where there is no revolutionary crisis and the conditions for a revolution are not ripe, nobody can create a revolution. And of course, if the people in any country desire a revolution and themselves start a revolution, no one can prevent them from making it, just as no one could prevent the revolutions in Cuba, in Algeria or in southern Viet Nam.
Togliatti and other comrades say that peaceful coexistence implies "excluding
. . . the possibility of foreign intervention to 'export' either
counter-revolution or revolution".[1] We should like to ask: When you talk
about "export of revolution" by foreign countries, do you mean that the socialist
countries want to export revolution? This is just what the imperialists and
reactionaries have been alleging all along. Should a Communist talk in such
terms? As for the imperialist countries, they have always exported
counter-revolution. Can anyone name an imperialist country which has not
done so? Can we forget that the imperialists launched direct intervention
against the Great October Revolution and the Chinese revolution? Can anyone
deny that the U.S. imperialists are still forcibly occupying our territory
of Taiwan today? Can anyone deny that the U.S. imperialists have all along
been intervening in the Cuban revolution? Is not U.S. imperialism playing
the international gendarme and trying its utmost to export counterrevolution
to all parts of the world and interfering in the internal affairs of the
other countries in the capitalist world?
____________________________
Togliatti and other comrades make no distinction between countries whose
social systems differ in nature; they do not understand the Marxist-Leninist
view that "revolution cannot be exported or imported"; and in discussing
peaceful coexistence they ignore the fact that the imperialists have all
along been exporting counterrevolution and speak of "export of
counter-revolution" and "export of revolution" in the same breath. This strange
formulation cannot but be considered an error of principle.
THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS' BASIC THESES ON THE
QUESTION OF WAR AND PEACE
On the question of war and peace, the Chinese Communists, now as always, uphold the views of Lenin.
In the above quotations, Lenin pointed out that proletarian parties "unreservedly condemn war" and "have always condemned wars between peoples". But Lenin always maintained that unjust wars must be opposed and that just wars must be supported; he never indiscriminatingly opposed all wars. There are people today who unblushingly compare themselves to Lenin and allege that Lenin, and Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, too, opposed war in the same way as they do. They have emasculated Lenin's theories and policies on the question of war and peace. It is common knowledge that during World War I, Lenin resolutely opposed the imperialist war. At the same time he maintained that once war broke out among the imperialist countries, the proletariat and other working people of these countries should turn the imperialist war into just revolutionary wars inside the imperialist countries, i.e., into just revolutionary wars of the proletariat and other working people against the imperialists of their own countries. The day after the outbreak of the October Revolution, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, under the chairmanship of Lenin, adopted the famous Decree on Peace. This Decree was an appeal to the international proletariat, and particularly to the class-conscious workers of Britain, France and Germany, trusting that they "will understand the duty that now faces them of saving mankind from the horrors of war and its consequences, that these workers, by comprehensive, determined, and supremely vigorous action, will help us to bring to a successful conclusion the cause of peace, and at the same time the cause of the emancipation of the toiling and exploited masses of the population from all forms of slavery and all forms of exploitation".[1] The Decree pointed out that the Soviet government "considers it the greatest of crimes against humanity to continue this war over the issue of how to divide among the strong and rich nations the weak nationalities they have conquered, and solemnly announces its determination immediately to sign terms of peace to stop this war on the conditions indicated, which are equally just for all
____________________________
nationalities without exception".[1] This Decree proposed by Lenin is a great document in the history of the proletarian revolution. Yet there are people today who dare to distort and mutilate it; they have tampered with Lenin's description of a war waged by imperialist countries to divide the world and oppress weak nations as constituting the greatest of crimes against humanity, and deliberately twisted it into "war is the greatest of crimes against humanity". These people portray Lenin, the great proletarian revolutionary, the great Marxist, as a bourgeois pacifist. They brazenly distort Lenin, distort Leninism, distort history, and yet they presumptuously assert that others, "do not understand the substance of the Marxist doctrine of revolutionary struggle". Isn't this kind of argument absurd?
We Chinese Communists are being abused by the modern revisionists because we oppose all the ridiculous arguments that are used to distort Leninism and because we insist on restoring the original features of Lenin's theory on the question of war and peace.
Marxist-Leninists hold that, in order to defend world peace and prevent a
new world war, we must rely on the unity and growing strength of the socialist
countries, on the struggles of the oppressed nations and people, on the struggles
of the international proletariat, and on the struggles of all the peace-loving
countries and people in the world. This is the correct line for defending
world peace for the people of all lands, a line which is in full accord with
the Leninist theory of war and peace. Some people maliciously distort this
line, calling it "a 'theory' to the effect that the road to victory for socialism
runs
____________________________
through war between nations, through destruction, bloodshed and the death of millions of people". They place the defence of world peace in opposition to the revolutionary struggles of the people of all countries, and they hold that in order to have peace the people of all countries should kneel before the imperialists, and the oppressed nations and people should give up their struggles for liberation. Instead of fighting for world peace by relying on the united struggle of all the world's peace-loving forces, all these people do is to beg the imperialists, headed by the United States, for the gift of world peace. This so-called theory, this line of theirs, is absolutely wrong; it is anti-Leninist.
The Chinese Communists' basic views on the question of war and peace and our differences with Togliatti and other comrades on this question were made clear in the Renmin Ribao editorial of December 31, 1962. We said in that editorial:
. . . on the question of how to avert world war and safeguard world peace, the Communist Party of China has consistently stood for the resolute exposure of imperialism, for strengthening the socialist camp, for firm support of the national liberation movements and the peoples' revolutionary struggles, for the broadest alliance of all the peace-loving countries and people of the world, and at the same time, for taking full advantage of the contradictions among our enemies, and for utilizing the method of negotiation as well as other forms of struggle. The aim of this stand is precisely the effective prevention of world war and preservation of world peace. This stand fully conforms with Marxism-Leninism and with the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement. It is the correct policy for preventing world war and defending world peace. We persist in this correct policy precisely because we are deeply convinced that it is possible to prevent world war by relying on the combined struggle of all the forces mentioned above. How then can this stand be described as lacking faith in the possibility of averting world war? How can it be called "warlike"? It would simply result in a phoney peace or bring about an actual war for the people of the whole world if you prettify imperialism, pin your hopes of peace on imperialism, take an attitude of passivity or opposition towards the national liberation movements and the peoples' revolutionary struggles and bow down and surrender to imperialism, as advocated by those who attack the Communist Party of China. This policy is wrong and all Marxist-Leninists, all revolutionary people, all peace-loving people must resolutely oppose it.
Here let us recapitulate our basic theses on the question of war and peace:
First, we have always held that the forces of war and aggression headed by U.S. imperialism are preparing in earnest for a third world war and that the danger of war exists. But in the last ten years or so, the world balance of forces has changed more and more in favour of socialism and in favour of the struggles for national liberation, people's democracy and the defence of world peace. The people are the decisive factor. Imperialism and the reactionaries are isolated. By relying on the unity and the struggles of the people, and on the correct policies of the socialist countries and of the proletarian parties of various countries, it is possible to avert a new world war and to avert a nuclear war, and it is possible to achieve an agreement for the total banning of nuclear weapons.
Second, if the people of the world wish to be successful in preserving world peace, preventing a new world war and preventing nuclear war, they must support one another, form the broadest possible united front, and unite all the forces that can be united, including the people of the United States, to oppose the policies of war and aggression of the imperialist bloc headed by the U.S. reactionaries.
Third, the socialist countries stand for and adhere to the policy of peaceful
coexistence with countries having other social systems, and develop friendly
relations and carry on trade on the basis of equality with them. In pursuing
the policy of peaceful coexistence, the socialist countries oppose the use
of force to settle disputes between states and do not interfere in the internal
affairs of any other country. Some people say that peaceful coexistence will
result in the transformation of the social system in all the capitalist
countries, and that it is "the road leading to socialism on a world scale".[1]
Others say that the policy of peaceful coexistence is "the most advanced
form of struggle against imperialism and for the peoples' liberation"[2]
by all the oppressed people and nations. These people have completely distorted
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence by jumbling together the question
of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems,
the question of class struggle in capitalist countries and the question of
the struggles of the oppressed nations for liberation.
____________________________
Fourth, we have always believed in the necessity of constantly maintaining sharp vigilance against the danger of imperialist aggression on the socialist countries. We have always believed, too, that it is possible for the socialist countries to reach agreement through peaceful negotiations and make the necessary compromises with the imperialist countries on some issues, not excluding important ones. However, as Comrade Mao Tse-tung has said:
Such compromise does not require the people in the countries of the capitalist world to follow suit and make compromises at home. The people in those countries will continue to wage different struggles in accordance with their different conditions.[1]
Fifth, the sharp contradictions among the imperialist powers exist objectively
and are irreconcilable. Among the imperialist countries and blocs, clashes,
big and small, direct and indirect and in one form or another, are bound
to occur. They arise from the actual interests of the imperialists and are
determined by the inherent nature of imperialism. To claim that the possibility
of clashes among the imperialist countries arising from their actual interests
has disappeared under the new historical conditions is tantamount to saying
that imperialism has undergone a complete change, and is, in fact, to embellish
imperialism.
____________________________
Sixth, since capitalist-imperialism and the system of exploitation are the source of war, no one can guarantee that imperialists and reactionaries will not launch wars of aggression against the oppressed nations, or wars against the oppressed people of their own countries. On the other hand, no one can prevent the awakened oppressed nations and people from rising to wage revolutionary wars.
Seventh, the axiom that "war is the continuation of politics by other means", which was affirmed and stressed by Lenin, remains valid today. The social system of the capitalist-imperialist countries is fundamentally different from that of the socialist countries, and their domestic and foreign policies are likewise fundamentally different from those of the socialist countries. From this it follows that the capitalist-imperialist countries and the socialist countries must take fundamentally different stands on the question of war and peace. As far as the capitalist-imperialist countries are concerned, whether they launch wars or profess peace, their aim is to pursue or to maintain their imperialist interests. Imperialist war is the continuation of imperialist policy in peacetime, and imperialist peace is the continuation of the war policy of imperialism. The bourgeois pacifists and the opportunists have always denied this point. As Lenin said, "The pacifists of both shades have never understood that 'war is the continuation of the politics of peace, and peace is the continuation of the politics of war'."[1]
____________________________
Eighth, the era of perpetual peace for mankind will come; the era when all wars will be eradicated will come. We are striving for its advent. But this great era will come only after, and not before, mankind has eradicated the system of capitalist-imperialism. As the Moscow Statement puts it, "The victory of socialism all over the world will completely remove the social and national causes of all wars."
These are our basic theses on the question of war and peace.
Our theses are derived from analysis, based on the Marxist materialist conception of history, of a host of phenomena objectively existing in the world, of the extremely complex political and economic relationships among different countries, and of the specific conditions in the new world epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism initiated by the Great October Revolution. These theses are correct in theory and, moreover, they have been repeatedly tested in practice. Since the modern revisionists and their followers have no way of disproving these theses, they have freely resorted to distortions and lies in their attempt to demolish the truth.
But how can the truth ever be demolished? Should it not rather be said that those trying to do this will themselves, sooner or later, be demolished by the truth?
At the present time, certain self-styled "creative Marxist-Leninists" believe that world history moves to the waving of their baton, and not according to the objective laws of society. This reminds us of the words of the famous French philosopher Diderot, as quoted by Lenin in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:
There was a moment of insanity when the sentient piano imagined that it was the only piano in the world, and that the whole harmony of the universe took place within it.[1]
Let those historical idealists who think that they are everything and that everything is contained in their own subjectivism carefully think over this passage!