MODERN REVISIONISM IS THE. MAIN DANGER IN THE
INTERNATIONAL WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT
The Communist Party of Italy is one of the largest parties in the capitalist world today. It conducted heroic struggles in the extremely dark days of fascist rule. It has a glorious tradition of struggle. During World War II it led the Italian people in courageous armed uprisings and guerrilla warfare against fascism. The people's armed forces arrested Mussolini and sentenced that fascist monster to death.
It is only natural that with this record of militant struggle the Italian Communist Party has won the sympathy and support of the people.
Since World War II, capitalism in Italy has found itself in a period of peaceful development, during which the C.P.I. has done a great deal of work, utilizing legal forms of struggle. In the activities of working-class parties, positive use can be made of conditions of legal struggle, but if while waging legal struggle the working-class party is lacking in revolutionary vigilance and firmness, these conditions may produce a contrary and negative effect. Marx, Engels and Lenin all constantly alerted the proletariat to guard against this.
Why is it that since World War II revisionism has been publicly recognized as the main danger in the international working-class movement? Because first, the legal struggles in many countries have made available manifold historical experience and taught many lessons; second, the conditions that breed opportunism and revisionism actually exist; and third, there has in fact emerged modern revisionism, represented by the Tito clique.
Judging from the views of Togliatti and certain other comrades, we may say frankly that the danger of revisionism exists in the Communist Party of Italy, too. Certain comrades in the French Communist Party have recently written a series of articles attacking revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and attacking the Chinese Communists. The points they make on a number of basic questions concerning the international communist movement virtually duplicate those made by Togliatti and other comrades. Moreover, certain other people have recently come to the fore in the international communist movement who, as Lenin put it, "all belong to the same family, all extol each other, learn from each other, and together take up arms against 'dogmatic' Marxism".[1] This is a strange phenomenon, but if one has some knowledge of Marxism-Leninism and if one analyses this phenomenon, one can see clearly that it is not accidental.
Modern revisionism has appeared in some capitalist countries, and it can
appear in socialist countries, too. The Tito clique was the first to hoist
the revisionist flag, and they have made previously socialist Yugoslavia
gradually change its character. Politically, the Tito clique has long since
become an accomplice of the United States and other imperialist countries,
and, economically, it has turned Yugoslavia into an appendage of U.S.
imperialism, gradually transforming her economy into what the imperialists
call a liberalized economy.
____________________________
At the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party in May 1921 Lenin said:
Milyukov was right. He very soberly takes into account the degree of political development and says that stepping stones in the shape of Socialist-Revolutionism and Menshevism are necessary for the reversion to capitalism. The bourgeoisie needs such stepping stones, and whoever does not understand this is stupid.[1]
These telling words of Lenin's read like a prophecy of what the Tito clique was to do a few decades later.
How is it that revisionism can appear in socialist countries, too? As the Moscow Declaration of 1957 points out, "The existence of bourgeois influence is an internal source of revisionism, while surrender to imperialist pressure is its external source."
Reiterating the important thesis of the Moscow Declaration that revisionism is the main danger in the international working-class movement, the Moscow Statement of 1960 condemns the Yugoslav variety of international opportunism. The Statement is completely correct in pointing out that,
After betraying Marxism-Leninism, which they termed obsolete, the leaders of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia opposed their anti-Leninist revisionist programme to the Declaration of 1957; they set the L.C.Y. against the international communist movement as a whole, severed their country from the
____________________________
socialist camp, made it dependent on so-called "aid" from U.S. and other imperialists, and thereby exposed the Yugoslav people to the danger of losing the revolutionary gains achieved through a heroic struggle. The Yugoslav revisionists carry on subversive work against the socialist camp and the world communist movement. Under the pretext of an extra-bloc policy, they engage in activities which prejudice the unity of all the peace-loving forces and countries.
The Moscow Statement also says,
Further exposure of the leaders of Yugoslav revisionists and active struggle to safeguard the communist movement and the working-class movement from the anti-Leninist ideas of the Yugoslav revisionists, remains an essential task of the Marxist-Leninist Parties.
This solemn document bears the signatures of the delegates of eighty-one Parties, including the Italian and French Parties, as well as of the Parties of socialist countries. But the ink was hardly dry on these signatures when the leading members of some of these Parties rushed to fraternize with the Tito clique.
Comrade Togliatti has openly declared that the stand taken in the 1960 Moscow
Statement towards the Tito clique of Yugoslavia was "mistaken", saying that
"to direct invectives against 'the Tito clique' will not enable us to advance
one step, but will make us go back a great deal".[1] Some people have said
that "the Yugoslav Communists have taken steps towards rapprochement
and
____________________________
unity with the entire world communist movement", and that between the Tito clique and themselves there is "coincidence and proximity" of positions "on a series of vitally important international problems". What they are doing belies their commitments; they are treating the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement merely as empty official formalities. In order to justify themselves, they have no scruples about prostituting the Moscow Statement and, instead of regarding revisionism as the main danger in the international communist movement and working-class movement today, they allege that "latterly the danger of dogmatism and sectarianism has become the main danger".[1] At the recent Sixth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany when the Chinese Communist Party delegate in his speech upheld the Moscow Statement and condemned the revisionism of the Tito clique, he was treated with extreme rudeness. But the delegate of the Tito clique to the Congress was given a wild ovation. Can this be called "consistent observance of the commonly co-ordinated line of the communist movement"? Everybody knows that this action, which can only grieve our own people and gladden the enemy, was deliberately planned.
The result of all this is that the market price of the Tito clique has suddenly shot up tenfold. The purpose of those who have brought this about is to install the Tito clique as their ideological centre; they are trying to replace Marxism-Leninism by modern revisionism as represented by the Tito clique and to replace the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement by the Tito clique's modern revisionist programme, or by something else.
____________________________
Don't some people frequently say that we ought to "synchronize our watches"? Now there are two watches; one is Marxism-Leninism and the Moscow Declaration and Statement, and the other is modern revisionism as represented by the Tito clique. Which is to be the master watch? The watch of Marxism-Leninism, of the Moscow Declaration and Statement, or the watch of modern revisionism?
Some people forbid us to fight modern revisionism, or even to mention the
old-line revisionism of the period of the Second International, while they
themselves revive the tunes of the old-line revisionists and revel in playing
them over and over again. Writing of Proudhonism in the preface to the second
edition of The Housing Question, Engels said, "Whoever occupies
himself in any detail with modern socialism must also acquaint himself with
the 'surmounted standpoints' of the movement." He believed that these standpoints
or the tendencies emanating from them would inevitably reappear time and
again so long as the conditions giving rise to them remained in society.
"And if later on this tendency takes on a firmer shape and more clearly defined
contours, . . . it will have to go back to its predecessors for the formulation
of its program."[1] Since we are fighting modern revisionism, we must naturally
study its predecessors, the lessons of history, and how the modern revisionists
have gone back to their predecessors. Should
____________________________
we not do so? Why is this "a completely impermissible historical comparison"? Does it violate any taboo?
Since they are replaying the tunes of such old revisionists as Bernstein and Kautsky, and are using the latter's viewpoints, methods and language to attack and smear the Chinese Communists and all Marxist-Leninists, they cannot reasonably forbid us to answer them with Lenin's criticism of the old revisionists.
Lenin said:
In exactly the same way the Bernsteinians have been dinning into our ears that it is they who understand the proletariat's true needs and the tasks of building up its forces, the task of deepening all the work, preparing the elements of a new society, and the task of propaganda and agitation. Bernstein says: We demand a frank recognition of that which is, thus sanctifying "movement" without any "ultimate aim", sanctifying defensive tactics alone, preaching the tactics of fear "lest the bourgeoisie recoil". So the Bernsteinians raised an outcry against the "Jacobinism" of the revolutionary Social-Democrats, against "publicists" who fail to understand the "workers' initiative", etc., etc. In reality, as everyone knows, revolutionary Social-Democrats have never even thought of abandoning day-by-day, petty work, the mustering of forces, etc., etc. All they demanded was a clear understanding of the ultimate aim, a clear presentation of the revolutionary tasks; they wanted to raise the semi-proletarian and semi-petty-bourgeois strata to the revolutionary level of the proletariat--not to reduce the latter level to that of opportunist considerations such as "lest the bourgeoisie recoil". Perhaps the most vivid expression of this rift between the intellectual opportunist wing and the proletarian revolutionary wing of the Party was the question: du"rfen wir siegen? "Dare we win?" Is it permissible for us to win? Would it not be dangerous for us to win? Ought we to win? This question, so strange at first sight, was however raised and had to be raised because the opportunists were afraid of victory, were frightening the proletariat away from it, predicting that trouble would come of it and ridiculing slogans that straightforwardly called for it.[1]
This quotation from Lenin can very well explain the revival of Bernsteinism in a new historical context and the essence of the difference between Marxist-Leninists and the modern revisionists.
"OUR THEORY IS NOT A DOGMA,
BUT A GUIDE TO ACTION"
Some people who call themselves creative Marxist-Leninists say that times have changed, that conditions are no longer the same and that there is no need to repeat the fundamental principles stated by Marx and Lenin. They object to our quoting from the Marxist-Leninist classics to explain issues, and brand this practice "dogmatism".
To discard Marxism-Leninism on the pretext of shaking off the chains of dogma is a convenient trick. Lenin exposed this trick of the opportunists long ago:
____________________________
What a handy little word "dogma" is! One need only slightly twist an opposing theory, cover up this twist with the bogy of "dogma"--and there you are![1]
We all know that the days when Lenin lived and fought were greatly different from the days of Marx and Engels. Lenin developed Marxism comprehensively and carried it forward to a new stage, the stage of Leninism. In line with the new conditions and the new features of his own time, Lenin wrote many outstanding works which greatly enriched the treasury of Marxist theory and our ideas on the strategy and tactics of the proletarian revolution, and he advanced new policies and tasks for the international working-class movement. Lenin quoted abundantly and repeatedly from Marx and Engels in order to defend the fundamental principles of Marxism, to safeguard its purity and to oppose its distortion and adulteration by the opportunists and revisionists. For example, in The State and Revolution in particular, a great work of fundamental importance for Marxist theory, Lenin was not sparing in the use of quotations. In the very first chapter he wrote:
In view of the unprecedentedly widespread distortion of Marxism, our prime task is to re-establish what Marx really taught on the subject of the state. For this purpose it will be necessary to quote at length from the works of Marx and Engels themselves. Of course, long quotations will render the text cumbersome and will not help at all to make it popular reading, but we cannot possibly avoid them. All, or at
____________________________
any rate, all the most essential passages in the works of Marx and Engels on the subject of the state must without fail be quoted as fully as possible, in order that the reader may form an independent opinion of the totality of the views of the founders of scientific Socialism and of the development of those views, and in order that their distortion by the now prevailing "Kautskyism" may be documentarily proved and clearly demonstrated.[1]
It can be seen that Lenin quoted at great length from Marx and Engels at a time when Marxism was being outrageously adulterated. Today, when Leninism is being outrageously adulterated, no revolutionary Marxist-Leninist can fail to quote from Lenin. The reason is that this practice sharply brings out the contrast between the truth of Marxism-Leninism and the fallacies of revisionism and opportunism.
Clearly, it is no crime to quote from the literature of Marxism-Leninism, as some people allege. The question is whether quotations are called for, how Marxist-Leninist literature is quoted and whether it is quoted correctly.
There are people who deliberately evade the themes we are confirming by our
quotations from the literature of Marxism-Leninism. They dare not even publish
the quotations, but simply attack us for "citing paragraph after paragraph".[2]
l'Humanité, the organ of the French Communist Party, has
gone so far as to accuse the Chinese Communist Party of "denaturing
Marxism-Leninism
____________________________
to the point of retaining only rigid formulas, and assuming the right to be high priests in charge of enunciating dogmas".[1] What does it actually signify--this lashing out at us with acrimonious phrases in which they so obviously revel? It simply reflects their state of mind and their feelings, that is, the violent repugnance with which they react the moment they see the words of Marx, Engels and Lenin. These people who object to others as priests of Marxism-Leninism are themselves serving as priests of anti-Marxism-Leninism and of bourgeois ideology.
While violently attacking us for quoting from the literature of Marxism-Leninism to explain fundamental Marxist-Leninist truths, some people constantly repeat what is in essence the language of Bernstein, Kautsky and Tito, from whom they have borrowed many of their basic ideas.
There are even those who violently assail what they term "dogmatism", yet who delight in biblical dogmas. Their heads are full of the Bible and similar matter but contain not a shadow of Marxism-Leninism.
Lenin constantly cited the words of Marx and Engels, "Our theory is not a
dogma, but a guide to action." Now that certain persons are spreading the
notion that we are "dogmatists", we have to tell them bluntly: The Chinese
Communist Party is rich in experience in combating dogmatism. More than twenty
years ago, under the leadership of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, we fought an outstanding
struggle against dogmatism, and ever since we have paid attention to struggles
of this kind.
____________________________
The true Marxist-Leninist does not recline on a bed of books. He should be skilful in using the Marxist-Leninist method to analyse the concrete environment, situation and conditions of the time both at home and abroad, in studying the varied experience of actual struggles, and in thus working out his own line of action. Comrade Mao Tse-tung has repeatedly reminded us of Lenin's celebrated dictum: "The most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism, is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions."[1] He criticized the dogmatists in our ranks as "lazybones" who "refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things".[2]
In a speech in 1942, "Rectify the Party's Style of Work", Comrade Mao Tse-tung criticized dogmatism in these sharp terms:
Even now, there are not a few people who still regard odd quotations from Marxist-Leninist works as a ready-made panacea which, once acquired, can easily cure all maladies. These people show childish ignorance, and we should conduct a campaign to enlighten them. It is precisely such ignorant people who take Marxism-Leninism as a religious dogma. To them we should say bluntly, "Your dogma is worthless." Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have repeatedly stated that our theory is not a dogma but a guide to action. But such people prefer to forget this statement which is of the greatest, indeed the utmost importance. Chinese Communists can be regarded as linking theory with practice only when they become good at applying the
____________________________
Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method and the teachings of Lenin and Stalin concerning the Chinese revolution and when, furthermore, through serious research into the realities of China's history and revolution, they do creative theoretical work to meet China's needs in different spheres. Merely talking about linking theory and practice without actually doing anything about it is of no use, even if one goes on talking for a hundred years. To oppose the subjectivist, one-sided approach to problems, we must demolish dogmatist subjectiveness and one-sidedness.[1]
Those who are now vigorously railing at dogmatism have absolutely no idea
of what it really is, let alone of how to combat it. They keep on proclaiming
that times and conditions have changed and that one must "develop
Marxism-Leninism creatively", but actually they are using bourgeois pragmatism
to revise Marxism-Leninism. They are utterly unable to grasp the essence
of the changed times and conditions, to understand the contradictions in
the contemporary world or to locate the focus of these
contradictions. They cannot grasp the laws of development of things that
objectively exist and they stagger to and fro, plunging now into capitulationism
and now into adventurism. Accommodating themselves to the immediate turn
of events, they forget the fundamental interests of the proletariat, and
this is characteristic both of their thinking and their actions. Thus they
do not have a policy founded on principle, frequently fail to differentiate
between the enemy, ourselves and our friends, and even reverse the relationships
between the three, treating enemies as if they were our own people and vice
versa.
____________________________
Lenin said that the philistine "is never guided by a definite world outlook,
by principles of integral party tactics. He always swims with the stream,
blindly obeying the mood of the moment".[1] Now, are not these people exactly
the same?
INTEGRATING THE UNIVERSAL TRUTH OF MARXISM-
LENINISM WITH THE CONCRETE PRACTICE OF
THE REVOLUTION IN ONE'S OWN COUNTRY
The well-known thesis of integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution was formulated in our Party by Comrade Mao Tse-tung more than twenty years ago. It sums up the experience of the Chinese Communist Party in its long struggle on two fronts, against both Right opportunism and "Left" opportunism.
This thesis, the integration of the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with
the concrete practice of the revolution in one's own country, has two aspects.
On the one hand, it is necessary at all times to adhere to the universal
truth of Marxism-Leninism, or otherwise the error of Right opportunism or
revisionism will be committed; on the other hand, it is necessary at all
times to start from real life, link oneself closely with the masses, constantly
sum up the experience of mass struggle and examine one's work in the light
of practical experience, or otherwise the error of dogmatism will be
committed.
____________________________
Why must one adhere to the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism? Why must one adhere to the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism? Lenin said:
The Marxian doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is complete and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world conception which is irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression.[1]
The universal truth of Marxism-Leninism, or in other words, its fundamental principles, are not figments of the imagination or subjective fancies; they are scientific conclusions that sum up the experience of mankind in its entire history of struggle and sum up the experience of the international proletarian struggle.
From Bernstein onwards, all sorts of revisionists and opportunists have used
the pretext of so-called new changes and new situations to assert that the
universal truth of Marxism has been outmoded. Yet events throughout the world
in the past century and more have all proved the universal truth of
Marxism-Leninism to be valid everywhere. It applies both to the West and
to the East; it has been confirmed not only by the Great October Revolution
but also by the Chinese Revolution and by all the triumphant revolutions
in other countries; it has been confirmed not only by the entire record of
the working-class movement in the capitalist countries of Europe and America
but also by the great revolutionary struggles which are going on in many
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
____________________________
In 1913 Lenin wrote in "The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx" that each period of world history since the birth of Marxism "has brought Marxism new confirmation and new triumphs. But a still greater triumph awaits Marxism, as the doctrine of the proletariat, in the period of history that is now ensuing".[1]
In 1922 Lenin stated in his article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism":
. . . Marx . . . applied [dialectics] so successfully that now every day of the awakening to life and struggle of new classes in the East (Japan, India and China)--i.e., the hundreds of millions of human beings who form the greater part of the population of the world and whose historical passivity and historical torpor have hitherto been conditions responsible for stagnation and decay in many advanced European countries--every day of the awakening to life of new peoples and new classes serves as a fresh confirmation of Marxism.[2]
The events, of recent decades have further confirmed Lenin's conclusions.
The Moscow Declaration of 1957 sums up our historical experience and sets
forth the principal laws universally applicable to the countries advancing
on the road to socialism. The first general law thus stated in the Declaration
is: "Guidance of the working masses by the working class, the core of which
is the Marxist-Leninist
____________________________
Party, in effecting a proletarian revolution in one form or another and
establishing one form or another of the dictatorship of the proletariat."
What Togliatti and other comrades call "the Italian road to socialism" is
precisely the abandonment of this most fundamental principle, the principle
of proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship, and a negation of
this most fundamental law reaffirmed in the Moscow Declaration. Those who
oppose the universal truth and the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism
inevitably oppose the integral Marxist-Leninist world outlook and "undermine
its basic theoretical foundations--dialectics, the doctrine that historical
development is all-embracing and full of contradictions".[1]
This is what the Moscow Declaration says with regard to the Marxist-Leninist world outlook:
The theory of Marxism-Leninism derives from dialectical materialism. This world outlook reflects the universal law of development of nature, society and human thinking. It is valid for the past, the present and the future. Dialectical materialism is countered by metaphysics and idealism. Should the Marxist political party in its examination of questions base itself not on dialectics and materialism, the result will be one-sidedness and subjectivism, stagnation of human thought, isolation from life and loss of ability to make the necessary analysis of things and phenomena, revisionist and dogmatist mistakes and mistakes in policy. Application of dialectical materialism in practical work and the education of the party functionaries and the broad masses in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism are urgent tasks of the Communist and Workers' Parties.
____________________________
Today, there are people who treat this extremely important thesis in the Moscow Declaration with the utmost contempt and place themselves in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist world outlook. They detest materialist dialectics, dismissing it as a "double approach" and "a scholastic philosophy". They are just like the old-line revisionists who "treated Hegel as a 'dead dog', and while they themselves preached idealism, only an idealism a thousand times more petty and banal than Hegel's, they contemptuously shrugged their shoulders at dialectics".[1] It is clear that these people attack materialist dialectics because they want to sell their modern revisionist stuff.
Of course, the Marxist-Leninist world outlook is opposed to dogmatism as well as to revisionism.
Adhering to the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism, we must oppose dogmatism, because dogmatism is divorced from actual revolutionary practice and regards Marxism-Leninism as a lifeless formula.
Marxism-Leninism is full of vitality, and it is invincible because it grows out of and develops in revolutionary practice, ceaselessly drawing new lessons from new revolutionary practice and therefore ceaselessly enriching itself.
Lenin often said that Marxism combines the greatest scientific strictness
with the revolutionary spirit. He said,
____________________________
Marxism differs from all other socialist theories in that it represents a remarkable combination of complete scientific soundness in the analysis of the objective conditions of things and of the objective course of evolution and the very definite recognition of the significance of the revolutionary energy, the revolutionary creative genius and the revolutionary initiative of the masses--and also, of course, of individuals groups, organisations and parties which are able to discover and establish contact with these classes.[1]
Here Lenin explained in exact terms that we must adhere to the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism and at the same time oppose dogmatism, which is divorced from revolutionary practice and from the masses of the people. Comrade Mao Tse-tung's explanation of the interrelationship between adherence to the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism and opposition to dogmatism fully conforms with Lenin's view. In discussing the question of cognition, Comrade Mao Tse-tung has said:
As regards the sequence in the movement of man's knowledge, there is always a gradual expansion from the knowledge of individual and particular things to the knowledge of things in general. Only after man knows the particular essence of many different things can he proceed to generalization and know the common essence of things. When man attains the knowledge of this common essence, he uses it as a guide and proceeds to study various concrete things which have not yet been studied, or studied thoroughly, and to discover the particular essence of each; only thus is he able to
____________________________
supplement, enrich and develop his knowledge of the common essence and prevent that knowledge from withering or petrifying.[1]
The mistake of the dogmatists lies in turning the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism, i.e., the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, into something withered and petrified.
Dogmatists distort Marxism-Leninism in another way. Divorcing themselves from reality, they contrive abstract, empty formulas, or mechanically take the experience of foreign countries and force it on the masses. Thereby, they cramp the mass struggle and prevent it from achieving the results it should. Leaving time, place and conditions out of account, they obstinately stick to one form of struggle. They fail to understand that in every country the mass revolutionary movement takes highly complex forms and that all the forms of struggle required have to be used simultaneously and complement each other; they fail to understand that when the situation changes it is necessary to replace old forms of struggle by new ones, or to utilize the old forms but fill them with new content. Therefore, they very often cut themselves off from the masses and from potential allies, so falling into errors of sectarianism, and they just as often act recklessly, so falling into errors of adventurism.
If the leading body of a Party commits errors of dogmatism, it becomes unable
to grasp the laws of the actual revolutionary movement. In the field of theory,
it is bound to be lifeless, and in the field of tactics, it is bound to make
all kinds of mistakes. A party of this kind cannot possibly lead the people's
revolutionary movement in its country to victory.
____________________________
During the struggle against dogmatism inside the Chinese Communist Party, Comrade Mao Tse-tung placed stress on integrating the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution; he pointed out that the Marxist-Leninist attitude is to employ the Marxist-Leninist theory and method for systematic and comprehensive investigation and study of the environment. He said:
With this attitude, one studies the theory of Marxism-Leninism with a purpose, that is, to integrate Marxist-Leninist theory with the actual movement of the Chinese revolution and to seek from this theory the stand, viewpoint and method with which to solve the theoretical and tactical problems of the Chinese revolution. Such an attitude is one of shooting the arrow at the target. The "target" is the Chinese revolution the "arrow" is Marxism-Leninism. We Chinese Communists have been seeking this arrow because we want to hit the target of the Chinese revolution and of the revolution of the East. To take such an attitude is to seek truth from facts. "Facts" are all the things that exist objectively, "truth" means their internal relations, that is, the laws governing them, and "to seek" means to study. We should proceed from the actual conditions inside and outside the country, the province, county or district, and derive from them, as our guide to action, laws which are inherent in them and not imaginary, that is, we should find the internal relations of the events occurring around us. And in order to do that we must rely not on subjective imagination, not on momentary enthusiasm, not on lifeless books, but on facts that exist objectively; we must appropriate the material in detail and, guided by the general principles of Marxism-Leninism, draw correct conclusions from it.[1]
The history of the Chinese Communist Party, the history of the triumph of
the Chinese revolution, is one of ever-closer integration of the universal
truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution.
Without such integration it is inconceivable that the Chinese revolution
could have triumphed.
PRINCIPLE AND FLEXIBILITY
It is a well-known precept of Lenin's that "a policy based on principle is the only correct policy". Marxism was able to triumph over all sorts of opportunist trends and become predominant in the international working-class movement precisely because Marx and Engels persevered in policies based on principle. Leninism was able to continue to triumph over all sorts of revisionist and opportunist trends, to guide the October Revolution to victory and become predominant in the international working-class movement in the new era precisely because Lenin, and Stalin after him, carrying forward the cause of Marx and Engels, persevered in policies based on principle.
What does policy based on principle mean? It means that every policy we put
forward and decide upon must be based on the class stand of the proletariat,
on the fundamental interests of the proletariat, on the theory
____________________________
of Marxism-Leninism and on the fundamental standpoint of Marxism-Leninism. The party of the proletariat must not confine its attention to immediate interests, veer with the wind and abandon fundamental interests. It must not simply submit to the immediate turn of events, approving or advocating one thing today and another tomorrow, and trading in principles as though they were commodities. In other words, the party of the proletariat must maintain its political independence, differentiating itself ideologically and politically from all other classes and their political parties--not only from the landlords and the bourgeoisie, but also from the petty bourgeoisie. Inside the party, the Marxist-Leninists must draw a line between themselves and both the Right and "Left" opportunists, who reflect various shades of non-proletarian ideology.
Only yesterday, some people put their signatures to the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, expressing approval of the fundamental revolutionary principles set forth in these two documents, and yet today they are trampling these principles underfoot. Hardly had they signed the Moscow Statement and agreed to the conclusion that the leaders of the League of Communists of of Yugoslavia have betrayed Marxism-Leninism than they turned round and treated the Titoite renegades as dearly beloved brothers. They concurred in the conclusion in the Statement that "U.S. imperialism is the chief bulwark of world reaction and an international gendarme, that it has become an enemy of the peoples of the whole world", and yet soon afterwards they maintained that the destiny of mankind depended on "co-operation", "confidence" and "agreement" between the heads of the two powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. They concurred in the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries laid down in the Declaration and the Statement, and yet soon afterwards they abandoned these principles and at their own Party congress publicly and wilfully condemned another fraternal Party and country. Though talking glibly about never allowing ideological differences between fraternal Parties to spread to the economic field and to state relations, these people have wantonly torn up numerous economic and technological contracts between fraternal countries, and have even gone to such lengths as virtually breaking off diplomatic relations with a fraternal country. They concurred in the conclusion in the Declaration and the Statement that revisionism is the main danger in the international working-class movement, and yet soon afterwards they began to spread the idea that "dogmatism is the main danger" far and wide. And so on and so forth. Is there any principle in these actions of theirs? What kind of principles are their policies based on?
While adhering to policies based on principle, the party of the proletariat must also exercise flexibility. In revolutionary struggle, it is wrong to refuse to adjust to changing circumstances or reject roundabout ways of advance. The difference between Marxist-Leninists and the opportunists and revisionists is that the former stand for flexibility in carrying out policies based on principle, while the latter practise a flexibility which is actually the abandonment of principled policies.
Flexibility based on principle is not opportunism. On the contrary, one can make opportunist mistakes if one does not know how to exercise the necessary flexibility and to suit the action to the moment, in the light of the specific conditions and on the basis of persevering in principle, and one will thus bring unwarranted losses to the revolutionary struggle.
Compromise is an important problem in the practice of flexibility.
Marxist-Leninists approach the question of compromise as follows: They never reject any necessary compromise that serves the interests of the revolution, namely, principled compromise, but they will never tolerate a compromise that amounts to betrayal, namely, unprincipled compromise.
Lenin well said:
It is not without cause that Marx and Engels are considered to be the founders of scientific socialism. They were merciless enemies of all phrase-mongering. They taught us to pose the questions of socialism (including those of socialist tactics) in a scientific way. And in the seventies of the last century, when Engels had to analyse the revolutionary manifesto of the French Blanquists, refugees after the Commune, he said without mincing words that their boastful declaration "no compromises" was an empty phrase. One must not renounce compromise. The problem is to be able, through all the compromises which are sometimes necessarily imposed by force of circumstances even on the most revolutionary party of the most revolutionary class, through all such compromises to be able to preserve, strengthen, temper and develop the revolutionary tactics and organization, the revolutionary consciousness, determination and preparedness of the working class and its organized vanguard, the Communist Party.[1]
How can a Marxist-Leninist Party which conscientiously seeks truth from facts reject all compromises indiscriminately? The editorial on Leninism and Modern Revisionism in the first issue of Hongqi for 1963 contains this passage:
In the course of our protracted revolutionary struggle, we Chinese Communists reached compromises on many occasions with our enemies, internal and external. For example, we came to a compromise with the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek clique. We came to a compromise, too, with the U.S. imperialists, in the struggle to aid Korea and resist U.S. aggression.
It continues:
It is precisely in accordance with Lenin's teachings that we Chinese Communists distinguish between different kinds of compromise, favouring compromises which are in the interests of the people's cause and of world peace, and opposing compromises that are in the nature of treachery. It is perfectly clear that only those guilty, now of adventurism, now of capitulationism, are the ones whose ideology is Trotskyism, or Trotskyism in a new guise.
As is well known, Trotsky played a most despicable role in connection with
the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk as well as in the entire history of the Russian
revolution and of Soviet construction. He opposed Lenin and Leninism on all
____________________________
the main problems. He denied that the socialist revolution and socialist construction could triumph first in one country. He lacked all principle on the question of revolutionary strategy and tactics, and this manifested itself now in "Left" adventurism, now in Right capitulationism. In the case of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, he first blindly pressed for an adventurist policy; then, in violation of Lenin's directive, he refused to sign the treaty at the Brest-Litovsk negotiations and at the same time made the traitorous statement to the German side that the Soviet Republic was preparing to end the war and demobilize. The German aggressors thereupon became more arrogant and laid down even more onerous terms. Such was Trotskyism in the matter of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Now certain people have arbitrarily lumped together the Cuban events and those of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk although the two were completely different in nature, and they have drawn an historical analogy in which they liken themselves to Lenin and brand those who opposed sacrificing the sovereignty of another country as Trotskyites. This is most absurd.
Lenin was perfectly right in wanting the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to be signed. Lenin's purpose was to win time to consolidate the victory of the October Revolution. In his "Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War" written in 1936, Comrade Mao Tse-tung strongly criticized "Left" opportunist errors. Referring to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsik, he said:
After the October Revolution, if the Russian Bolsheviks had acted on the opinions of the "Left Communists" and refused to sign the peace treaty with Germany, the new-born Soviets would have been in danger of early death.[1]
Events confirmed Lenin's foresight, and the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk proved to be a revolutionary compromise.
How about the Cuban events? That was a completely different story. In the Cuban events, the Cuban people and their leaders were determined to fight to the death to defend the sovereignty of their fatherland; they displayed great heroism and high principle. They did not commit the error of adventurism, nor did they commit the error of capitulationism. But during the Cuban events certain people first committed the error of adventurism, and then committed the error of capitulationism, wanting the Cuban people to accept humiliating terms which would have meant the sacrifice of the sovereignty of their country. These persons have tried to cover themselves by using the example of Lenin's conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, but this has turned out to be a clumsy sleight-of-hand, for they have actually uncovered themselves all the more clearly.
Comrade Liu Shao-chi explained the relation between principle and flexibility,
on the basis of the experience of the Chinese Revolution, in the following
remarks which he made at the Seventh Congress of the Communist Party of
China:
____________________________
Our flexibility is based on definite principles.Flexibility without principle, concessions and compromises that go beyond principle, and ambiguity or confusion of principle, are all wrong. The criterion or measure for all changes in policy or tactics is Party principle. And Party principle is the criterion and the measure of flexibility. For example, one of our unchangeable principles is to fight for the greatest interests of the largest majority of the people. This unchangeable principle is the criterion and the measure by which the correctness of all changes in policy or tactics should be judged. All changes in keeping with this principle are correct while those conflicting with it are wrong.[1]
This is our view on the relation between principle and flexibility, and we believe it to be the Marxist-Leninist view.
____________________________