AN ANALYSIS OF HISTORY
Lately, some people who call themselves Marxist-Leninists again burst out in noisy opposition to the thesis of the Chinese Communists that imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers. One moment they say this is "underestimation of imperialism" and "demobilizing the masses", and the next moment they say this is "slighting the strength of socialism". One moment they call it a "pseudo-revolutionary" attitude and the next moment a thesis based on "fear". These people are now vying to outshout and outdo each other, with the latecomers striving to be first and prove they are not falling behind. Their arguments are full of inconsistencies and practically nonsensical--and all for the purpose of demolishing this thesis. But all their arguments suffer from one fatal weakness--they never dare to touch seriously on Lenin's scientific conclusion that imperialism is parasitic, decaying and moribund capitalism.
Comrade Togliatti started this attack at the Tenth Congress of the C.P.I.
He said, "It is wrong to state that imperialism is simply a paper tiger which
can be overthrown by a mere push of the shoulder."[1] He also said, "If they
are paper tigers, why so much work and so many struggles to combat them?"[2]
Now if Comrade Togliatti were a schoolboy answering a question about the
meaning of
____________________________
a word in his language lesson, his answer that a paper tiger is a tiger made of paper might well gain him a good mark. But when it comes to examining theoretical questions, philistinism will not do. Comrade Togliatti claims "to have made a positive contribution to the deepening and development of Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary doctrine of the working class",[1] and yet he gives a schoolboy's answer to a serious theoretical question. Could there be anything more ludicrous?
Comrade Mao Tse-tung's thesis that imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers has always been crystal-clear. This is what he said:
For struggle against the enemy, we formed over a long period the concept that strategically we should despise all our enemies, but that tactically we should take them all seriously. This also means that in regard to the whole we should despise the enemy but that in regard to each and every concrete question we must take them seriously. If with regard to the whole we do not despise the enemy we shall be committing the error of opportunism. Marx and Engels were only two persons. Yet in those early days they declared that capitalism would be overthrown all over the world. But in dealing with concrete problems and particular enemies we shall be committing the error of adventurism if we do not take them seriously.[2]
There are none so deaf as those who will not hear the truth. Who has ever
said that imperialism can be overthrown by a mere push of the shoulder? Who
has ever said that it is not necessary to exert effort or wage struggles
in order to overthrow imperialism?
____________________________
Here we should like to quote another passage from Comrade Mao Tse-tung:
Just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature (this is the law of the unity of opposites), so imperialism and all reactionaries have a dual nature--they are real tigers and paper tigers at the same time. In past history, before they won state power and for some time afterwards, the slave-owning class, the feudal landlord class and the bourgeoisie were vigorous, revolutionary and progressive; they were real tigers. But with the lapse of time, because their opposites--the slave class, the peasant class and the proletariat--grew in strength step by step, struggled against them and became more and more formidable, these ruling classes changed step by step into the reverse, changed into reactionaries, changed into backward people, changed into paper tigers. And eventually they were overthrown, or will be overthrown, by the people. The reactionary, backward, decaying classes retained this dual nature even in their last life-and-death struggles against the people. On the one hand, they were real tigers; they ate people, ate people by the millions and tens of millions. The cause of the people's struggle went through a period of difficulties and hardships, and along the path there were many twists and turns. To destroy the rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism in China took the Chinese people more than a hundred years and cost them tens of millions of lives before the victory in 1949. Look! Were these not living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers? But in the end they changed into paper tigers, dead tigers, bean-curd tigers. These are historical facts. Have people not seen or heard about these facts? There have indeed been thousands and tens of thousands of them. Thousands and tens of thousands! Hence, imperialism and all reactionaries, looked at in essence, from a long-term point of view, from a strategic point of view, must be seen for what they are--paper tigers. On this we should build our strategic thinking. On the other hand, they are also living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers which can eat people. On this we should build our tactical thinking.[1]
This passage shows the dual nature of the three major exploiting classes not only in the various stages of their historical development but also in their last life-and-death struggle with the people. Clearly, this is a Marxist-Leninist analysis of history.
THE WATERSHED BETWEEN REVOLUTIONARIES AND
REFORMISTS
History teaches us that all revolutionaries--including, of course, bourgeois
revolutionaries--come to be revolutionaries because in the first place they
dare to despise the enemy, dare to struggle and dare to seize victory. Those
who fear the enemy and dare not struggle, dare not seize victory, can only
be cowards, can only be reformists or capitulationists; they can certainly
never be revolutionaries.
____________________________
Historically, all true revolutionaries have dared to despise the reactionaries,
to despise the reactionary ruling classes, to despise the enemy, because
in the historical conditions then obtaining which confronted the people with
a new historical task, they had begun to be aware of the necessity of replacing
the old system with a new one. When there is need for change, change becomes
irresistible and comes about sooner or later whether one likes it or not.
Marx said: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being,
but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."[1]
The necessity for social change calls forth revolutionary consciousness in
men. Before the historical conditions have made a change necessary, no one
can pose the task of revolution or make a revolution, however hard he tries.
But when the historical conditions have made a change necessary, revolutionaries
and vanguard fighters of the people come forward who dare to denounce the
reactionary ruling classes and dare to regard them as paper tigers. And in
everything they do, these revolutionaries always raise the people's spirits
and puncture the enemy's arrogance. This is historical necessity, this is
the inevitability of social revolution. As to when the revolution will break
out, and whether after its outbreak it succeeds quickly or takes a long time
to succeed or whether it meets many serious difficulties, setbacks and even
failures before final victory, etc.--all these questions depend upon various
specific historical factors. But even if they meet with serious difficulties,
setbacks and failures in the course of a revolution, all true revolutionaries
will nevertheless dare to despise the enemy and will remain firm in their
conviction that the revolution will triumph.
____________________________
After the defeat of the Chinese revolution in 1927 the Chinese people and the Chinese Communist Party were in extreme difficulties. At that time, Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out to us, as a proletarian revolutionary should, the future course of development of the revolution and the prospects of victory. He maintained that it would be one-sided and wrong to exaggerate the subjective strength of the revolution and belittle the strength of the counter-revolution. At the same time, he stressed that it would be one-sided and wrong to exaggerate the strength of the counter-revolution and underestimate the potential strength of the revolution. Comrade Mao Tse-tung's appraisal was later confirmed by the development and victory of the Chinese revolution. At present, the world situation as a whole is most favourable for the people of all countries. It is strange that in this favourable situation certain people should concentrate their efforts on wantonly attacking the thesis of despising the enemy strategically, should exaggerate the strength of imperialism, abet the imperialists and all reactionaries and help the imperialists to frighten the revolutionary people. Instead of enhancing the people's spirits and puncturing the enemy's arrogance, they are encouraging the enemy's arrogance and trying to dampen the people's spirits.
Lenin said, "Do you want a revolution? Then you must be strong!"[1] Why must revolutionaries be strong,
____________________________
why are they necessarily strong? Because revolutionaries represent the new and rising forces in society, because they believe in the strength of the people and because their mainstay is the great strength of the people. The reactionaries are weak, and inevitably so, because they are divorced from the people; however strong they may appear at the moment, they are bound to be defeated in the end. "The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may not appear to be durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing."[1]
Why did Lenin refer time and again to imperialism with such metaphors as a "colossus with feet of clay" and a "bugbear"? In the last analysis, it was because Lenin based himself on the objective laws of social development and believed that the new-born forces of society would eventually defeat the decaying forces of society and that the forces of the people would eventually triumph over the forces ranged against them. And is this not so?
We would like to say to those who are trying to demolish the Chinese Communists'
thesis that imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers: You ought
first to demolish Lenin's thesis. Why don't you directly refute Lenin's thesis
that imperialism is a "colossus with feet of clay" and a "bugbear"? What
else does this show other than your cowardice in the face of the truth?
____________________________
For every sober-minded Marxist-Leninist, the metaphors used in Lenin's formulation that imperialism is a "colossus with feet of clay" and a "bugbear" and the metaphor in the Chinese Communists' formulation that imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers are valid metaphors. These metaphors are based on the laws of social development and are meant to explain the essence of the problem in popular language. Great Marxist-Leninist and many scientists and philosophers have frequently used metaphors in their explanations, and often in a very precise and profound way.
While compelled to profess agreement with the metaphors used by Lenin to describe the essence of imperialism, some people single out for opposition the metaphor used by the Chinese Communists. Why? Why do these people keep on nagging at it? Why are they making such a hullabaloo about it just now? Besides revealing their ideological poverty, this of course shows that they have a specific purpose of their own.
What is it?
Since the end of World War II the socialist camp has grown much stronger. In the vast areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America, revolutions against the imperialists and their running dogs have been advancing. The manifold irreconcilable contradictions which beset the imperialist countries both internally and externally are like volcanoes constantly threatening the rule of monopoly capital. The imperialist countries are stepping up the armaments race and doing their best to militarize their national economies. All this is leading imperialism into an impasse. The brain trusts of the imperialists have produced plan after plan to save their masters from the fate that is now confronting them or will confront them, but they have been unable to find for imperialism a real way out of its predicament. In this international situation, certain people, although calling themselves Marxist-Leninists, have in actual fact become muddled and have allowed a kind of fin de sie`cle pessimism to take the place of cool reason. They have no intention of leading the people in delivering themselves from the disasters created by imperialism, and they have no confidence that the people can overcome these disasters and build a new life for themselves. It would be nearer to the truth to say that they are concerned about the fate of imperialism and all reactionaries than to say that they are concerned about the fate of socialism and the people of all countries. Their purpose in boosting and exaggerating the strength of the enemy and beating the drums for imperialism as they do today is not to oppose "adventurism" but simply to prevent the oppressed people and oppressed nations from rising in revolution; their so-called opposition to adventurism is merely a pretext to achieve their purpose of opposing revolution.
Speaking of the liberal parties in the Russian Duma (the Tsarist Parliament) in 1906, Lenin said:
The liberal parties in the Duma only inadequately and timidly back the strivings of the people; they are more concerned to allay and weaken the revolutionary struggle now proceeding than to destroy the people's enemy.[1]
Today we find in the ranks of the working-class movement just such liberals
as Lenin referred to, to wit,
____________________________
bourgeois liberals. They are more concerned with allaying and weakening the
widespread revolutionary struggles of the oppressed people and nations than
with destroying the imperialists and the other enemies of the people. Naturally,
such persons can hardly be expected to understand the thesis that
Marxist-Leninists should despise the enemy strategically.
MAGNIFICENT MODELS
After railing at the Chinese Communists' thesis of "despising the enemy strategically", some heroes go on to pour out their wrath on the thesis of "taking the enemy seriously tactically". They say that the formulation of "despising the enemy strategically while taking him seriously tactically" is a "double approach" and is "contrary to Marxism-Leninism".Ostensibly, they acknowledge that strategy is different from tactics and that tactics must serve strategic goals. But in actual fact they obliterate the difference between strategy and tactics and thoroughly confuse the concept of strategy with that of tactics. Instead of subordinating tactics to strategy, they subordinate strategy to tactics. They engross themselves in routine struggles, and in specific struggles they either make endless concessions to the enemy and thus commit the error of capitulationism, or act recklessly and thus commit the error of adventurism. In the last analysis, their purpose is to discard the strategic principles of revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and the strategic goals of all Communists.
We have already pointed out that historically all revolutionaries have been revolutionaries because in the first place they dared to despise the enemy, dared to wage struggle and dared to seize victory. Here we would add that, similarly, all successful revolutionaries in history have been successful not only because they dared to despise the enemy but also because on each particular question and in each specific struggle they took the enemy seriously and adopted a prudent attitude. In general, unless revolutionaries, and proletarian revolutionaries in particular, are able to do this, they cannot steer the revolution forward smoothly, but are liable to commit the error of adventurism, thus bringing losses or even defeat to the revolution.
Throughout their life-long struggles in the cause of the proletariat, Marx, Engels and Lenin always despised the enemy strategically, while taking full account of him tactically. They always fought on two fronts according to the concrete circumstances against Right opportunism and capitulationism and also against "Left" adventurism. In this respect, they are magnificent models for us.
Marx and Engels ended the Communist Manifesto with the celebrated passage:
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by. the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.[1]
This has always been the general strategic principle and goal of the whole
international communist movement. But in the Communist Manifesto Marx
and Engels also
____________________________
took careful account of the different conditions the Communists in different countries faced. They did not lay down a stereotyped, rigid formula and force it on the Communists of all countries. Marxists have always held that the Communists in each country must define their own specific strategic and tactical tasks at each stage of history in the light of the conditions prevailing in their own country.
Marx and Engels themselves took direct part in the mass revolutionary struggles of 1848-49. While they regarded the bourgeois democratic revolution of the time as the prelude to a proletarian socialist revolution, they opposed making the slogan, "For a Workers' Republic", an immediate demand. Such was their specific strategy at that time. On the other hand, they opposed attempts to start a revolution in Germany by armed force from outside, characterizing this approach as "playing at revolution". They proposed that the German workers abroad should return to their own country "singly" and throw themselves into the mass revolutionary struggle there. In other words, when it came to concrete tactics, the proposals and the approach of Marx and Engels were radically different from those of the "Left" adventurists. On matters concerning any specific struggle, Marx and Engels always did their best to proceed from a solid basis.
For a while in the spring of 1850, appraising the situation after the failure of the 1848-49 revolution, Marx and Engels held that another revolution was imminent. But by the summer, they saw that an immediate recurrence of revolution was no longer possible. Some people disregarded the objective possibilities and tried to conjure up an "artificial revolution", substituting revolutionary phraseology for the actual state of revolutionary development. They told the workers that they had to seize state power right away, or otherwise they might as well all go to sleep. Marx and Engels firmly opposed such adventurism. As Lenin said:
When the revolutionary era of 1848-49 ended, Marx opposed every attempt to play at revolution (the fight he put up against Schapper and Willich), and insisted on ability to work in the new phase which in a seemingly "peaceful" way was preparing for new revolutions.[1]
In September 1870, a few months prior to the Paris Commune, Marx warned the French proletariat against an untimely uprising. But when the workers were compelled to rise, in March 1871, Marx paid glowing tribute to the heaven-storming heroism of the workers of the Paris Commune. In a letter to L. Kugelmann, Marx wrote:
What elasticity, what historical initiative, what a capacity for sacrifice in these Parisians! After six months of hunger and ruin, caused by internal treachery more even than by the external enemy, they rise, beneath Prussian bayonets, as if there had never been a war between France and Germany and the enemy were not still at the gates of Paris! History has no like example of like greatness! If they are defeated only their "good nature" will be to blame.[2]
____________________________
See how Marx eulogized the workers of the Paris Commune for their heroic scorn of the enemy! Marx made this evaluation of the Paris Commune in the light of the general strategic goal of the international communist movement and said of the struggle of the Paris Commune that "history has no like example of like greatness!" True, the Paris Commune made several mistakes during the uprising; it failed to march immediately on counter-revolutionary Versailles, and the Central Committee relinquished power too soon. The Paris Commune failed. Yet the banner of proletarian revolution unfurled by the Commune will be for ever glorious. Marx wrote in The Civil War in France:
Working men's Paris, with its Commune, will be for ever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class. Its exterminators history has already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all the prayers of their priests will not avail to redeem them.[1]
Writing in commemoration of the 21st anniversary of the Paris Commune, Engels stated:
Its highly internationalist character imparted historical greatness to the Commune. It was a bold challenge to every kind of expression of bourgeois chauvinism. And the proletariat of all countries unerringly understood this.[2]
____________________________
But now our Comrade Togliatti seems to feel that Marx's and Engels' high appraisal of the Paris Commune as of universal significance for the revolutionary cause of the world proletariat is no longer worth mentioning.
As Engels pointed out, after the defeat of the Paris Commune the Parisian workers needed a long respite to build up their strength. But the Blanquists advocated a new uprising regardless of the circumstances. This adventurism was sharply criticized by Engels.
During the period of peaceful development of capitalism in Europe and America, Marx and Engels continued their fight on two fronts in the working-ciass movement. On the one hand, they severely condemned empty talk about revolution and urged that bourgeois legality should be turned to advantage in the fight against the bourgeoisie; on the other hand, they severely--indeed even more severely--condemned the opportunist thinking then dominant in the social-democratic parties, because these opportunists had lost all proletarian revolutionary staunchness, confined themselves to legal struggles, and lacked the determination to use illegal means as well in the fight against the bourgeoisie.
From this it is evident that while Marx and Engels unswervingly adhered to the strategical principles of proletarian revolution at all times, including periods of peaceful development, they also took care to adopt flexible tactics in accordance with the specific conditions of a given period.
As a great Marxist, Lenin most lucidly formulated the revolutionary strategy of the Russian proletariat when he entered the historical arena of proletarian revolutionary struggle. In the concluding remarks of his first famous work, What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, he said:
When its advanced representatives have mastered the ideas of scientific socialism, the idea of the historical role of the Russian worker, when these ideas become widespread, and when stable organizations are formed among the workers to transform the workers' present sporadic economic war into conscious class struggle-- then the Russian WORKER, rising at the head of all the democratic elements, will overthrow absolutism and lead the RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT (side by side with the proletariat of ALL COUNTRIES) along the straight road of open political struggle to THE VICTORIOUS COMMUNIST REVOLUTION.[1]
This strategic principle of Lenin's remained the general guide for the vanguard of the Russian proletariat and for the Russian people throughout their struggle for emancipation.
Lenin always firmly upheld this strategic principle. In doing so, he waged uncompromising struggle against the Narodniks, the "legal Marxists", the Economists, the Mensheviks, the opportunists and revisionists of the Second International, and against Trotsky and Bukharin. In 1902, when the programme of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was being drawn up, serious differences arose between Lenin and Plekhanov over principles of proletarian strategy. Lenin insisted that the Party programme should include the dictatorship of the proletariat and demanded that it should clearly define the leading role of the working class in the revolution.
____________________________
During the 1905 Revolution, Lenin in his book, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, reflected the heroic spirit of the Russian proletariat, which had dared to lead the struggle and to seize victory. He put forward a comprehensive theory of proletarian leadership in the democratic revolution and of a worker-peasant alliance under the leadership of the working class, thus developing Marxist theory on the transformation of the bourgeois democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.
During World War I, Lenin raised proletarian thinking on strategy to a new level in The Collapse of the Second International, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and other most important Marxist classics. He held that imperialism was the eve of the proletarian socialist revolution and that it was possible for the proletarian revolution to achieve victory first in one country or in a few countries. These strategic concepts paved the way for the triumph of the Great October Revolution.
There are many more similar examples.
On specific questions of tactics, Lenin always charted a course of action for the proletariat in the light of varying conditions--for example, conditions in which the political party of the proletariat should participate in and in which it should boycott parliament; conditions in which it should form one kind of alliance or another; conditions in which it should make necessary compromises and in which it should reject compromises; in which circumstances it should wage legal struggles and in which illegal struggles, and how it should flexibly combine the two forms of struggle; when to attack and when to retreat or advance by a roundabout path; etc. In his book, "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder, Lenin elucidated these questions profoundly and systematically.
He rightly stated:
. . . First, that in order to fulfil its task the revolutionary class must be able to master all forms, or aspects, of social activity without any exception . . .; second, that the revolutionary class must be ready to pass from one form to another in the quickest and most unexpected manner.[1]
Discussing the various forms of struggle, Lenin said further that it was necessary for all Communists to investigate, analyse, explore, appraise and grasp the national characteristics of their own country, when taking concrete measures there for the purpose of accomplishing the general international task, of overcoming opportunism and "Left" dogmatism within the working-class movement and of overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was absolutely wrong not to take the national characteristics of one's own country into account in the struggle.
In the light of Lenin's ideas, it can be seen that the concrete tactics of proletarian parties all have as their aim the organization of the masses by the millions, the maximum mobilization of allies, and the maximum isolation of the enemies of the people, the imperialists and their running dogs, so as to attain the general strategic goal of the emancipation of the proletariat and the people. To use Lenin's own words,
____________________________
. . . The forms of the struggle may and do constantly change in
accordance with varying, relatively particular and temporary causes, but
the substance of the struggle its class content, positively
cannot change while classes exist. [1]
THE STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL THINKING OF THE
CHINESE COMMUNISTS
Basing themselves on the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin, the Chinese Communists formulated the strategy and tactics of the Chinese revolution in concrete revolutionary practice.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung outlined the strategic and tactical thinking of the Chinese Communists in the following passage:
Imperialism throughout the world and the rule of the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek clique in China are already rotten and have no future. We have reason to despise them and we are confident and certain that we shall defeat all the domestic and foreign enemies of the Chinese people. But with regard to each part, each specific struggle (military, political, economic or ideological), we must never take the enemy lightly; on the contrary, we should take the enemy seriously and concentrate all our strength for battle in order to win victory. While we correctly point out that, strategically, with regard to the whole, we should take the enemy lightly, we must never take the enemy lightly in any part, in any specific struggle. If, with regard
____________________________
to the whole, we overestimate the strength of our enemy and hence do not dare to overthrow him and do not dare to win victory, we shall be committing a Right opportunist error. If, with regard to each part each specific problem, we are not prudent, do not carefully study and perfect the art of struggle, do not concentrate all our strength for battle and do not pay attention to winning over all the allies that should be won over (middle peasants, small independent craftsmen and traders, the middle bourgeoisie, students, teachers, professors and ordinary intellectuals, ordinary government employees, professionals and enlightened gentry), we shall be committing a "Left" opportunist error.[1]
Comrade Mao Tse-tung here provides a very clear-cut and unequivocal explanation of the struggle of the proletariat as a whole, that is, of the question of strategy, and an equally clear-cut and unequivocal explanation of each part, each specific problem, in the struggle of the proletariat, that is, of the question of tactics.
Why is it that when taking the situation as a whole, i.e., strategically,
we can despise the enemy? Because imperialism and all reactionaries are decaying,
have no future and can be overthrown. Failure to see this results in lack
of courage to wage revolutionary struggle, loss of confidence in the revolution
and the misleading of the people. Why is it that in specific struggles, i.e.,
tactically, we must not take the enemy lightly but must take him seriously?
Because the imperialists and the reactionaries
____________________________
still control their apparatus for ruling and all the armed forces, and can still deceive the people. To overthrow the rule of imperialism and reaction, the proletariat and the masses of the people must go through bitter and tortuous struggles. The imperialists and the reactionaries will not automatically tumble from their thrones.
A revolutionary party will never carry on revolutionary struggle if it has
abandoned the strategic goal of overthrowing the old system, and no longer
believes that the enemy can be overthrown or that victory can be won. A
revolutionary party will never achieve the hoped-for victory if it merely
proclaims the target of revolution without seriously and prudently coming
to grips with the enemy in the course of revolutionary struggle and without
gradually building up and expanding the revolutionary forces, if it treats
revolution simply as a matter for talk, or if it simply strikes out blindly.
This is even more true of proletarian parties. If a proletarian party takes
full account of the enemy on each and every concrete problem of revolutionary
struggle and is skilful in combating him while adhering to proletarian strategic
principles, then, to use Comrade Mao Tse-tung's words, "as time goes on,
we shall become superior as a whole,"' even though the proletariat may be
inferior in strength at the outset. In other words, if the enemy is taken
seriously in matters of tactics, on concrete questions of struggle, and if
every effort is made to win in each specific struggle, the victory of the
revolution can be accelerated, and it will not be retarded or
postponed.
____________________________
By taking full account of the enemy tactically and winning victories in specific struggles, the proletarian parties enable the masses in ever greater number to learn from their own experience that the enemy can be defeated, that there is every reason and every basis for despising the enemy. In China there are the ancient proverbs: Great undertakings have small beginnings; a huge tree grows from tiny roots; the nine-storey castle begins as a pile of earth; a thousand-li journey starts with a step. These hold true for revolutionary people who want to overthrow the reactionaries, that is to say, they can achieve their objective of finally defeating the reactionaries only by waging one struggle after another, by waging innumerable specific struggles, and by striving for victory in each one of them.
In "Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War", Comrade Mao Tse-tung
said, "Our strategy is 'pit one against ten' and our tactics are 'pit ten
against one-- this is one of our fundamental principles for gaining mastery
over the enemy." He added, "We use the few to defeat the many--this we say
to the rulers of China as a whole. We use the many to defeat the few--this
we say to each separate enemy force on the battlefield."[1] Here he was dealing
with principles of military struggle, but they also apply to the political
struggle. History shows that, to begin with, all revolutionaries, including
bourgeois revolutionaries, are always in the minority, and the forces they
lead are always comparatively small and weak. If in their strategy they lack
the will to "use the few to defeat the many" and to "pit one against ten"
in the struggle against the enemy, they grow flabby, impotent,
____________________________
and are incapable of accomplishing anything, and they will never become the majority. On the other hand, in their tactics, that is, in specific struggle, unless revolutionaries learn to organize the masses, to rally all possible allies, and to utilize the objectively existing contradictions among the enemies, unless they can apply the method of "using the many to defeat the few" and of "pitting ten against one" in struggle, and unless they are able to make all the necessary preparations for specific struggles they will never be able to gain victory in each specific struggle and multiply their small victories into large ones, and there will be the danger that their own forces will be smashed one by one by the enemy and the strength of the revolution dissipated.
A MIRROR
To sum up on the matter of the relationship between strategy and tactics, it is vital that the party of the proletariat pay the greatest attention to the ultimate goal of emancipating the working people and that it possess the courage and the conviction needed to overwhelm the enemy. It should not become so engrossed in minor and immediate gains and victories as to lose sight of the ultimate goal, and it should never lose faith in the triumph of the people's revolution merely because of the enemy 's temporary and outward strength. At the same time, the party of the proletariat must pay serious attention to the very small, day-to-day struggles, even if they do not appear to be very noteworthy. In every specific struggle, it must prepare adequately, do a good job of uniting the masses, study and perfect the art of struggle and do all it can to win, so that the masses will receive constant education and inspiration. It should take full cognizance of the fact that a large number of specific struggles, including the very small ones, can merge and develop into a force that will rock the old system.
It is, therefore, perfectly clear that strategy and tactics are different from each other and, at the same time, united. This is an expression of the very dialectics with which Marxist-Leninists examine questions. Certain people describe "despising the enemy strategically and taking him seriously tactically" as "scholastic philosophy" or a "double approach". But just what kind of "philosophy" and what "single approach" they have, are beyond us.
In his essay, "Our Revolution", Lenin had the following to say about the heroes of opportunism:
They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism: namely, its revolutionary dialectics.[1]
In the same article, Lenin also said:
Their whole conduct betrays them as cowardly reformists, who are afraid to take the smallest step away from the bourgeoisie, let alone break with it, and at the same time mask their cowardice by the wildest rhetoric and braggadocio.[2]
To those who are attacking the Chinese Communist Party we commend these lines
of Lenin's for careful reading. Assuredly; they may well serve as a political
mirror for certain people.
____________________________