by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao
(People's
Daily ) and Hongqi (Red Flag )
(December 12, 1963)
From the collection
The Polemic on the General Line of
the
International Communist Movement
FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS
PEKING 1965
pp. 259-301.
[Transcriber's Note: In the printed edition, quoted
passages of any length appear in the same
size type, but are indented as a
block. In the following on-line version, these passages are NOT indented as a
block, but appear in a smaller point font.-- DJR]
|
PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE -- TWO DIAMETRICALLY
OPPOSED | |||
|
|
Sixth Comment on the Open Letter of the
Central Committee of |
||
|
|
LENIN AND STALIN'S POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE |
||
page 259
by the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao page 260 [blank]
page 261
Again and again the leaders of the CPSU claim that they have
been faithful to Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence and have creatively
developed it. They ascribe to their policy of "peaceful coexistence" all the
credit for the victories won by the peoples of the world in prolonged
revolutionary struggles.
They advertise the notion that imperialism, and U.S.
imperialism in particular, supports peaceful coexistence, and they wantonly
malign the Chinese Communist Party and all Marxist-Leninist Parties as being
opponents of peaceful coexistence. The Open Letter of the
Central Committee of the CPSU even slanders China as favouring "competition in
unleashing war" with the imperialists.
They describe the words and deeds by which they have betrayed
Marxism-Leninism, the proletarian world revolution and the revolutionary cause
of the oppressed peoples and nations as being in conformity with Lenin's
policy of peaceful coexistence.
But can the words "peaceful coexistence" really serve as a
talisman for the leaders of the CPSU in their betrayal of Marxism-Leninism?
No, absolutely not.
We are now confronted with two diametrically opposed policies
of peaceful coexistence.
One is Lenin and Stalin's policy of peaceful coexistence,
which all Marxist-Leninists, including the Chinese Communists, stand for.
The other is the anti-Leninist policy of peaceful
coexistence, the so-called general line of peaceful coexistence advocated by
Khrushchov and others.
page 262
Let us now examine Lenin and Stalin's policy of peaceful
coexistence and the stuff Khrushchov and others call the general line of
peaceful coexistence.
It was Lenin who advanced the idea that the socialist state
should pursue a policy of peaceful coexistence towards countries with
different social systems. This correct policy was long followed by the
Communist Party and the Government of the Soviet Union under the leadership of
Lenin and Stalin.
The question of peaceful coexistence between socialist and
capitalist countries could not possibly have arisen prior to the October
Revolution, since there was no socialist country in existence. Nevertheless,
on the basis of his scientific analysis of imperialism, Lenin foresaw in
1915-16 that "socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all
countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while
the others will remain bourgeois or prebourgeois for some time".[1] In other
words, within a certain period of time, socialist countries would exist side
by side with capitalist or precapitalist countries. The very nature of the
socialist system determines that socialist countries must pursue a foreign
policy of peace. Lenin said, "Only the working class, when it wins power, can
pursue a policy of peace not in words . . . but in deeds."[2] These views of Lenin's can be said to constitute the
theoretical basis of the policy of peaceful coexistence.
After the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin proclaimed
to the world on many occasions that the foreign policy of the Soviet state was
one of peace. But the imperialists
page 263
were bent on strangling the new-born socialist republic in its cradle. They
launched armed intervention against the Soviet state. Lenin rightly pointed
out that confronted with this situation "unless we defended the socialist
republic by force of arms, we could not exist".[1] By 1920
the great Soviet people had defeated the imperialist armed intervention. A
relative equilibrium of forces had come into being between the Soviet state
and the imperialist countries. After trials of strength over several years,
the Soviet state had stood its ground. It began to turn from war to peaceful
construction. It was in these circumstances that Lenin advanced the idea of a
policy of peaceful coexistence. In fact, from that time onwards the
imperialists had no choice but to "coexist" with the Soviet state.
During Lenin's lifetime, this equilibrium was always highly
unstable and the Soviet Socialist Republic was subject to stringent capitalist
encirclement. Time and again Lenin pointed out that owing to the aggressive
nature of imperialism there was no guarantee that socialism and capitalism
would live in peace for long.
In the prevailing conditions, it was not yet possible for him
to define at length the content of the policy of peaceful coexistence between
countries with different social systems. But the great Lenin laid down the
correct foreign policy for the first state of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and advanced the basic ideas of the policy of peaceful
coexistence.
What were Lenin's basic ideas on this policy?
First, Lenin pointed out that the socialist state existed in
defiance of the imperialists' will. Although it adhered to the foreign policy
of peace, the imperialists had no desire to live in peace with it and would do
everything possible and seize every opportunity to oppose or even destroy the
socialist state.
page 264
Lenin said:
International imperialism . . . could not . . . live side by
side with the Soviet Republic, both because of its objective position and
because of the economic interests of the capitalist class which are embodied
in it. . . .[1] Further:
. . . the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with
imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must
triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful
collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be
inevitable.[2] He therefore stressed time and again that the socialist state
should maintain constant vigilance against imperialism.
. . . the lesson all workers and peasants must master is that
we must be on our guard and remember that we are surrounded by men, classes
anti- governments openly expressing their extreme hatred for us. We must
remember that we are always at a hair's breadth from all kinds of
invasions.[3] Secondly. Lenin pointed out that it was only through struggle
that the Soviet state was able to live in peace with the imperialist
countries. This was the result of repeated trials of strength between the
imperialist countries and the Soviet state, which adopted a correct policy,
relied on the
page 265
support of the proletariat and oppressed nations of the world and utilized
the contradictions among the imperialists.
Lenin said in November 1919:
That is the way it always is -- when the enemy is beaten, he
begins talking peace. We have told these gentlemen, the imperialists of
Europe, time and again that we agree to make peace, but they continued to
dream of enslaving Russia. Now they have realized that their dreams are not
fated to come true.[1] He pointed out in 1921:
. . . the imperialist powers, with all their hatred of Soviet
Russia and desire to throw themselves upon her, have had to reject this
thought, because the decay of the capitalist world is increasingly advancing,
its unity is becoming less and less, and the pressure of the forces of the
oppressed colonial peoples, with a population of over 1,000 million, is
becoming stronger with each year, each month and even each week.[2] Thirdly, in carrying out the, policy of peaceful coexistence.
Lenin adopted different principles with regard to the different types of
countries in the capitalist world.
He attached particular importance to establishing friendly
relations with countries which the imperialists were bullying and oppressing.
He pointed out that "the fundamental interests of all peoples suffering from
the yoke of imperialism coincide" and that the "world policy of imperialism is
leading to the establishment of closer relations, alliance and friendship
among all the oppressed nations". He said that the peace
page 266
policy of the Soviet state "will increasingly compel the establishment of
closer ties between the R.S.F.S.R. [Russian Soviet Federated Socialist
Republic] and a growing number of neighbouring states".[1]
Lenin also said:
We now set as the main task for ourselves: to defeat the
exploiters and win the waverers to our side -- this task is a world-wide one.
The waverers include a whole series of bourgeois states, which as bourgeois
states hate us, but on the other hand, as oppressed states, prefer peace with
us.[2] As for the basis for peace with the imperialist countries,
such as the United States, he said, "Let the U.S. capitalists refrain from
touching us." "'The obstacle to such a peace?' From our side, there is none.
From the side of the American (and all the other) capitalists, it is
imperialism."[3]
Fourthly, Lenin advanced the policy of peaceful coexistence
as a policy to be pursued by the proletariat in power towards countries with
different social systems. He never made it the sum total of a socialist
country's foreign policy. Time and again Lenin made it clear that the
fundamental principle of this foreign policy was proletarian internationalism.
He said. "Soviet Russia considers it her greatest pride to
help the workers of the whole world in their difficult struggle: for the
overthrow of capitalism."[4]
page 267
In the Decree on Peace issued after the October Revolution,
while proposing an immediate peace without annexation or indemnities to all
the belligerent countries, Lenin called upon the class-conscious workers in
the capitalist countries to help, by comprehensive, determined, and supremely
vigorous action "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 Draft Programme of the Party which Lenin drew up for the
Seventh Congress of the Russian Communist Party laid down explicitly that
"support of the revolutionary movement of the socialist proletariat in the
advanced countries and "support of the democratic and revolutionary movement
in all countries in general, and particularly in the colonies and dependent
countries" constituted the important aspects of the Party's international
policy.[2]
Fifthly, Lenin consistently held that it was impossible for
the oppressed classes and nations to coexist peacefully with the oppressor
classes and nations.
In the "Theses on the Fundamental
Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International", he pointed
out:
. . . the bourgeoisie, even the most educated and democratic,
now no longer hesitates to resort to any fraud or crime, to massacre millions
of workers and peasants in order to save the private ownership of the means of
production."[3] Lenin's conclusions were:
page 268
. . . the very thought of peacefully subordinating the
capitalists to the will of the majority of the exploited, of the peaceful,
reformist transition to Socialism is not only extreme philistine stupidity,
but also downright deception of the workers, the embellishment of capitalist
wage slavery, concealment of the truth.[1] He repeatedly pointed to the hypocrisy of what the
imperialists called the equality of nations. He said:
The League of Nations and the whole postwar policy of the
Entente reveal this truth more clearly and distinctly than ever; they are
everywhere intensifying the revolutionary struggle both of the proletariat in
the advanced countries and of the masses of the working people in the colonial
and dependent countries, and are hastening the collapse of the petty-bourgeois
national illusion that nations can live together in peace and equality under
capitalism.[2] The above constitute Lenin's basic ideas on the policy of
peaceful coexistence.
Stalin upheld Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence. In the
thirty years during which he was the leader of the Soviet Union, he
consistently pursued this policy. It was only when the imperialists and
reactionaries made armed provocations or launched aggressive wars against the
Soviet Union that she had to wage the Great Patriotic War and to fight back in
self-defence.
Stalin pointed out that "our relations with the capitalist
countries are based on the assumption that the coexistence of two opposite
systems is possible" and that "the maintenance
page 269
of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries is an obligatory task
for us".[1]
He also pointed out:
The peaceful coexistence of capitalism and communism is quite
possible provided there is a mutual desire to co-operate, readiness to carry
out undertaken commitments, and observance of the principle of equality and
non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.[2] While upholding Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence,
Stalin firmly opposed withholding support from other people's revolutions in
order to curry favour with imperialism. He forcefully pointed out two opposite
lines in foreign policy, "either one or the other" of which must be followed.
One line was that "we continue to pursue a revolutionary
policy, rallying the proletarians and the oppressed of all countries around
the working class Of the U.S.S.R. -- in which case international capital will
do everything it can to hinder our advance".
The other was that "we renounce our revolutionary policy and
agree to make a number of fundamental concessions to international capital --
in which case international capital, no doubt, will not be averse to
'assisting' us in converting our socialist country into a 'good' bourgeois
republic".
Stalin cited an example. "America demands that we renounce in
principle the policy of supporting the emancipation movement of the working
class in other countries, and says that if we made this concession everything
would go smoothly. . . . perhaps we should make this concession?"
page 270
And he answered in the negative, ". . . we cannot agree to
these or similar concessions without being false to ourselves. . . ."[1]
These remarks of Stalin's are still of great practical
significance. There are indeed two diametrically opposed foreign policies, two
diametrically opposed policies of peaceful coexistence. It is an important
task for all Marxist-Leninists to distinguish between them, uphold Lenin and
Stalin's policy and firmly oppose the policy of betrayal, capitulation and
withholding support from revolution as well as the policy which converts a
socialist country into a "good" bourgeois republic -- policies which Stalin
denounced.
The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU alleges
that the Chinese Communist Party "disbelieves in the possibility of peaceful
coexistence" and slanderously accuses it of opposing Lenin's policy of
peaceful coexistence.
Is this true? No. Of course not.
Anyone who respects facts can see clearly that the Chinese
Communist Party and the Government of the People's Republic of China have
unswervingly pursued Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence with great
success.
Since World War II, a fundamental change has taken place in
the international balance of class forces. Socialism has triumphed in a number
of countries and the socialist camp has come into being. The national
liberation movement is growing apace and there have emerged many nationalist
states which have newly acquired political independence. The imperialist camp
has been greatly weakened and the contradic-
page 271
tions among the imperialist countries are becoming increasingly acute. This
situation provides more favourable conditions for the socialist countries to
carry out the policy of peaceful coexistence towards countries with different
social systems.
In these new historical conditions, the Chinese Communist
Party and the Chinese Government have enriched Lenin's policy of peaceful
coexistence in the course of applying it.
On the eve of the birth of the People's Republic of China,
Comrade Mao Tse-tung said:
. . . we proclaim to the whole world that what we oppose is
exclusively the imperialist system and its plots against the Chinese people.
We are willing to discuss with any foreign government the establishment of
diplomatic relations on the basis of the principles of equality, mutual
benefit and mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, provided
it is willing to sever relations with the Chinese reactionaries, stops
conspiring with them or helping them and adopts an attitude of genuine, and
not hypocritical, friendship towards People's China. The Chinese people wish
to have friendly co-operation with the people of all countries and to resume
and expand international trade in order to develop production and promote
economic prosperity.[1] In accordance with these principles set forth by Comrade Mao
Tsetung, we laid down our foreign policy of peace in explicit terms first in
the Common Programme adopted by the Chinese People's Political Consultative
Conference in September 1949 and subsequently in the Constitution of the
People's Republic of China adopted by the National People's Congress in
September 1954.
In 1954 the Chinese Government initiated the celebrated Five
Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. They are mutual respect for territorial
integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-
page 272
aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and
mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. Together with other Asian and
African countries, we formulated the Ten Principles on the basis of the Five
Principles at the Banding Conference of 1955.
In 1956 Comrade Mao Tse-tung summed up our country's
practical experience in international affairs and further explained the
general principles of our foreign policy.
To achieve a lasting world peace, we must further develop our
friendship and co-operation with the fraternal countries in the camp of
socialism and strengthen our solidarity with all peace-loving countries. We
must endeavour to establish normal diplomatic relations on the basis of mutual
respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty and of equality and mutual
benefit with all countries willing to live together with us in peace. We must
give active support to the national independence and liberation movement in
countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as to the peace movement
and to just struggles in all countries throughout the world.[1] In 1957 he said:
To strengthen our unity With the Soviet Union, to strengthen
our unity with all socialist countries -- this is our fundamental policy,
herein lies our basic interest.
Then, there are the Asian and African countries, and all the
peace-loving countries and peoples -- we must strengthen and develop our unity
with them.
As for the imperialist countries, we should also unite with
their peoples and strive to coexist in peace with these countries, do business
with them and prevent any possible war, but under no circumstances should we
harbour any unrealistic notions about them.[2] page 273
In our foreign affairs over the past fourteen years, we have
adopted different policies towards different types of countries and varied our
policies according to the different conditions in countries of the same type.
1. We differentiate between socialist and capitalist
countries. We persevere in the proletarian internationalist principle of
mutual assistance with regard to socialist countries. We take the upholding
and strengthening of the unity of all the countries in the socialist camp as
the fundamental policy in our foreign relations.
2. We differentiate between the nationalist countries
which have newly attained political independence and the imperialist
countries.
Although fundamentally different from the socialist countries
in their social and political systems, the nationalist countries stand in
profound contradiction to imperialism. They have common interests with the
socialist countries -- opposition to imperialism, the safeguarding of national
independence and the defense of world peace. Therefore, it is quite possible
and feasible for the socialist countries to establish relations of peaceful
coexistence and friendly co-operation with these countries. The establishment
of such relations is of great significance for the strengthening of the unity
of the anti-imperialist forces and for the advancement of the common struggle
of the peoples against imperialism.
We have consistently adhered to the policy of consolidating
and further developing peaceful coexistence and friendly cooperation with
countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. At the same time, we have waged
appropriate and necessary struggles against countries such as India which have
violated or wrecked the Five Principles.
3. We differentiate between the ordinary capitalist
countries and the imperialist countries and also between different imperialist
countries.
As the international balance of class forces grows
increasingly favourable to socialism and as the imperialist forces become
page 274
daily weaker and the contradictions among them daily sharper, it is
possible for the socialist countries to compel one imperialist country or
another to establish some sort of peaceful coexistence with them by relying on
their own growing strength, the expansion of the revolutionary forces of the
peoples, the unity with the nationalist countries and the struggle of all the
peace-loving people, and by utilizing the internal contradictions of
imperialism.
While persevering in peaceful coexistence with countries
having different social systems, we unswervingly perform our proletarian
internationalist duty. We actively support the national liberation movements
of Asia, Africa and Latin America, the working-class movements of Western
Europe, North America and Oceania, the people's revolutionary struggles, and
the people's struggles against the imperialist policies of aggression and war
and for world peace.
In all this we have but one objective in view, that is, with
the socialist camp and the international proletariat as the nucleus, to unite
all the forces that can be united in order to for a broad united front against
U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.
On the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,
the Chinese Government over the past ten years and more has established
friendly relations with many countries having different social systems and
promoted economic and cultural exchanges with them. China has concluded
treaties of friendship, of peace and friendship or of friendship, mutual
assistance and mutual non-aggression with the Yemen, Burma, Nepal,
Afghanistan, Guinea, Cambodia, Indonesia and Ghana. She has successfully
settled her boundary questions with Burma, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.,
questions which were left over by history.
No one can obliterate the great achievements of the Chinese
Communist Party and the Chinese Government in upholding Lenin's policy of
peaceful coexistence.
page 275
In manufacturing the lie that China opposes peaceful
coexistence, the leaders of the CPSU are prompted by ulterior motives. To put
it bluntly, their aim is to draw a veil over their own ugliness in betraying
proletarian internationalism and colluding with imperialism.
It is not we, but the leaders of the CPSU, who in fact
violate Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence.
The leaders of the CPSU have lauded their concept of peaceful
coexistence in superlative terms. What are their main views on the question of
peaceful coexistence?
1. The leaders of the CPSU maintain that peaceful
coexistence is the overriding and supreme principle for solving contemporary
social problems. They assert that it is "the categorical imperative of modern
times" and "the imperious demand of the epoch".[1] They
say that "peaceful coexistence alone is the best and the sole acceptable way
to solve the vitally important problems confronting society"[2] and that the principle of peaceful coexistence should be
made the "basic law of life for the whole of modern society".[3]
2. They hold that imperialism has become willing to
accept peaceful coexistence and is no longer the obstacle to it. They say that
"not a few government and state leaders of Western countries are now also
coming out for peace and peaceful coexistence",[4] and
that they "understand more and
page 276
more clearly the necessity of peaceful coexistence".[1] In
particular they have loudly announced a U.S. President's "admission of the
reasonableness and practicability of peaceful coexistence between countries
with different social systems".[2]
3. They advocate "all-round co-operation" with
imperialist countries, and especially with the United States. They say that
the Soviet Union and the United States "will be able to find a basis for
concerted actions and efforts for the good of all humanity"[3] and can
"march hand in hand for the sake of consolidating peace and establishing real
international co-operation between all states".[4]
4. They assert that peaceful coexistence is "the general
line of foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the countries of the socialist
camp".[5]
5. They also assert that "the principle of peaceful
coexistence determines the general line of foreign policy of the CPSU and
other Marxist-Leninist Parties",[6] that it
is "the basis of the strategy of communism" in the world today, and that all
Communists "have made the struggle for peaceful coexistence the general
principle of their policy".[7]
6. They regard peaceful coexistence as the prerequisite
for victory in the peoples' revolutionary struggles. They hold that the
victories won by the people of different countries have
page 277
been achieved under "conditions of peaceful coexistence between states with
different social systems".[1] They
assert that "it was precisely in conditions of peaceful coexistence between
states with different social systems that the socialist revolution triumphed
in Cuba, that the Algerian people gained national independence, that more than
forty countries won national independence, that the fraternal Parties grew in
number and strength, and that the influence of the world communist movement
increased".[2]
7. They hold that peaceful coexistence is "the best way
of helping the international revolutionary labour movement achieve its basic
class aims".[3] They
declare that under peaceful coexistence the possibility of a peaceful
transition to socialism in capitalist countries has grown. They believe,
moreover, that the victory of socialism in economic competition "will mean
delivering a crushing blow to the entire system of capitalist
relationships".[4] They state
that "when the Soviet people enjoy the blessings of communism, new hundreds of
millions of people on earth will say: 'We are for communism!'"[5] and that
by then even capitalists may "go over to the Communist Party".
Just consider. What do these views have in common with
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence?
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence is one followed by a
socialist country in its relations with countries having different social
systems, whereas Khrushchov describes peaceful coexistence as the supreme
principle governing the life of modern society.
page 278
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence constitutes one aspect
of the international policy of the proletariat in power, whereas Khrushchev
stretches peaceful coexistence into the general line of foreign policy for the
socialist countries and even further into the general line for all Communist
Parties.
Lenins policy of peaceful coexistence was directed against
the imperialist policies of aggression and war, whereas Khrushchov's peaceful
coexistence caters to imperialism and abets the imperialist policies of
aggression and war.
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence is based on the
standpoint of international class struggle, whereas Khrushchov's peaceful
coexistence strives to replace international class struggle with international
class collaboration.
Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence proceeds from the
historical mission of the international proletariat and therefore requires the
socialist countries to give firm support to the revolutionary struggles of all
the oppressed peoples and nations while pursuing this policy, whereas
Khrushchov's peaceful coexistence seeks to replace the proletarian world
revolution with pacifism and thus renounces proletarian internationalism.
Khrushchov has changed the policy of peaceful coexistence
into one of class capitulation. In the name of peaceful coexistence, he has
renounced the revolutionary principles of the Declaration of 1957 and the
Statement of 1960, robbed Marxism-Leninism of its revolutionary soul, and
distorted and mutilated it beyond recognition.
This is a brazen betrayal of Marxism-Leninism!
On the question of peaceful coexistence the difference
between the leaders of the CPSU, on the one hand, and ourselves and all
Marxist-Leninist Parties and indeed all Marxist-Leninists, on the other, is
not whether socialist countries should
page 279
pursue the policy of peaceful coexistence. It is an issue of principle
concerning the correct attitude towards Lenin's policy of peaceful
coexistence. It manifests itself mainly in three questions.
The first question is: In order to attain peaceful
coexistence, is it necessary to ravage struggles against imperialism and
bourgeois reaction? Is it possible through peaceful coexistence to abolish the
antagonism and struggle between socialism and imperialism?
Marxist-Leninists consistently maintain that as far as the
socialist countries are concerned, there is no obstacle to the practice of
peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems. The
obstacles always come from the imperialists and the bourgeois reactionaries.
The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence were advanced to
combat the imperialist policies of aggression and war. Under these principles,
it is impermissible in international relations to encroach upon the territory
and sovereignty of other countries, interfere in their internal affairs,
impair their interests and equal status or wage aggressive wars against them.
But it is in the very nature of imperialism to commit aggression against other
countries and nations and to desire to enslave them. As long as imperialism
exists, its nature will never change. That is why intrinsically the
imperialists are unwilling to accept the Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence. Whenever possible, they try to disrupt and destroy the socialist
countries and they commit aggression against other countries and nations and
try to enslave them.
History shows that it is only owing to unfavourable objective
causes that the imperialists dare not risk starting a war against the
socialist countries, or are forced to agree to an armistice and to accept some
sort of peaceful coexistence.
History also shows that there have always been sharp and
complex struggles between the imperialist and socialist countries, which have
sometimes culminated in direct military conflicts or wars. When hot wars are
not in progress, the
page 280
imperialists wage cold wars, which they have been ceaselessly waging ever
since the end of World War II. In fact, the imperialist and the socialist
countries have been in a state of cold-war coexistence. At the same time as
they actively expand their armaments and prepare for war, the imperialist
countries use every means to oppose the socialist countries politically,
economically and ideologically, and even make military provocations and war
threats against them. The imperialists' cold war against the socialist
countries and the latter's resistance to it are manifestations of the
international class struggle.
The imperialists push on with their plans of aggression and
war not only against the socialist countries but throughout the world. They
try to suppress the revolutionary movements of the oppressed peoples and
nations.
In these circumstances, the socialist countries, together
with the people of all other countries, must resolutely combat the imperialist
policies of aggression and war and wage a tit-for-tat struggle against
imperialism. This class struggle inevitably goes on, now in an acute and now
in a relaxed form.
But Khrushchev is impervious to these inexorable facts. He
proclaims far and wide that imperialism has already admitted the necessity of
peaceful coexistence, and he regards the anti-imperialist struggles of the
socialist countries and of the people of the world as incompatible with the
policy of peaceful coexistence.
In Khrushchov's opinion, a socialist country has to make one
concession after another and keep on yielding to the imperialists and the
bourgeois reactionaries even when they subject it to military threats and
armed attack or make humiliating demands which violate its sovereignty and
dignity.
By this logic, Khrushchov describes his incessant retreats,
his bartering away of principles and docile acceptance of the U.S.
imperialists' humiliating demands during the Caribbean crisis as "a victory of
peaceful coexistence".
page 281
By the same logic, Khrushchov describes China's adherence to
correct principles on the Sino-Indian boundary question and her counter-attack
against the military onslaught of the Indian reactionaries, an act of
self-defence by China when the situation became intolerable, as "a violation
of peaceful coexistence".
At times, Khrushenov also talks about struggle between the
two different social systems. But how does he see this struggle?
He has said, "The inevitable struggle between the two systems
must be made to take the form exclusively of a struggle of ideas. . . ."[1]
Here the political struggle has disappeared!
He has also said:
The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence of states with
differing socio-economic and political systems does not mean just an absence
of war, a temporary state of unstable ceasefire. It presupposes the
maintenance between these states of friendly economic and political relations,
it envisages the establishment and development of various forms of peaceful
international co-operation.[2] Here, struggle has disappeared altogether!
Like a conjurer, Khrushchov plays one trick after another,
first reducing major issues to minor ones, and then minor issues to naught. He
denies the basic antagonism between the socialist and capitalist systems, he
denies the fundamental contradiction between the socialist and the imperialist
camps, and he denies the existence of international class struggle. And so he
transforms peaceful coexistence between the two systems and the two camps into
"all-round co-operation".
page 282
The second question is: Can peaceful coexistence be made
the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries?
We hold that the general line of foreign policy for socialist
countries must embody the fundamental principle of their foreign policy and
comprise the fundamental content of this policy.
What is this fundamental principle? It is proletarian
internationalism.
Lenin said, "The foreign policy of the proletariat is
alliance with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries and with all the
oppressed nations against all and any imperialists."[1] This
principle of proletarian internationalism advanced by Lenin should be the
guide for the foreign policy of socialist countries.
Since the formation of the socialist camp, every socialist
country has had to deal with three kinds of relations in its foreign policy,
namely, its relations with other socialist countries, with countries having
different social systems, and with the oppressed peoples and nations.
In our view, the following should therefore be the content of
the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries: to develop
relations of friendship, mutual assistance and cooperation among the countries
of the socialist camp in accordance with the principle of proletarian
internationalism; to strive for peaceful coexistence on the basis of the Five
Principles with countries having different social systems and oppose the
imperialist policies of aggression and war; and to support and assist the
revolutionary struggles of all the oppressed peoples and nations. These three
aspects are interrelated and not a single one can be omitted.
The leaders of the CPSU have one-sidedly reduced the general
line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries to
page 283
peaceful coexistence. We would like to ask: How should a socialist country
handle its relations with other socialist countries? Should it merely maintain
relations of peaceful coexistence with them?
Of course, socialist countries, too, must abide by the Five
Principles in their mutual relations. It is absolutely impermissible for any
one of them to undermine the territorial integrity of another fraternal
country, to impair its independence and sovereignty, interfere in its internal
affairs, carry on subversive activities inside it, or violate the principle of
equality and mutual benefit in its relations with another fraternal country.
But merely to carry out these principles is far from enough. The 1957
Declaration states:
These are vital principles. However, they do not exhaust the
essence of relations between them. Fraternal mutual aid is part and parcel of
these relations. This aid is a striking expression of socialist
internationalism. In making peaceful coexistence the general line of foreign
policy, the leaders of the CPSU have in fact liquidated the proletarian
internationalist relations of mutual assistance and co-operation among
socialist countries and put the fraternal socialist countries on a par with
the capitalist countries. This amounts to liquidating the socialist camp.
The leaders of the CPSU have one-sidedly reduced the general
line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries to peaceful coexistence.
We would like to ask: How should a socialist country handle its relations with
the oppressed peoples and nations? Should the relationship between the
proletariat in power and its class brothers who have not yet emancipated
themselves or between it and all oppressed peoples and nations be one of
peaceful coexistence alone and not of mutual help?
After the October Revolution, Lenin repeatedly stressed that
the land of socialism, which had established the dictatorship
page 284
of the proletariat, was a base for promoting the proletarian world
revolution. Stalin, too, said:
The revolution which has been victorious in one country must
regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means
for hastening the victory of the proletariat in all countsries.[1] He added that "it constitutes . . . a mighty base for its further
development [i.e., of the world revolution]".[2]
In their foreign policy, therefore, socialist countries can
in; no circumstances confine themselves to handling relations with countries
having different social systems, but must also correctly handle the relations
among themselves and their relations with the oppressed peoples and nations.
They must make support of the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples
and nations their internationalist duty and an important component of their
foreign policy.
In contrast with Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchov makes peaceful
coexistence the general line of foreign policy for socialist countries and, in
so doing, excludes from this policy the proletarian internationalist task of
helping the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. So
far from being a "creative development" of the policy of peaceful coexistence,
this is a betrayal of proletarian internationalism on the pretext of peaceful
coexistence.
The third question is: Can the policy of peaceful
coexistence of the socialist countries be the general line for all Communist
Parties and for the international communist movement? Can it be substituted
for the people's revolution?
We maintain that peaceful coexistence connotes a relationship
between countries with different social systems, between independent sovereign
states. Only after victory in the revolution is it possible and necessary for
the proletariat to
page 285
pursue the policy of peaceful coexistence. As for oppressed peoples and
nations, their task is to strive for their own liberation and overthrow the
rule of imperialism and its lackeys. They should not practise peaceful
coexistence with the imperialists and their lackeys, nor is it possible for
them to do so.
It is therefore wrong to apply peaceful coexistence to the
relations between oppressed and oppressor classes and between oppressed and
oppressor nations, or to stretch the socialist countries' policy of peaceful
coexistence so as to t make it the policy of the Communist Parties and the
revolutionary people in the capitalist world, or to subordinate the
revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations to it.
We have always held that the correct application of Lenin's
policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries helps to develop
their power, to expose the imperialist policies of aggression and war and to
unite all the anti-imperialist peoples and countries, and it therefore helps
the people's struggles against imperialism and its lackeys. At the same time,
by directly hitting and weakening the forces of aggression, war and reaction,
the people's revolutionary struggles against imperialism and its lackeys help
the cause of world peace and human progress, and therefore help the socialist
countries' struggle for peaceful coexistence with countries having different
social systems. Thus, the correct application of Lenin's policy of peaceful
coexistence by the socialist countries is in harmony with the interests of the
people's revolutionary struggles in all countries.
However, the socialist countries' struggle for peaceful
coexistence between countries with different social systems and the people's
revolution in various countries are two totally different things.
In its letter of June 14 replying
to the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Central Committee of the CPC states:
page 286
. . . it is one thing to practise peaceful coexistence
between countries with different social systems. It is absolutely
impermissible and impossible for countries practising peaceful coexistence to
touch even a hair of each other's social system. The class struggle, the
struggle for national liberation and the transition from capitalism to
socialism in various countries are quite another thing. They are all bitter,
life-and-death revolutionary struggles which aim at changing the social
system. Peaceful coexistence cannot replace the revolutionary struggles of the
people. The transition from capitalism to socialism in any country can only be
brought about through the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the
proletariat in that country. In a class society it is completely wrong to regard peaceful
coexistence as "the best and the sole acceptable way to solve the vitally
important problems confronting society" and as the "basic law of life for the
whole of modern society". This is social pacifism which repudiates class
struggle. It is an outrageous betrayal of Marxism-Leninism.
Back in 1946, Comrade Mao Tse-tung differentiated between the
two problems and explicitly stated that compromise between the Soviet Union
and the United States, Britain and France on certain issues "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]
This is a correct Marxist-Leninist policy. Guided by this
correct policy of Comrade Mao Tse-tung's, the Chinese people firmly and
determinedly carried the revolution through to the end and won the great
victory of their revolution.
Acting against this Marxist-Leninist policy, the leaders of
the CPSU equate one aspect of the policy to be pursued by
page 287
the proletariat in power in its state relations with countries having
different social systems with the general line of all the Communist Parties,
and they try to substitute the former for the latter, demanding that Communist
Parties and revolutionary peoples should all follow what they call the general
line of peaceful coexistence. Not desiring revolution themselves, they forbid
others to make it. Not opposing imperialism themselves, they forbid others to
oppose it.
This the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU and
Khrushchov's recent remarks have strenuously denied. It has been asserted that
it is "a monstrous slander" to accuse the leaders of the CPSU of extending
peaceful coexistence to relations between the oppressed and oppressor classes
and between the oppressed and oppressor nations. They have even hypocritically
stated that peaceful coexistence "cannot be extended to the class struggle
against capital within the capitalist countries and to national liberation
movement".
But such prevarication is futile.
We should like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since the
policy of peaceful coexistence constitutes only one aspect of the foreign
policy of socialist countries, why have you asserted until recently that it
represents "the strategic line for the whole period of transition from
capitalism to socialism on a world scale"?[1] In
requiring the Communist Parties of all the capitalist countries and of the
oppressed nations to make peaceful coexistence their general line, are you not
aiming at replacing the revolutionary line of the Communist Parties with your
policy of "peaceful coexistence" and wilfully applying that policy to the
relations between oppressed and oppressor classes and between oppressed and
oppressor nations?
We should also like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since the
peoples win victory in their revolutions by relying primarily on their own
struggles, how can such victory be attrib-
page 288
uted to peaceful coexistence or described as its outcome? Do not such
allegations of yours mean the subordination of the revolutionary struggles of
the peoples to your policy of peaceful coexistence?
We should further like to ask the leaders of the CPSU:
Economic successes in socialist countries and the victories they score in
economic competition with capitalist countries undoubtedly play an exemplary
role and are an inspiration to oppressed peoples and nations. But how can it
be said that socialism will triumph on a worldwide scale through peaceful
coexistence and peaceful competition instead of through the revolutionary
struggles of the peoples?
The leaders of the CPSU advertise reliance on peaceful
coexistence and peaceful competition as being enough to "deliver a crushing
blow to the entire system of capitalist relationships" and bring about
worldwide peaceful transition to socialism. This is equivalent to saying that
the oppressed peoples and nations have no need to wage struggles, make
revolution and overthrow the reactionary rule of imperialism and colonialism
and their lackeys, and that they should just wait quietly -- until the
production levels and living standards of the Soviet Union outstrip those of
the most developed capitalist countries, when the oppressed and exploited
slaves throughout the world would be able to enter communism together with
their oppressors and exploiters. Is this not an attempt on the part of the
leaders of the CPSU to substitute what they call peaceful coexistence for the
revolutionary struggles of the peoples and to liquidate such struggles?
An analysis of these three questions makes it clear that our
difference with the leaders of the CPSU is a major difference of principle. In
essence it boils down to this. Our policy of peaceful coexistence is Leninist
and is based on the principle of proletarian internationalism, it contributes
to the cause of opposing imperialism and defending world peace and accords
with the interests of the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and
nations the world over; whereas
page 289
the so-called general line of peaceful coexistence pursued by the leaders
of the CPSU is anti-Leninist, it abandons the principle of proletarian
internationalism, damages the cause of opposing imperialism and defending
world peace, and runs counter to the interests of the revolutionary struggles
of the oppressed peoples and nations.
The general line of peaceful coexistence pursued by the
leaders of the CPSU is firmly rejected by all Marxist-Leninist Parties and
revolutionary people but is warmly praised by the imperialists.
The spokesmen of Western monopoly capital make no secret of
their appreciation of this general line of the leaders of the CPSU. They see
in Khrushchov "the West's best friend in Moscow"[1] and
say that "Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev acts like an American
politicians".[2] They say, "Comrade Khrushchev is
considered, as far as the free world is concerned, the best Prime Minister the
Russians have. He genuinely believes in peaceful coexistence."[3] They declare that "this possibility of better
Soviet-American relations has led to the feeling in U.S. State Department
circles that, within certain limits, the U.S. should facilitate Khrushchev's
task".[4]
The imperialists have always been hostile to the socialist
countries' policy of peaceful coexistence, exclaiming that "the
page 290
very phrase 'coexistence is both weird and presumptuous" and that "let us
relegate to the scrap heap the concept of a transitory and uneasy
coexistence".[1] Why do
they now show so much interest in Khrushchov's general line of peaceful
coexistence? Because the imperialists are clear on its usefulness to them.
The U.S. imperialists have invariably adopted the dual
tactics of war and peace in order to attain their strategic objectives of
liquidating the people's revolutions, eliminating the socialist camp and
dominating the world. When they find the international situation growing
uniavourable to them, they need to resort increasingly to peace tricks while
continuing their arms expansion and war preparations.
In 1958 John Foster Dulles proposed that the United States
should dedicate itself to "a noble strategy" of "peaceful triumph."[2]
After assuming office, Kennedy continued and developed
Dulles' "strategy of peace" and talked a great deal about "peaceful
coexistence". He said, ". . . we need a much better weapon than the H-bomb . .
. and that better weapon is peaceful co-operation."[3]
Does this mean that the U.S. imperialists genuinely accept
peaceful coexistence, or, in the words of the leaders of the CPSU, admit "the
reasonableness and practicability of peaceful coexistence"? Of course not.
A little serious study makes it easy to see the real meaning
and purpose of "peaceful coexistence" as advocated by the U.S. imperialists.
What is its real meaning and purpose?
page 291
1. In the name of peaceful coexistence, the U.S.
imperialists try to tie the hands of the Soviet Union and the other socialist
countries and forbid them to support the revolutionary struggles of the people
in the capitalist world.
Dulles said:
The Soviet Government could end the "cold war", so far as it
is concerned, if it would free itself from the guiding direction of
international communism and seek primarily the welfare of the Russian nation
and people. Also the "cold war" would come to an end if international
communism abandoned its global goals. . . .[1] Kennedy stated that if U.S.-Soviet relations were to be
improved, the Soviet Union would have to abandon the plan of "communizing the
entire world" and "look only to its national interest and to providing a
better life for its people under conditions of peace".[2]
Dean Rusk has put the point even more bluntly. "There can be
no assured and lasting peace until the communist leaders abandon their goal of
a world revolution." He has also said that there are "signs of restiveness"
among the Soviet leaders "about the burdens and risks of their commitments to
the world communist movement". And he has even asked the Soviet leaders to "go
on from these, by putting aside the illusion of a world communist
triumph".[3]
The meaning of these words is only too clear. The U.S.
imperialists describe the revolutionary struggles by the oppressed peoples and
nations in the capitalist world for their own emancipation as being the
outcome of attempts by the socialist countries to "communize the entire
world". They say to the Soviet leaders: Do you wish to live in peace with
page 292
the United States? Very well! But on condition that you must not support
the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations in the
capitalist world and must see to it that they will not rise in revolution.
According to the wishful thinking of the U.S. imperialists, this will leave
them free to stamp out the revolutionary movements in the capitalist world and
to dominate and enslave its inhabitants, who comprise two-thirds of the
world's population.
2. In the name of peaceful coexistence, the U.S.
imperialists try to push ahead with their policy of "peaceful evolution"
vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and to restore
capitalism there.
Dulles said, "The renunciation of force . . . implies, not
the maintenance of the status quo, but peaceful change."[1] "It is not
sufficient to be defensive. Freedom must be a positive force that will
penetrate."[2] "We hope
to encourage an evolution within the Soviet world."[3]
Eisenhower asserted that whatever the United States could do
by peaceful means would be done, "in order that those people who are held in
bondage by a tyrannical dictatorship might finally have the right to determine
their own fates by their own free votes".4
Kennedy said that the "task is to do all in our power to see
that the changes taking place . . . in the Soviet empire, on all continents --
lead to more freedom for more men and to world peace".[5]
He declared that he would "pursue a policy of patiently encouraging freedom
and carefully pressuring
page 293
tyranny" towards the socialist countries in Eastern Europe, so as to
provide "free choice" for the people of those countries.[1]
The meaning of these words, too, is very clear. The U.S.
imperialists malign the socialist system as "dictatorial" and "tyrannical" and
describe the restoration of capitalism as "free choice". They say to the
Soviet leaders: Do you wish to live in peace with the United States? Very
well! But this does not mean we recognize the status quo in the
socialist countries; on the contrary, capitalism must be restored there. In
other words, the U.S. imperialists will never reconcile themselves to the fact
that one-third of the world's population has taken the socialist road, and
they will always attempt to destroy all the socialist countries.
Briefly, what the U.S. imperialists call peaceful coexistence
amounts to this: no people living under imperialist domination and enslavement
may strive for liberation, all who have already emancipated themselves must
again come under imperialist domination and enslavement, and the whole world
must be incorporated into the American "world community of free nations".
It is easy to see why the general line of peaceful
coexistence of the leaders of the CPSU is exactly to the taste of U.S.
imperialism.
On the pretext of peaceful coexistence, the leaders of the
CPSU do their best to curry favour with U.S. imperialism and constantly
proclaim that the representatives of U.S. imperialism "are concerned about
peace"; this exactly serves its fraudulent peace policy.
On the pretext of peaceful coexistence, the leaders of the
CPSU apply the policy of peaceful coexistence to the relations between
oppressed and oppressor classes and between oppressed and oppressor nations,
and they oppose revolution and try to liquidate it; this exactly suits the
U.S. imperialists'
page 294
requirement that the socialist countries should not support peoples
revolutions in the capitalist world.
On the pretext of peaceful coexistence, the leaders of the
CPSU try to substitute international class collaboration for international
class struggle and advocate "all-round co-operation" between socialism and
imperialism, thus opening the door to imperialist penetration of the socialist
countries; this exactly suits the needs of the U.S. imperialist policy of
"peaceful evolution".
The imperialists have always been our best teachers by
negative example. Let us here cite extracts from two speeches by Dulles after
the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
He stated:
. . . I had said . . . that there was evidence within the
Soviet Union of forces toward greater liberalism. . . .
. . . if these forces go on and continue to gather momentum
within the Soviet Union, then we can think, and reasonably hope, I said within
a decade or perhaps a generation, that we would have what is the great goal of
our policy, that is, a Russia which is governed by people who are responsive
to the wishes of the Russian people, who had given up their predatory
world-wide ambitions to rule and who conform to the principles of civilized
nations and such principles as are embodied in the Charter of the United
Nations.[1] He also stated:
. . . the long-range prospect -- indeed, I would say the
long-range certainty -- is that there will be an evolution of the present
policies of the Soviet rulers so that they will become more nationalist and
less internationalist.[2] Apparently, Dulles' ghost has been haunting the betrayers of
Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and
page 295
they have become so obsessed with the so-called general line of peaceful
coexistence that they do not pause to consider how well their actions accord
with the desires of U.S. imperialism.
While harping on peaceful coexistence in recent years, the
leaders of the CPSU have in fact not only violated the principle of
proletarian internationalism but even failed to conform to the Five Principles
of Peaceful Coexistence in their attitude towards China and a number of other
socialist countries. To put it plainly, their ceaseless advocacy of peaceful
coexistence as the general line of their foreign policy amounts to a demand
that all the socialist countries and the Communist Parties must submit to
their long-cherished dream of Soviet-U.S. collaboration.
The heart and soul of the general line of peaceful
coexistence pursued by the leaders of the CPSU is Soviet-U.S. collaboration
for the domination of the world.
Just look at the extraordinary statements they have made:
"The two greatest modern powers, the Soviet Union and the
United States, have left far behind any other country in the world."[1]
"Each of these two powers is leading a large group of nations
-- the Soviet Union leading the world socialist system and the United States
the capitalist camp."[2]
"We [the Soviet Union and the United States] are the
strongest countries in the world and if we unite for peace there can
page 296
be no war. Then if any madman wanted war, we would but have to shake our
fingers to warn him off."[1]
". . . if there is agreement between N. S. Khrushchov, the
head of the Soviet Government, and John Kennedy, the Presi- W dent of the
United States, there will be a solution of international problems on which
mankind's destinies depend."[2]
We would like to ask the leaders of the CPSU: Since the
1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement say clearly that U.S. imperialism is
the sworn enemy of the people of the world and the main force making for
aggression and war, how can you "unite" with the main enemy of world peace to
"safe-guard peace"?
We would like to ask them: Can it be that more than a
hundred countries and over three thousand million people have no right to
decide their own destiny? Must they submit to the manipulations of the two
"giants", the two "greatest powers", the Soviet Union and the United States?
Isn't this arrogant nonsense of yours an expression of great-power chauvinism
and power politics pure and simple?
We would also like to ask them: Do you really imagine that if
only the Soviet Union and the United States reached agreement, if only the two
"great men" reached agreement, the destiny of mankind would be decided and all
international issues settled? You are wrong, hopelessly wrong. From time
immemorial, things have never happened in this way, and they are much less
likely to do so in the nineteen sixties. The world today is full of complex
contradictions, the contradiction between the socialist and the imperialist
camps, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the
capitalist countries, the contradiction between the oppressed nations and
imperialism, and the contradictions among the imperialist countries and among
the monopoly capitalist groups in,
page 297
the imperialist countries. Would these contradictions disappear once the
Soviet Union and the United States reached agreement?
The only country the leaders of the CPSU look up to is the
United States. In their pursuit of Soviet-U.S. collaboration. they do not
scruple to betray the Soviet people's true allies, including their class
brothers and all the oppressed peoples and nations still living under the
imperialist-capitalist system.
The leaders of the CPSU are trying hard to wreck the
socialist camp. They use every kind of lie and slander against the Chinese
Communist Party and exert political and economic pressure on China. As for
socialist Albania, nothing short of its destruction would satisfy them. Hand
in hand with U.S. imperialism, they brought pressure to bear upon
revolutionary Cuba, making demands on it at the expense of its sovereignty and
dignity.
The leaders of the CPSU are trying hard to sabotage the
revolutionary struggles of the peoples against imperialism and its lackeys.
They are acting as preachers of social reformism and are sapping the
revolutionary fighting will of the proletariat and its political party in
various countries. To cater to the needs of imperialism, they are undermining
the national liberation movement and becoming more and more shameless
apologists of U.S. neo-colonialism.
What do the leaders of the CPSU get from U.S. imperialism in
return for all their strenuous efforts and for the high price they pay in
pursuit of Soviet-U.S. collaboration?
Since 1959, Khrushchov has become obsessed with summit
meetings between the Soviet Union and the United States. He has had many fond
dreams and spread many illusions about them. He has extolled Eisenhower as "a
big man" who "understands big politics".[1] He has
enthusiastically praised Kennedy as one who "understands the great
responsibility that
page 298
lies with the governments of two such powerful states".[1] The
leaders of the CPSU made a big fuss about the so-called spirit of Camp David
and proclaimed the Vienna meeting to be "an a event of historic significance".
The Soviet press claimed that once the heads of the Soviet Union and the
United States sat at the same table, history would arrive at a "new turning
point", and that a handshake between the two "great men" would usher in a "new
era" in international relations.
But how does U.S. imperialism treat the leaders of the CPSU?
A little over a month after the Camp David talks, Eisenhower declared, "I
wasn't aware of any spirit of Camp David." And seven months after the talks he
sent a U-2 spy plane to intrude into the Soviet Union, thus wrecking the
four-power summit conference. Not long after the Vienna meeting, Kennedy put
forward the following insolent conditions for twenty years of peace between
the Soviet Union and the United States: no support by the Soviet Union for any
people's revolutionary struggles, and the restoration of capitalism in the
socialist countries of Eastern Europe. A year or more after the Vienna meeting
Kennedy ordered the piratical military blockade of Cuba and created the
Caribbean crisis.
Searching high and low among the quick and the dead, where
can one find the much vaunted "spirit of Camp David", "turning point in the
history of mankind" and "new era in international relations"?
After the signing of the tripartite treaty on the partial
nuclear test ban, the leaders of the CPSU gave great publicity to the
so-called spirit of Moscow. They spoke of the need to "strike while the iron
is hot", asserted that "all the favourable conditions are there" for the
Soviet Union and the United States to reach further agreements, and declared
that it was bad to take the attitude that "time can wait" or "there is no
hurry".[2]
page 299
What is the "spirit of Moscow"? Let us look at recent events.
To create more of an atmosphere of "Soviet-U.S.
co-operation", the leaders of the CPSU held a rally in Moscow in celebration
of the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations
between the Soviet Union and the United States. At the same time, they sent a
cultural delegation to the United States for celebrations there. But what came
of the enthusiasm of the leaders of the CPSU? The entire staff of the U.S.
Embassy in the Soviet Union refused to attend the Moscow rally, and the U.S.
State Department issued a special memorandum asking the American public to
boycott the Soviet cultural delegation, whom they denounced as "extremely
dangerous and suspicious people".
While the leaders of the CPSU were advocating "Soviet-U.S.
cooperation", the United States sent the agent Barghoorn to carry on
activities in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Government very properly arrested
this agent. But, after Kennedy made the threat that the success of the wheat
deal between the United States and the Soviet Union "depends upon a reasonable
atmosphere in both countries", which he said had been "badly damaged by the
Barghoorn arrest", the Soviet Government hurriedly released this U.S. agent
without any trial, on the grounds of "the concern of the U.S. high officials
over F. C. Barghoorn's fate", over the fate of an agent who the investigation
confirmed . . . had been engaged in intelligence activities against the
U.S.S.R.".
Are all these manifestations of the "spirit of Moscow"? If
so, it is indeed very sad.
Moscow! Bright capital of the first socialist country and
glorious name cherished by so many millions of people throughout the world
since the Great October Revolution! Now this name is being used by the leaders
of the CPSU to cover up their foul practice of collaboration with the U.S.
imperialists. What an unprecedented shame!
page 300
All too often have the leaders of the CPSU said fine things
about the U.S. imperialists and begged favours from them; all too often have
they lost their temper with fraternal countries and Parties and put pressure
on them; all too many are the tricks and deceptions they have practised on the
revolutionary people in various countries -- solely in order to beg for
"friendship" and "trust" from U.S. imperialism. But "while the drooping
flowers pine for love, the heartless brook babbles on". All that the leaders
of the CPSU have received from the U.S. imperialists is humiliation, again
humiliation, always humiliation!
PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE
-- TWO DIAMETRICALLY
OPPOSED POLICIES
Sixth Comment on the Open Letter of
the Central Committee
of the CPSU
(People's
Daily ) and Hongqi (Red Flag )
(December 12, 1963)
SINCE the 20th Congress
of the CPSU Khrushchov and other comrades have talked more about the question
of peaceful coexistence than about anything else.
COEXISTENCE
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The War Program of the
Proletarian Revolution", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow,
1950, Vol. I, Part 2, p. 571.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Draft Resolution on the Current Moment
in Politics", Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXV,
pp. 291-92.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Report of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)
at the Eighth Party Congress", Selected Works, Eng. ed., International
Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, pp. 33.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Report on War and Peace, Delivered to the Seventh Congress of the Russian
Communist Party (Bolsheviks), March 7, 1918", Selected Works, Eng. ed.,
FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 422.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Report of the Central Committee of the
Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) at the Eighth Party Congress, March 18,
1919", Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York,
1943, Vol. VIII, p. 33.
[3]
V. I. Lenin. "On the Domestic and Foreign Policies of the Republic, Report
Delivered at the Ninth All-Russian Congress of Soviets", Collected
Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, SPPL, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 122.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Speech Delivered at the First All-Russian Conference on Party Work in the
Countryside", Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry, Eng.
ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 326.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Speech at the Conclusion of the Tenth
National Conference of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)", Collected
Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXII, pp. 412-13.
[1] V. I. Lenin.
"The Work of the Council of People's Commissars, Report Delivered at the
Eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets", Selected Works, Eng. ed.,
International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, pp. 251 and
252.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Report
on the Work of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of
People's Commissars", Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950,
Vol. XXX, p. 299.
[3] V. I.
Lenin, "Reply to Questions by the Correspondent of the American Newspaper,
New York Evening Journal ", Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL.
Moscow. 1950, Vol. XXX, p. 340.
[4] V. I. Lenin. "To the Fourth World Congress of the
Comintern and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and Red Army Deputies",
Collected Works, Russ. ed., SPPL, Moscow, 1950, Vol. XXXIII, p. 379.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"Report on Peace", delivered at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of
Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,
Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 331.
[2] V. I. Lenin, "Rough Draft of a Programme", delivered
at the Seventh Congress of Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Selected
Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943, Vol. VIII, p.
334.
[3] V. I. Lenin,
Selected Works, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, 1943,
Vol. X, p. 164.
[1]
Ibid.
[2] V. I. Lenin.
"Preliminary Draft of
Theses on the National and Colonial Questions", Selected Works,
Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 464.
[1] J. V. Stalin,
"Political Report of the Central Committee", delivered at the Fifteenth
Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Works, Eng. ed., FLPH Moscow, 1954, Vol.
X, p. 296.
[2] J. V. Stalin,
"Replies to Questions of American Editors" Pravda, April 2, 1952.
LENIN'S POLICY OF PEACEFUL
COEXISTENCE
[1] J. V. Stalin,
"The Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central
Control Commission", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1954, Vol. XI, pp.
58, 59 and 60.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"Address to the Preparatory Committee of the New Political Consultative
Conference", Selected Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p.
408.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"Opening Address to the Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of
China".
[2] Mao Tse-tung,
On the Correct Handling of
Contradictions Among the People.
COEXISTENCE" OF THE CPSU LEADERS
[1] B. N.
Ponomaryov, "Victorious Banner of the Communists of the World", Pravda,
November 18, 1962.
[2] A.
Rumyantsev, "Our Common Ideological Weapon", World Marxist Review, No.
1, 1962.
[3] N. S.
Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 23, 1960.
[4] N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the
Gadjah Mada University, Djokjakarta, Indonesia, February 21, 1960.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, January
1960.
[2] "On the Interview
of the U.S. President J. Kennedy", editorial board article in Izvestia,
December 4, 1961.
[3]
Telegram of Greetings from N. S. Khrushchov and L. I. Brezhnev to J. F.
Kennedy, December 30, 1961.
[4] N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the U.N. General
Assembly, September 23, 1960.
[5] N. S. Khrushchov, Speech at the Reception Given by
the Embassy of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the Soviet Union,
July 5, 1961.
[6] B. N.
Ponomaryov, "Some Problems of the Revolutionary Movement", World Marxist
Review, No. 12, 1962.
[7]
"Peaceful Coexistence and Revolution", Kommunist, Moscow, No. 29, 1962.
[1] B. N.
Ponomaryov, "A New Stage in the General Crisis of Capitalism", Pravda,
Februaly 8, 1961.
[2] Letter of the Central
Committee of the CPSU to the Central Committee of the CPC, March 30,
1963.
[3] Open Letter of the
Central Committee of the CPSU to All Party Organizations, to All Communists of
the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963.
[4] B. N. Ponomaryov, "Some Problems of the Revolutionary
Movement", World Marxist Review, No. 12, 1962.
[5] Programme of the CPSU, adopted by the 22nd
Congress of the CPSU.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Report to the Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, January
1960.
[2] N. S. Khrushchov,
"Answers to the Questions of the Austrian Professor Hans Thirring",
Pravda, January 3, 1962.
[1] V. I. Lenin,
"The Foreign Policy of the
Russian Revolution", Collected Works, Eng. ed., Progress
Publishers, Moscow, 1964, Vol. XXV, p. 87.
[1] J. V. Stalin,
"The October Revolution and
the Tactics of the Russian Communists", Works, Eng. ed., FLPH,
Moscow, 1953, Vol. VI, p. 415.
[2] Ibid., p. 419.
[1] Mao Tse-tung,
"Some Points in Appraisal of the Present International Situation, Selected
Works, Eng. ed., FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 87.
[1] "For the Unity
and Solidarity of the International Communist Movement", editorial board
article in Pravda, December 6. 1963.
"PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE" CATERS TO
U.S. IMPERIALISM
[1] "How Nice Must
We Be to Nikita?" in the U.S. magazine Time, March 9, 1962.
[2] W. A. Harriman, Television
Interview, August 18, 1963.
[3] "Kennedy Helps Khrushchev", in the British magazine
Time and Tide, April 18-24, 1963.
[4] Agence France Presse dispatch from Washington, July
14, 1963, on U.S. government officials' comment on the Open Letter of the
CPSU.
[1] Former U.S.
Under-Secretary of State Douglas Dillon's address on U.S. foreign policy,
April 20, 1960.
[2] J. F.
Dulles, Speech Before the California State Chamber of Commerce, December 4,
1958.
[3] J. F. Kennedy
Speech at the U.N. General Assembly, September 20, 1963.
[1] J. F. Dulles,
Speech Before the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee,
January 28, 1959.
[2] J. F.
Kennedy, Interview with A. I. Adzhubei, Editor-in-Chief of Izvestia,
November 25, 1961.
[3] Dean
Rusk, Address at the National Convention of the American Legion, September 10,
1963.
[1] J. F. Dulles,
Address to the Award Dinner of the New York State Bar Association, January 31,
1959.
[2] J. F. Dulles,
Speech Before the California State Chamber of Commerce, December 4,
1958.
[3] J. F. Dulles,
Testimony Before the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee,
January 28, 1959.
[4] D. D.
Eisenhower, Speech at the Polish-American Congress at Chicago, September 30,
1960.
[5] J. F. Kennedy,
The Strategy of Peace, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1960, p. 199.
[1] J. F. Kennedy,
Speech at the Polish-American Congress at Chicago October 1, 1960.
[1] J. F. Dulles.
Press Conference. May 15, 1956.
[2] J. F. Dulles, Press Conference. October 28, 1958.
SOUL OF THE CPSU
LEADERS' GENERAL LINE
OF "PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE"
[1] N. N.
Yakovlev, "After 30 Years . . .", a pamphlet written for the 30th anniversary
of Soviet-American diplomatic relations.
[2] Ibid.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov Interview with the U.S. Correspondent C. L. Sulzberger, September 5
1961, Pravda, September 10, 1961.
[2] A. A. Gromyko, Speech at the Session of the Supreme
Soviet of the USSR, December 13, 1962.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Speech at the Luncheon Given in His Honour by the Mayor of New
York, September 17, 1959.
[1] N. S.
Khrushchov, Radio and Television Speech, June 15, 1961.
[2] "Time Cannot Wait", article by observer in
Izvestia, August 21, 1963.