(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement"

A Proposal Concerning the General Line 
of the International Communist 

Movement 



The Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in Reply to 
the Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of 

March 30, 1963 

June 14, 1963 



Peking 
Foreign Languages Press, 1963 



The Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of the Soviet Union 

Dear Comrades, 

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has studied the letter of the 
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of March 30, 1963. 

All who have the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement 
at heart are deeply concerned about the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties and 
hope that our talks will help to eliminate differences, strengthen unity and create 
favorable conditions for convening a meeting of representatives of all the Communist and 
Workers' Parties. 

It is the common and sacred duty of the Communist and Workers' Parties of all countries 
to uphold and strengthen the unity of the international communist movement. The 
Chinese and Soviet Parties bear a heavier responsibility for the unity of the entire 
socialist camp and international communist movement and should of course make 
commensurately greater efforts. 

A number of major differences of principle now exist in the international communist 
movement. But however serious these differences, we should exercise sufficient patience 
and find ways to eliminate them so that we can unite our forces and strengthen the 
struggle against our common enemy. 

It is with this sincere desire that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China 
approaches the forthcoming talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties. 

In its letter of March 30, the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. systematically presents 
its views on questions that need to be discussed in the talks between the Chinese and 
Soviet Parties, and in particular raises the question of the general line of the international 
communist movement. In this letter we too would like to express our views, which 
constitute our proposal on the general line of the international communist movement and 
on some related questions of principle. 

We hope that this exposition of views will be conducive to mutual understanding by our 
two Parties and to a detailed, point-by-point discussion in the talks. 

We also hope that this will be conducive to the understanding of our views her the 
fraternal Parties and to a full exchange of ideas at an international meeting of fraternal 
Parties. 

(1) The general line of the international communist movement must take as its guiding 
principle the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory concerning the historical mission of 
the proletariat and must not depart from it. 



The Moscow Meetings of 1957 and 1960 adopted the Declaration and the Statement 
respectively after a full exchange of views and in accordance with the principle of 
reaching unanimity through consultation. The two documents point out the characteristics 
of our epoch and the common laws of socialist revolution and socialist construction, and 
day down the common line of all the Communist and Workers' Parties. They are the 
common programme of the international communist movement. 

It is true that for several years there have been differences within the international 
communist movement in the understanding of, and the attitude towards, the Declaration 
of 1957 and the Statement of 1960. The central issue here is whether or not to accept the 
revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement. In the last analysis, it is a 
question of whether or not to accept the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism, whether or 
not to recognize the universal significance of the road of the October Revolution, whether 
or not to accept the fact that the people still living under the imperialist and capitalist 
system, who comprise two-thirds of the world's population, need to make revolution, and 
whether or not to accept the fact that the people already on the socialist road, who 
comprise one-third of the world's population, need to carry their revolution forward to the 
end. 

It has become an urgent and vital task of the international communist movement 
resolutely to defend the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 
Statement. 

Only by strictly following the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the 
general road of the October revolution is it possible to have a correct understanding of the 
revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement and a correct attitude 
towards them. 

(2) What are the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement? They may 
be summarized as follows: 

Workers of all countries, unite; workers of the world, unite with the oppressed peoples 
and oppressed nations; oppose imperialism and reaction in all countries; strive for world 
peace, national liberation, people's democracy and socialism; consolidate and expand the 
socialist camp; bring the proletarian world revolution step by step to complete victory; 
and establish a new world without imperialism, without capitalism and without the 
exploitation of mall by man. 

This, in our view, is the general line of the international communist movement at the 
present stage. 

(3) This general line proceeds from the actual world situation taken as a whole and from a 
class analysis of the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world, and is 
directed against the counter-revolutionary global strategy of U.S. imperialism. 



This general line is one of forming a broad united front, with the socialist camp and the 
international proletariat as its nucleus, to oppose the imperialists and reactionaries headed 
by the United States; it is a line of boldly arousing the masses, expanding the 
revolutionary forces, winning over the middle forces and isolating the reactionary forces. 

This general line is one of resolute revolutionary struggle by the people of all countries 
and of carrying; the proletarian world revolution forward to the end; it is the line that 
most effectively combats imperialism and defends world peace. 

If the general line of the international communist movement is one-sidedly reduced to 
"peaceful coexistence", "peaceful competition," and "peaceful transition" this is to violate 
the revolutionary principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement, to discard 
the historical mission of proletarian world revolution, and to depart from the 
revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism. 

The general line of the international communist movement should reflect the general law 
of development of world history. The revolutionary struggles of the proletariat and the 
people in various countries go through different stages and they all have their own 
characteristics but they will not transcend the general law of development of world 
history. The general line should point out the basic direction for the revolutionary 
struggles of the proletariat and people of all countries. 

While working out its specific line and policies, it is most important for each Communist 
or Workers' Party to adhere to the principle of integrating the universal truth of Marxism- 
Leninism with the concrete practice of revolution and construction in its own country. 

(4) In defining the general line of the international communist movement, the starting 
point is the concrete class analysis of world politics and economics as a whole and of 
actual world conditions, that is to say, of the fundamental contradictions in the 
contemporary world. 

If one avoids a concrete class analysis, seizes at random on certain superficial 
phenomena, and draws subjective and groundless conclusions, one cannot possibly reach 
correct conclusions with regard to the general line of the international communist 
movement but will inevitably slide onto a track entirely different from that of Marxism- 
Leninism. What are the fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world? Marxist- 
Leninists consistently hold that they are: 

the contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp; 

the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the 
capitalist countries; 

the contradiction between the oppressed nations and imperialism; and 



the contradictions among imperialist countries and among monopoly 
capitalist groups. 

The contradiction between the socialist camp and the imperialist camp is a contradiction 
between two fundamentally different social systems, socialism and capitalism. It is 
undoubtedly very sharp. But Marxist-Leninists must not regard the contradictions in the 
world as consisting solely and simply of the contradiction between the socialist camp and 
the imperialist camp. The international balance of forces has changed and has become 
increasingly favorable to socialism and to all the oppressed peoples and nations of the 
world, and most unfavorable to imperialism and the reactionaries of all countries. 
Nevertheless, the contradictions enumerated above still objectively exist. 

These contradictions and the struggles to which they give rise are interrelated and 
influence each other. Nobody can obliterate any of these fundamental contradictions or 
subjectively substitute one for all the rest. 

It is inevitable that these contradictions will give rise to popular revolutions, which alone 
can resolve them. 

(5) The following erroneous views should be repudiated on the question of the 
fundamental contradictions in the contemporary world: 

a) the view which blots out the class content of the contradiction between the socialist 
and the imperialist camps and fails to see this contradiction as one between states under 
the dictatorship of the proletariat and states under the dictatorship of the monopoly 
capitalists 

b) the view which recognizes only the contradiction between the socialist and the 
imperialist camps, while neglecting or underestimating the contradictions between the 
proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the capitalist world between the oppressed nations and 
imperialism, among the imperialist countries and among the monopoly capitalist groups, 
and the struggles to which these contradictions give rise; 

c) the view which maintains with regard to the capitalist world that the contradiction 
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can be resolved without a proletarian 
revolution in each country and that the contradiction between the oppressed nations and 
imperialism can be resolved without revolution by the oppressed nations; 

d) the view which denies that the development of the inherent contradictions in the 
contemporary capitalist world inevitably leads to a new situation in which the imperialist 
countries are locked in an intense struggle and asserts that the contradictions among the 
imperialist countries can be reconciled, or even eliminated, by "international agreements 
among the big monopolies"; and 

e) the view which maintains that the contradiction between the two world systems of 
socialism and capitalism will automatically disappear in the course of "economic 



competition", that the other fundamental world contradictions will automatically do so 
with the disappearance of the contradiction between the two systems, and that a "world 
without wars", a new world of "all-round co-operation", will appear. 

It is obvious that these erroneous views inevitably lead to erroneous and harmful policies 
and hence to setbacks and losses of one kind or another to the cause of the people and of 
socialism. 

(6) The balance of forces between imperialism and socialism has undergone a 
fundamental change since World War II. The main indication of this change is that the 
world now has not just one socialist country but a number of socialist countries forming 
the mighty socialist camp, and that the people who have taken the socialist road now 
number not two hundred million but a thousand million, or a third of the world's 
population. 

The socialist camp is the outcome of the struggles of the international proletariat and 
working people. It belongs to the international proletariat and working people as well as 
to the people of the socialist countries. 

The main common demands of the people of the countries in the socialist camp and the 
international proletariat and working people are that all the Communist and Workers' 
Parties in the socialist camp should: 

Adhere to the Marxist-Leninist line and pursue correct Marxist-Leninist 
domestic and foreign policies; 

Consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the worker-peasant 
alliance led by the proletariat and carry the socialist revolution forward to 
the end on the economic, political and ideological fronts; 

Promote the initiative and creativeness of the broad masses, carry out 
socialist construction in a planned way, develop production, improve the 
people's livelihood and strengthen national defense; 

Strengthen the unity of the socialist camp on the basis of Marxism- 
Leninism, and support other socialist countries on the basis of proletarian 
internationalism; 

Oppose the imperialist policies of aggression and war, and defend world 
peace; 

Oppose the anti-Communist, anti-popular and counter-revolutionary 
policies of the reactionaries of all countries; and 

Help the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed classes and nations of 
the world. 



All Communist and Workers' Parties in the socialist camp owe it to their own people and 
to the international proletariat and working people to fulfil these demands. 

By fulfilling these demands the socialist camp will exert a decisive influence on the 
course of human history. For this very reason, the imperialists and reactionaries 
invariably try in a thousand and one ways to influence the domestic and foreign policies 
of the countries in the socialist camp, to undermine the camp and break up the unity of 
the socialist countries and particularly the unity of China and the Soviet Union. They 
invariably try to infiltrate and subvert the socialist countries and even entertain the 
extravagant hope of destroying the socialist camp. 

The question of what is the correct attitude towards the socialist camp is a most important 
question of principle confronting all Communist and Workers' Parties. 

It is under new historical conditions that the Communist and Workers' Parties are now 
carrying on the task of proletarian internationalist unity and struggle. When only one 
socialist country existed and when this country was faced with hostility and jeopardized 
by all the imperialists and reactionaries because it firmly pursued the correct Marxist- 
Leninist line and policies, the touchstone of proletarian internationalism for every 
Communist Party was whether or not it resolutely defended the only socialist country. 
Now there is a socialist camp consisting of thirteen countries, Albania, Bulgaria, China, 
Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union and the 
Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Under these circumstances, the touchstone of 
proletarian internationalism for every Communist Party is whether or not it resolutely 
defends the whole of the socialist camp, whether or not it defends the unity of all the 
countries in the camp on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and whether or not it defends 
the Marxist-Leninist line and policies which the socialist countries ought to pursue. 

If anybody does not pursue the correct Marxist-Leninist line and policies, does not defend 
the unity of the socialist camp but on the contrary creates tension and splits within it, or 
even follows the policies of the Yugoslav revisionists, tries to liquidate the socialist camp 
or helps capitalist countries to attack fraternal socialist countries, then he is betraying the 
interests of the entire international proletariat and the people of the world. 

If anybody, following in the footsteps of others, defends the erroneous opportunist line 
and policies pursued by a certain socialist country instead of upholding the correct 
Marxist-Leninist line and policies which the socialist countries ought to pursue, defends 
the policy of split instead of upholding the policy of unity, then he is departing from 
Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 

(7) Taking advantage of the situation after World War II, the U.S. imperialists stepped 
into the shoes of the German, Italian and Japanese fascists, and have been trying to erect 
a huge world empire such as has never been known before. The strategic objectives of 
U.S. imperialism have been to grab and dominate the intermediate zone lying between 
the United States and the socialist camp, put down the revolutions of the oppressed 



peoples and nations, proceed to destroy the socialist countries, and thus to subject all the 
peoples and countries of the world, including its allies, to domination and enslavement by 
U.S. monopoly capital. 

Ever since World War II, the U.S. imperialists have been conducting propaganda for war 
against the Soviet Union and the socialist camp. There are two aspects to this 
propaganda. While the U.S. imperialists are actually preparing such a war, they also use 
this propaganda as a smokescreen for their oppression of the American people and for the 
extension of their aggression against the rest of the capitalist world. 

The 1960 Statement points out: 

"U.S. imperialism has become the biggest international exploiter." 

"The United States is the mainstay of colonialism today." 

"U.S. imperialism is the main force of aggression and war." 

"International developments in recent years have furnished many new proofs of the fact 
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." 

U.S. imperialism is pressing its policies of aggression and war all over the world, but the 
outcome is bound to be the opposite of that intended—it will only be to hasten the 
awakening of the people in all countries and to hasten their revolutions. 

The U.S. imperialists have thus placed themselves in opposition to the people of the 
whole world and have become encircled by them. The international proletariat must and 
can unite all the forces that can be united, make use of the internal contradictions in the 
enemy camp and establish the broadest united front against the U.S. imperialists and their 
lackeys. 

The realistic and correct course is to entrust the fate of the people and of mankind to the 
unity and struggle of the world proletariat and to the unity and struggle of the people in 
all countries. 

Conversely, to make no distinction between enemies, friends and ourselves and to entrust 
the fate of the people and of mankind to collaboration with U.S. imperialism is to lead 
people astray. The events of the last few years have exploded this illusion. 

(8) The various types of contradictions in the contemporary world are concentrated in the 
vast areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America; these are the most vulnerable areas under 
imperialist rule and the storm centers of world revolution dealing direct blows at 
imperialism. 



The national democratic revolutionary movement in these areas and the international 
socialist revolutionary movement are the two great historical currents of our time. 

The national democratic revolution in these areas is an important component of the 
contemporary proletarian world revolution. 

The anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the people in Asia, Africa and Latin 
America are pounding and undermining the foundations of the rule of imperialism and 
colonialism, old and new, and are now a mighty force in defense of world peace. 

In a sense, therefore, the whole cause of the international proletarian revolution hinges on 
the outcome of the revolutionary struggles of the people of these areas who constitute the 
overwhelming majority of the world's population. 

Therefore, the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the people in Asia, Africa and 
Latin America is definitely not merely a matter of regional significance but one of overall 
importance for the whole cause of proletarian world revolution. 

Certain persons now go so far as to deny the great international significance of the anti- 
imperialist revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and, 
on the pretext of breaking down the barriers of nationality, color and geographical 
location, are trying their best to efface the line of demarcation between oppressed and 
oppressor nations and between oppressed and oppressor countries and to hold down the 
revolutionary struggles of the peoples in these areas. In fact, they cater to the needs of 
imperialism and create a new "theory" to justify the rule of imperialism in these areas and 
the promotion of its policies of old and new colonialism. Actually, this "theory" seeks not 
to break down the barriers of nationality, color and geographical location but to maintain 
the rule of the "superior nations" over the oppressed nations. It is only natural that this 
fraudulent "theory" is rejected by the people in these areas. 

The working class in every socialist country and in every capitalist country must truly put 
into effect the fighting slogans, "Workers of all countries, unite!" and "Workers and 
oppressed nations of the world, unite!"; it must study the revolutionary experience of the 
peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, firmly support their revolutionary actions and 
regard the cause of their liberation as a most dependable support for itself and as directly 
in accord with its own interests. This is the only effective way to break down the barriers 
of nationality, color and geographical location and this is the only genuine proletarian 
internationalism. 

It is impossible for the working class in the European and American capitalist countries 
to liberate itself unless it unites with the oppressed nations and unless those nations are 
liberated. Lenin rightly said, 

The revolutionary movement in the advanced countries would actually be 
a sheer fraud if, in their struggle against capital, the workers of Europe and 
America were not closely and completely united with the hundreds upon 



hundreds of millions of "colonial" slaves who are oppressed by capital. 
[Lenin, "The Second Congress of the Communist International", Selected 
Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 
2, pp. 472-73.] 

Certain persons in the international communist movement are now taking a passive or 
scornful or negative attitude towards the struggles of the oppressed nations for liberation. 
They are in fact protecting the interests of monopoly capital, betraying those of the 
proletariat, and degenerating into social democrats. 

The attitude taken towards the revolutionary struggles of the people in the Asian, African 
and Latin American countries is an important criterion for differentiating those who want 
revolution from those who do not and those who are truly defending world peace from 
those who are abetting the forces of aggression and war. 

(9) The oppressed nations and peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America are faced with 
the urgent task of fighting imperialism and its lackeys. 

History has entrusted to the proletarian parties in these areas the glorious mission of 
holding high the banner of struggle against imperialism, against old and new colonialism 
and for national independence and people's democracy, of standing in the forefront of the 
national democratic revolutionary movement and striving for a socialist future. 

In these areas, extremely broad sections of the population refuse to be slaves of 
imperialism. They include not only the workers, peasants, intellectuals and petty 
bourgeoisie, but also the patriotic national bourgeoisie and even certain kings, princes 
and aristocrats, who are patriotic. 

The proletariat and its party must have confidence in the strength of the masses and, 
above all, must unite with the peasants and establish a solid worker-peasant alliance. It is 
of primary importance for advanced members of the proletariat to work in the rural areas, 
help the peasants to act organized, and raise their class consciousness and their national 
self-respect and self-confidence. 

On the basis of the worker-peasant alliance the proletariat and its party must unite all the 
strata that can be united and organize a broad united front against imperialism and its 
lackeys. In order to consolidate and expand this united front it is necessary that the 
proletarian party should maintain its ideological, political and organizational 
independence and insist on the leadership of the revolution. 

The proletarian party and the revolutionary people must learn to master all forms of 
struggle, including armed struggle. They must defeat counter-revolutionary armed force 
with revolutionary armed force whenever imperialism and its lackeys resort to armed 
suppression. 



The nationalist countries which have recently won political independence are still 
confronted with the arduous tasks of consolidating it, liquidating the forces of 
imperialism and domestic reaction, carrying out agrarian and other social reforms and 
developing their national economy and culture. It is of practical and vital importance for 
these countries to guard and fight against the neo-colonialist policies which the old 
colonialists adopt to preserve their interests, and especially against the neo-colonialism of 
U.S. imperialism. 

In some of these countries, the patriotic national bourgeoisie continue to stand with the 
masses in the struggle against imperialism and colonialism and introduce certain 
measures of social progress. This requires the proletarian party to make a full appraisal of 
the progressive role of the patriotic national bourgeoisie and strengthen unity with them. 

As the internal social contradictions and the international class struggle sharpen, the 
bourgeoisie, and particularly the big bourgeoisie, in some newly independent countries 
increasingly tend to become retainers of imperialism and to pursue anti-popular, anti- 
Communist and counter-revolutionary policies. It is necessary for the proletarian party 
resolutely to oppose these reactionary policies. 

Generally speaking, the bourgeoisie in these countries have a dual character. When a 
united front is formed with the bourgeoisie, the policy of the proletarian party should be 
one of both unity and struggle. The policy should be to unite with the bourgeoisie, in so 
far as they tend to be progressive, anti-imperialist and anti-feudal, but to struggle against 
their reactionary tendencies to compromise and collaborate with imperialism and the 
forces of feudalism. 

On the national question the world outlook of the proletarian party is internationalism, 
and not nationalism. In the revolutionary struggle it supports progressive nationalism and 
opposes reactionary nationalism. It must always draw a clear line of demarcation between 
itself and bourgeois nationalism, to which it must never fall captive. 

The 1960 Statement says, 

Communists expose attempts by the reactionary section of the bourgeoisie 
to represent its selfish, narrow class interests as those of the entire nation; 
they expose the demagogic use by bourgeois politicians of socialist 
slogans for the same purpose. . . . 

If the proletariat becomes the tail of the landlords and bourgeoisie in the revolution, no 
real or thorough victory in the national democratic revolution is possible, and even if 
victory of a kind is gained, it will be impossible to consolidate it. 

In the course of the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and peoples, the 
proletarian party must put forward a programme of its own which is thoroughly against 
imperialism and domestic reaction and for national independence and people's 
democracy, and it must work independently among the masses, constantly expand the 



progressive forces, win over the middle forces and isolate the reactionary forces; only 
thus can it carry the national democratic revolution through to the end and guide the 
revolution on to the road of socialism. 

(10) In the imperialist and the capitalist countries, the proletarian revolution and the 
dictatorship of the proletariat are essential for the thorough resolution of the 
contradictions of capitalist society. 

In striving to accomplish this task the proletarian party must under the present 
circumstances actively lead the working class and the working people in struggles to 
oppose monopoly capital, to defend democratic rights, to oppose the menace of fascism, 
to improve living conditions, to oppose imperialist arms expansion and war preparations, 
to defend world peace and actively to support the revolutionary struggles of the 
oppressed nations. 

In the capitalist countries which U.S. imperialism controls or is trying to control, the 
working class and the people should direct their attacks mainly against U.S. imperialism, 
but also against their own monopoly capitalists and other reactionary forces who are 
betraying the national interests. 

Large-scale mass struggles in the capitalist countries in recent years have shown that the 
working class and working people are experiencing a new awakening. Their struggles, 
which are dealing blows at monopoly capital and reaction, have opened bright prospects 
for the revolutionary cause in their own countries and are also a powerful support for the 
revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples and for the 
countries of the socialist camp. 

The proletarian parties in imperialist or capitalist countries must maintain their own 
ideological, political and organizational independence in leading revolutionary struggles. 
At the same time, they must unite all the forces that can be united and build a broad 
united front against monopoly capital and against the imperialist policies of aggression 
and war. 

While actively leading immediate struggles, Communists in the capitalist countries 
should link them with the struggle for long-range and general interests, educate the 
masses in a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary spirit, ceaselessly raise their political 
consciousness and undertake the historical task of the proletarian revolution. If they fail 
to do so, if they regard the immediate movement as everything, determine their conduct 
from case to case, adapt themselves to the events of the day and sacrifice the basic 
interests of the proletariat, that is out-and-out social democracy. 

Social democracy is a bourgeois ideological trend. Lenin pointed out long ago that the 
social democratic parties are political detachments of the bourgeoisie, its agents in the 
working-class movement and its principal social prop. Communists must at all times 
draw a clear line of demarcation between themselves and social democratic parties on the 
basic question of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and 



liquidate the ideological influence of social democracy in the international working-class 
movement and among the working people. Beyond any shadow of doubt, Communists 
must win over the masses under the influence of the social democratic parties and must 
win over those left and middle elements in the social democratic parties who are willing 
to oppose domestic monopoly capital and domination by foreign imperialism and must 
unite with them in extensive joint action in the day-to-day struggle of the working-class 
movement and in the struggle to defend world peace. 

In order to lead the proletariat and working people in revolution, Marxist-Leninist Parties 
must master all forms of struggle and be able to substitute one form for another quickly 
as the conditions of struggle change. The vanguard of the proletariat will remain 
unconquerable in all circumstances only if it masters all forms of struggle— peaceful and 
armed, open and secret, legal and illegal, parliamentary struggle and mass struggle, etc. It 
is wrong to refuse to use parliamentary and other legal forms of struggle when they can 
and should be used. However, if a Marxist-Leninist Party falls into legalism or 
parliamentary cretinism, confining the struggle within the limits permitted by the 
bourgeoisie, this will inevitably lead to renouncing the proletarian revolution and the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. 

(11) On the question of transition from capitalism to socialism, the proletarian party must 
proceed from the stand of class struggle and revolution and base itself on the Marxist- 
Leninist teachings concerning the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the 
proletariat. 

Communists would always prefer to bring about the transition to socialism by peaceful 
means. But can peaceful transition be made into a new world-wide strategic principle for 
the international communist movement? Absolutely not. 

Marxism-Leninism consistently holds that the fundamental question in all revolutions is 
that of state power. The 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement both clearly point out, 
"Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling classes never relinquish 
power voluntarily." The old government never topples even in a period of crisis, unless it 
is pushed. This is a universal law of class struggle. 

In specific historical conditions, Marx and Lenin did raise the possibility that revolution 
may develop peacefully. But, as Lenin pointed out, the peaceful development of 
revolution is an opportunity "very seldom to be met with in the history of revolutions". 

As a matter of fact, there is no historical precedent for peaceful transition from capitalism 
to socialism. 

Certain persons say there was no precedent when Marx foretold that socialism would 
inevitably replace capitalism. Then why can we not predict a peaceful transition from 
capitalism to socialism despite the absence of a precedent? This parallel is absurd. 
Employing dialectical and historical materialism, Marx analyzed the contradictions of 
capitalism, discovered the objective laws of development of human society and arrived at 



a scientific conclusion, whereas the prophets who pin all their hopes on "peaceful 
transition" proceed from historical idealism, ignore the most fundamental contradictions 
of capitalism, repudiate the Marxist-Leninist teachings on class struggle, and arrive at a 
subjective and groundless conclusion. How can people who repudiate Marxism get any 
help from Marx? 

It is plain to everyone that the capitalist countries are strengthening their state machinery- 
-and especially their military apparatus—the primary purpose of which is to suppress the 
people in their own countries. 

The proletarian party must never base its thinking, its policies for revolution and its entire 
work on the assumption that the imperialists and reactionaries will accept peaceful 
transformation. 

The proletarian party must prepare itself for two eventualities— while preparing for a 
peaceful development of the revolution, it must also fully prepare for a non-peaceful 
development. It should concentrate on the painstaking work of accumulating 
revolutionary strength, so that it will be ready to seize victory when the conditions for 
revolution are ripe or to strike powerful blows at the imperialists and the reactionaries 
when they launch surprise attacks and armed assaults. 

If it fails to make such preparations, the proletarian party will paralyze the revolutionary 
will of the proletariat, disarm itself ideologically and sink into a totally passive state of 
unpreparedness both politically and organizationally, and the result will be to bury the 
proletarian revolutionary cause. 

(19) All social revolutions in the various stages of the history of mankind are historically 
inevitable and are governed by objective laws independent of man's will. Moreover, 
history shows that there never was a revolution which was able to achieve victory without 
zigzags and sacrifices. 

With Marxist-Leninist theory as the basis, the task of the Proletarian party is to analyze 
the concrete historical conditions, put forward the correct strategy and tactics, and guide 
the masses in bypassing hidden reefs, avoiding unnecessary sacrifices and reaching the 
goal step by step. Is it possible to avoid sacrifices altogether? Such is not the case with 
the slave revolutions, the serf revolutions, the bourgeois revolutions, or the national 
revolutions; nor is it the case with proletarian revolutions. Even if the guiding line of the 
revolution is correct, it its impossible to have a sure guarantee against setbacks and 
sacrifices in the course of the revolution. So long as a correct line is adhered to, the 
revolution is bound to triumph in the end. To abandon revolution on the pretext of 
avoiding sacrifices is in reality to demand that the people should forever remain slaves 
and endure infinite pain and sacrifice. 

Elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that the birth pangs of a revolution 
are far less painful than the chronic agony of the old society. Lenin rightly said that "even 
with the most peaceful course of events, the present [capitalist] system always and 



inevitably exacts countless sacrifices from the working class". [Lenin, "Another 
Massacre", Collected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1961, Vol. V. p. 25. ] 

Whoever considers a revolution can be made only if everything is plain sailing, only if 
there is an advance guarantee against sacrifices and failure, is certainly no revolutionary. 

However difficult the conditions and whatever sacrifices and defeats the revolution may 
suffer, proletarian revolutionaries should educate the masses in the spirit of revolution 
and hold aloft the banner of revolution and not abandon it 

It would be "Left" adventurism if the proletarian party should rashly launch a revolution 
before the objective conditions are ripe. But it would be Right opportunism if the 
proletarian party should not dare to lead a revolution and to seize state power when the 
objective conditions are ripe. 

Even in ordinary times, when it is leading the masses in the day-to-day struggle, the 
proletarian party should ideologically, politically and organizationally prepare its own 
ranks and the masses for revolution and promote revolutionary struggles, so that it will 
not miss the opportunity to overthrow the reactionary regime and establish a new state 
power when the conditions for revolution are ripe. Otherwise, when the objective 
conditions are ripe, the proletarian party will simply throw away the opportunity of 
seizing victory. 

The proletarian party must be flexible as well as highly principled, and on occasion it 
must make such compromises as are necessary in the interests of the revolution. But it 
must never abandon principled policies and the goal of revolution on the pretext of 
flexibility and of necessary compromises. 

The proletarian party must lead the masses in waging struggles against the enemies, and 
it must know how to utilize the contradictions among those enemies. But the purpose of 
using these contradictions is to make it easier to attain the goal of the people's 
revolutionary struggles and not to liquidate these struggles. 

Countless facts have proved that, wherever the dark rule of imperialism and reaction 
exists, the people who form over ninety per cent of the population will sooner or later rise 
in revolution. 

If Communists isolate themselves from the revolutionary demands of the masses, they are 
bound to lose the confidence of the masses and will be tossed to the rear by the 
revolutionary current. 

If the leading group in any Party adopt a non-revolutionary line and convert it into a 
reformist party, then Marxist-Leninists inside and outside the Party will replace them and 
lead the people in making revolution. In another kind of situation, the bourgeois 
revolutionaries will come forward to lead the revolution and the party of the proletariat 
will forfeit its leadership of the revolution. When the reactionary bourgeoisie betray the 



revolution and suppress the people, an opportunist line will cause tragic and unnecessary 
losses to the Communists and the revolutionary masses. 

If Communists slide down the path of opportunism they will degenerate into bourgeois 
nationalists and become appendages of the imperialists and the reactionary bourgeoisie. 

There are certain persons who assert that they have made the greatest creative 
contributions to revolutionary theory since Lenin and that they alone are correct. But it is 
very dubious whether they have ever really given consideration to the extensive 
experience of the entire world communist movement, whether they have ever really 
considered the interests, the goal and tasks of the international proletarian movement as a 
whole, and whether they really have a general line for the international communist 
movement which conforms with Marxism-Leninism. 

In the last few years the international communist movement and the national liberation 
movement have had many experiences and many lessons. There are experiences which 
people should praise and there are experiences which make people grieve. Communists 
and revolutionaries in all countries should ponder and seriously study these experiences 
of success and failure, so as to draw correct conclusions and useful lessons from them. 

(13) The socialist countries and the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and 
nations support and assist each other. 

The national liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin America and the 
revolutionary movements of the people in the capitalist countries are a strong support to 
the socialist countries. It is completely wrong to deny this. 

The only attitude for the socialist countries to adopt towards the revolutionary struggles 
of the oppressed peoples and nations is one of warm sympathy and active support; they 
must not adopt a perfunctory attitude, or one of national selfishness or of great-power 
chauvinism. 

Lenin said, "Alliance with the revolutionaries of the advanced countries and with all the 
oppressed peoples against any and all the imperialists— such is the external policy of the 
proletariat." [Lenin, "The External Policy of the Russian Revolution", Collected Works, 
4th Russian edition, State Publishing House for Political literature, 1949, Moscow. Vol. 
XXV, p. 69.] Whoever fails to understand this point and considers that the support and 
aid given by the socialist countries to the oppressed peoples and nations are a burden or 
charity is going counter to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 

The superiority of the socialist system and the achievements of the socialist countries in 
construction play an exemplary role and are an inspiration to the oppressed peoples and 
the oppressed nations. 



But this exemplary role and inspiration can never replace the revolutionary struggles of 
the oppressed peoples and nations. No oppressed people or nation can win liberation 
except through its own staunch revolutionary struggle. 

Certain persons have one-sidedly exaggerated the role of peaceful competition between 
socialist and imperialist countries in their attempt to substitute peaceful competition for 
the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations. According to their 
preaching, it would seem that imperialism will automatically collapse in the course of this 
peaceful competition and that the only thing the oppressed peoples and nations have to do 
is to wait quietly for the advent of this day. What does this have in common with 
Marxist-Leninist views? 

Moreover, certain persons have concocted the strange tale that China and some other 
socialist countries want "to unleash wars" and to spread socialism by "wars between 
states". As the Statement of 1960 points out, such tales are nothing but imperialist and 
reactionary slanders. To put it bluntly, the purpose of those who repeat these slanders is 
to hide the fact that they are opposed to revolutions by the oppressed peoples and nations 
of the world and opposed to others supporting such revolutions. 

(14) In the last few years much— in fact a great deal— has been said on the question of war 
and peace. Our views and policies on this question are known to the world, and no one 
can distort them. 

It is a pity that although certain persons in the international communist movement talk 
about how much they love peace and hate war, they are unwilling to acquire even a faint 
understanding of the simple truth on war pointed out by Lenin. 

Lenin said, 

It seems to me that the main thing that is usually forgotten on the question 
of war, which receives inadequate attention, the main reason why there is 
so much controversy, and, I would say, futile, hopeless and aimless 
controversy, is that people forget the fundamental question of the class 
character of the war; why the war broke out; the classes that are waging it; 
the historical and historico-economic conditions that gave rise to it. 
[Lenin, "War and Revolution", Collected Works, 4th Russian edition, 
SPHPL, Moscow, 1949, Vol. XXIV, p. 362] 

As Marxist-Leninists see it, war is the continuation of politics by other means, and every 
war is inseparable from the political system and the political struggles which give rise to 
it. If one departs from this scientific Marxist-Leninist proposition which has been 
confirmed by the entire history of class struggle, one will never be able to understand 
either the question of war or the question of peace. 

There are different types of peace and different types of war. Marxist-Leninists must be 
clear about what type of peace or what type of war is in question. Lumping just wars and 



unjust wars together and opposing all of them undiscriminatingly is a bourgeois pacifist 
and not a Marxist-Leninist approach. 

Certain persons say that revolutions are entirely possible without war. Now which type of 
war are they referring to— is it a war of national liberation or a revolutionary civil war, or 
is it a world war? 

It they are referring to a war of national liberation or a revolutionary civil war, then this 
formulation is, in effect, opposed to revolutionary wars and to revolution. 

If they are referring to a world war, then they are shooting at a non-existent target. 
Although Marxist-Leninists have pointed out, on the basis of the history of the two world 
wars, that world wars inevitably lead to revolution, no Marxist-Leninist ever has held or 
ever will hold that revolution must be made through world war. 

Marxist-Leninists take the abolition of war as their ideal and believe that war can be 
abolished. 

But how can war be abolished? 

This is how Lenin viewed it: 

. . . our object is to achieve the socialist system of society, which, by 
abolishing the division of mankind into classes, by abolishing all 
exploitation of man by man, and of one nation by other nations, will 
inevitably abolish all possibility of war. [Ibid., p. 363] 

The Statement of 1960 also puts it very clearly, "The victory of socialism all over the 
world will completely remove the social and national causes of all wars." 

However, certain persons now actually hold that it is possible to bring about "a world 
without weapons, without armed forces and without wars" through "general and complete 
disarmament" while the system of imperialism and of the exploitation of man by man still 
exists. This is sheer illusion. 

An elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism tells us that the armed forces are the 
principal part of the state machine and that a so-called world without weapons and 
without armed forces can only be a world without states. Lenin said: 

Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, 
without betraying its world-historical mission, to throw all armaments on 
the scrap heap; and the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when 
this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before. [Lenin, "The War 
Program of the Proletarian Revolution", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 
1952, Vol. I, Part 2, P. 574.] 



What are the facts in the world today? Is there a shadow of evidence that the imperialist 
countries headed by the United States are ready to carry out general and complete 
disarmament? Are they not each and all engaged in general and complete arms 
expansion? 

We have always maintained that, in order to expose and combat the imperialists' arms 
expansion and war preparations, it is necessary to put forward the proposal for general 
disarmament. Furthermore, it is possible to compel imperialism to accept some kind of 
agreement on disarmament, through the combined struggle of the socialist countries and 
the people of the whole world. 

If one regards general and complete disarmament as the fundamental road to world peace, 
spreads the illusion that imperialism will automatically lay down its arms and tries to 
liquidate the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations on the pretext 
of disarmament, then this is deliberately to deceive the people of the world and help the 
imperialists in their policies of aggression and war. 

In order to overcome the present ideological confusion in the international working-class 
movement on the question of war and peace, we consider that Lenin's thesis, which has 
been discarded by the modern revisionists, must be restored in the interest of combating 
the imperialist policies of aggression and war and defending world peace. 

The people of the world universally demand the prevention of a new world war. And it is 
possible to prevent a new world war. 

The question then is, what is the way to secure world peace? According to the Leninist 
viewpoint, world peace can be won only by the struggles of the people in all countries 
and not by begging the imperialists for it. World peace can only be effectively defended 
by relying on the development of the forces of the socialist camp, on the revolutionary 
struggles of the proletariat and working people of all countries, on the liberation struggles 
of the oppressed nations and on the struggles of all peace loving people and countries. 

Such is the Leninist policy. Any policy to the contrary definitely will not lead to world 
peace but will only encourage the ambitions of the imperialists and increase the danger of 
world war. 

In recent years, certain persons have been spreading the argument that a single spark 
from a war of national liberation or from a revolutionary people's war will lead to a world 
conflagration destroying the whole of mankind. What are the facts? Contrary to what 
these persons say, the wars of national liberation and the revolutionary people's wars that 
have occurred since World War II have not led to world war. The victory of these 
revolutionary wars has directly weakened the forces of imperialism and greatly 
strengthened the forces which prevent the imperialists from launching a world war and 
which defend world peace. Do not the facts demonstrate the absurdity of this argument? 



(15) The complete banning and destruction of nuclear weapons is an important task in the 
struggle to defend world peace. We must do our utmost to this end. 

Nuclear weapons are unprecedentedly destructive, which is why for more than a decade 
now the U.S. imperialists have been pursuing their policy of nuclear blackmail in order to 
realize their ambition of enslaving the people of all countries and dominating the world. 

But when the imperialists threaten other countries with nuclear weapons, they subject the 
people in their own country to the same threat, thus arousing them against nuclear 
weapons and against the imperialist policies of aggression and war. At the same time, in 
their vain hope of destroying their opponents with nuclear weapons, the imperialists are 
in fact subjecting themselves to the danger of being destroyed. 

The possibility of banning nuclear weapons does indeed exist. However, if the 
imperialists are forced to accept an agreement to ban nuclear weapons, it decidedly will 
not be because of their "love for humanity" but because of the pressure of the people of 
all countries and for the sake of their own vital interests. 

In contrast to the imperialists, socialist countries rely upon the righteous strength of the 
people and on their own correct policies, and have no need whatever to gamble with 
nuclear weapons in the world arena. Socialist countries have nuclear weapons solely in 
order to defend themselves and to prevent imperialism from launching a nuclear war. 

In the view of Marxist-Leninists, the people are the makers of history. In the present, as 
in the past, man is the decisive factor. Marxist-Leninists attach importance to the role of 
technological change, but it is wrong to belittle the role of man and exaggerate the role of 
technology. 

The emergence of nuclear weapons can neither arrest the progress of human history nor 
save the imperialist system from its doom, any more than the emergence of new 
techniques could save the old systems from their doom in the past. 

The emergence of nuclear weapons does not and cannot resolve the fundamental 
contradictions in the contemporary world, does not and cannot alter the law of class 
struggle, and does not and cannot change the nature of imperialism and reaction. 

It cannot, therefore, be said that with the emergence of nuclear weapons the possibility 
and the necessity of social and national revolutions have disappeared, or the basic 
principles of Marxism-Leninism, and especially the theories of proletarian revolution and 
the dictatorship of the proletariat and of war and peace, have become outmoded and 
changed into stale "dogmas". 

(16) It was Lenin who advanced the thesis that it is possible for the socialist countries to 
practice peaceful coexistence with the capitalist countries. It is well known that after the 
great Soviet people had repulsed foreign armed intervention the Communist Party of the 
Soviet Union and the Soviet Government, led first by Lenin and then by Stalin, 



consistently pursued the policy of peaceful coexistence and that they were forced to wage 
a war of self-defense only when attacked by the German imperialists. 

Since its founding, the People's Republic of China too has consistently pursued the policy 
of peaceful coexistence with countries having different social systems, and it is China 
which initiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. 

However, a few years ago certain persons suddenly claimed Lenin's policy of peaceful 
coexistence as their own "great discovery". They maintain that they have a monopoly on 
the interpretation of this policy. They treat "peaceful coexistence" as if it were an all- 
inclusive, mystical book from heaven and attribute to it every success the people of the 
world achieve by struggle. What is more, they label all who disagree with their 
distortions of Lenin's views as opponents of peaceful coexistence, as people completely 
ignorant of Lenin and Leninism, and as heretics deserving to be burnt at the stake. 

How can the Chinese Communists agree with this view and practice? They cannot, it is 
impossible. 

Lenin's principle of peaceful coexistence is very clear and readily comprehensible by 
ordinary people. Peaceful coexistence designates a relationship between countries with 
different social systems, and must not be interpreted as one pleases. It should never be 
extended to apply to the relations between oppressed and oppressor nations, between 
oppressed and oppressor countries or between oppressed and oppressor classes, and never 
be described as the main content of the transition from capitalism to socialism, still less 
should it be asserted that peaceful coexistence is mankind's road to socialism. The reason 
is that it is one thing to practice peaceful coexistence between countries with different 
social systems. It is absolutely impermissible and impossible for countries practicing 
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 the application of the policy of peaceful coexistence, struggles between the socialist 
and imperialist countries are unavoidable in the political, economic and ideological 
spheres, and it is absolutely impossible to have "all-round co-operation". 

It is necessary for the socialist countries to engage in negotiations of one kind or another 
with the imperialist countries. It is possible to reach certain agreements through 
negotiation by relying on the correct policies of the socialist countries and on the pressure 
of the people of all countries. But necessary compromises between the socialist countries 
and the imperialist countries do not require the oppressed peoples and nations to follow 
suit and compromise with imperialism and its lackeys. No one should ever demand in the 



name of peaceful coexistence that the oppressed peoples and nations should give up their 
revolutionary struggles. 

The application of the policy of peaceful coexistence by the socialist countries is 
advantageous for achieving a peaceful international environment for socialist 
construction, for exposing the imperialist policies of aggression and war and for isolating 
the imperialist forces of aggression and war. But if the general line of the foreign policy 
of the socialist countries is confined to peaceful coexistence, then it is impossible to 
handle correctly either the relations between socialist countries or those between the 
socialist countries and the oppressed peoples and nations. Therefore it is wrong to make 
peaceful coexistence the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries. 

In our view, the general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries should have 
the following content: to develop relations of friendship, mutual assistance and co- 
operation among the countries in 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 indivisible, 
and not a single one can be omitted. 

(17) For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes power, class struggle 
continues as an objective law independent of man's will, differing only in form from what 
it was before the taking of power. 

After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a number of times that: 

a) The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the 
"paradise" they have been deprived of. 

b) New elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the petty- 
bourgeois atmosphere. 

c) Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the 
working class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence and 
the pervasive, corrupting atmosphere of the petty bourgeoisie. 

d) The external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist country 
are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists' threat of armed intervention 
and their subversive activities to accomplish peaceful disintegration. 

Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin's. 

For decades or even longer periods after socialist industrialization and agricultural 
collectivization, it will be impossible to say that any socialist country will be free from 
those elements which Lenin repeatedly denounced, such as bourgeois hangers-on, 



parasites, speculators, swindlers, idlers, hooligans and embezzlers of state funds; or to say 
that a socialist country will no longer need to perform or be able to relinquish the task 
laid down by Lenin of conquering "this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that socialism 
has inherited from capitalism". 

In a socialist country, it takes a very long historical period gradually to settle the question 
of who will win— socialism or capitalism. The struggle between the road of socialism and 
the road of capitalism runs through this whole historical period. This struggle rises and 
falls in a wave-like manner, at times becoming very fierce, and the forms of the struggle 
are many and varied. 

The 1957 Declaration rightly states that "the conquest of power by the working class is 
only the beginning of the revolution, not its conclusion". 

To deny the existence of class struggle in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat 
and the necessity of thoroughly completing the socialist revolution on the economic, 
political and ideological fronts is wrong, does not correspond to objective reality and 
violates Marxism-Leninism. 

(18) Both Marx and Lenin maintained that the entire period before the advent of the 
higher stage of communist society is the period of transition from capitalism to 
communism, the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this transition period, the 
dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say, the proletarian state, goes through the 
dialectical process of establishment, consolidation, strengthening and withering away. 

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx posed the question as follows: 

Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the 
revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds 
to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing 
but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. [Marx and Engels, 
Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1955, Vol. II, pp. 32-33.] 

Lenin frequently emphasized Marx's great theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat and 
analyzed the development of this theory, particularly in his outstanding work, The State 
and Revolution, where he wrote: 

. . . the transition from capitalist society— which is developing towards 
communism— to a communist society is impossible without a "political 
transition period", and the state in this period can only be the revolutionary 
dictatorship of the proletariat. [Lenin, Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 
1952, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 289.] 

He further said: 



The essence of Marx's teaching on the state has been mastered only by 
those who understand that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary 
not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat 
which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical 
period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from 
communism. [Ibid., p. 234.] 

As stated above, the fundamental thesis of Marx and Lenin is that the dictatorship of the 
proletariat will inevitably continue for the entire historical period of the transition from 
capitalism to communism, that is, for the entire period up to the abolition of all class 
differences and the entry into a classless society, the higher stage of communist society. 

What will happen if it is announced, halfway through, that the dictatorship of the 
proletariat is no longer necessary? 

Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the state of 
the dictatorship of the proletariat? 

Does this not license the development of "this contagion, this plague, this ulcer that 
socialism has inherited from capitalism"? 

In other words, this would lead to extremely grave consequences and make any transition 
to communism out of the question. 

Can there be a "state of the whole people"? Is it possible to replace the state of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat by a "state of the whole people"? 

This is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular country but a 

fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. 

In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class state. 
So long as the state remains a state, it must bear a class character; so long as the state 
exists, it cannot be a state of the "whole people". As soon as society becomes classless, 
there will no longer be a state. 

Then what sort of thing would a "state of the whole people" be? 

Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism can understand that the so- 
called "state of the whole people" is nothing new. Representative bourgeois figures have 
always called the bourgeois state a "state of all the people", or a "state in which power 
belongs to all the people". 

Certain persons may say that their society is already one without classes. We answer: No, 
there are classes and class struggles in all socialist countries without exception. 



Since remnants of the old exploiting classes who are trying to stage a comeback still exist 
there, since new capitalist elements are constantly being generated there, and since there 
are still parasites, speculators, idlers, hooligans, embezzlers of state funds, etc., how can 
it be said that classes or class struggles no longer exist? How can it be said that the 
dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary? 

Marxism-Leninism tells us that in addition to the suppression of the hostile classes, the 
historical tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the course of building socialism 
necessarily include the correct handling of relations between the working class and 
peasantry, the consolidation of their political and economic alliance and the creation of 
conditions for the gradual elimination of the class difference between worker and 
peasant. 

When we look at the economic base of any socialist society, we find that the difference 
between ownership by the whole people and collective ownership exists in all socialist 
countries without exception, and that there is individual ownership too. Ownership by the 
whole people and collective ownership are two kinds of ownership and two kinds of 
relations of production in socialist society. The workers in enterprises owned by the 
whole people and the peasants on farms owned collectively belong to two different 
categories of laborers in socialist society. Therefore, the class difference between worker 
and peasant exists in all socialist countries without exception. This difference will not 
disappear until the transition to the higher stage of communism is achieved. In their 
present level of economic development all socialist countries are still far, far removed 
from the higher stage of communism in which "from each according to his ability, to 
each according to his needs" is put into practice. Therefore, it will take a long, long time 
to eliminate the class difference between worker and peasant. And until this difference is 
eliminated, it is impossible to say that society is classless or that there is no longer any 
need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

In calling a socialist state the "state of the whole people", is one trying to replace the 
Marxist-Leninist theory of the state by the bourgeois theory of the state? Is one trying to 
replace the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by a state of a different character? 

If that is the case, it is nothing but a great historical retrogression. The degeneration of the 
social system in Yugoslavia is a grave lesson. 

(19) Leninism holds that the proletarian party must exist together with the dictatorship of 
the proletariat in socialist countries. The party of the proletariat is indispensable for the 
entire historical period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The reason is that the 
dictatorship of the proletariat has to struggle against the enemies of the proletariat and of 
the people, remold the peasants and other small producers, constantly consolidate the 
proletarian ranks, build socialism and effect the transition to communism; none of these 
things can be done without the leadership of the party of the proletariat. 

Can there be a "party of the entire people"? Is it possible to replace the party which is the 
vanguard of the proletariat by a "party of the entire people"? 



This, too, is not a question about the internal affairs of any particular Party, but a 
fundamental problem involving the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. 

In the view of Marxist-Leninists, there is no such thing as a non-class or supra-class 
political party. All political parties have a class character. Party spirit is the concentrated 
expression of class character. 

The party of the proletariat is the only party able to represent the interests of the whole 
people. It can, do so precisely because it represents the interests of the proletariat, whose 
ideas and will it concentrates. It can lead the whole people because the proletariat can 
finally emancipate itself only with the emancipation of all mankind, because the very 
nature of the proletariat enables its party to approach problems in terms of its present and 
future interests, because the party is boundlessly loyal to the people and has the spirit of 
self-sacrifice; hence its democratic centralism and iron discipline. Without such a party, it 
is impossible to maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and to represent the interests 
of the whole people. 

What will happen if it is announced halfway before entering the higher stage of 
communist society that the party of the proletariat has become a "party of the entire 
people" and if its proletarian class character is repudiated? 

Does this not fundamentally conflict with the teachings of Marx and Lenin on the party 
of the proletariat? 

Does this not disarm the proletariat and all the working people, organizationally and 
ideologically, and is it not tantamount to helping restore capitalism? 

Is it not "going south by driving the chariot north" to talk about any transition to 
communist society in such circumstances? 

(20) Over the past few years, certain persons have violated Lenin's integral teachings 
about the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses, and raised he issue of 
"combating the cult of the individual"; this is erroneous and harmful. 

The theory propounded by Lenin is as follows: 

a) The masses are divided into classes; 

b) Classes are usually led by political parties; 

c) Political parties, as a general rule, are directed by more or less stable groups composed 
of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the 
most responsible positions and are called leaders. 

Lenin said, "All this is elementary." 



The party of the proletariat is the headquarters of the proletariat in revolution and 
struggle. Every proletarian party must practice centralism based on democracy and 
establish a strong Marxist-Leninist leadership before it can become an organized and 
battle-worthy vanguard. To raise the question of "combating the cult of the individual" is 
actually to counterpose the leaders to the masses, undermine the party's unified leadership 
which is based on democratic centralism, dissipate its fighting strength and disintegrate 
its ranks. 

Lenin criticized the erroneous views which counterpose the leaders to the masses. He 
called them "ridiculously absurd and stupid". 

The Communist Party of China has always disapproved of exaggerating the role of the 
individual, has advocated and persistently practiced democratic centralism within the 
Party and advocated the linking of the leadership with the masses, maintaining that 
correct leadership must know how to concentrate the views of the masses. 

While loudly combating the so-called "cult of the individual", certain persons are in 
reality doing their best to defame the proletarian party and the dictatorship of the 
proletariat. At the same time, they are enormously exaggerating the role of certain 
individuals, shifting all errors onto others and claiming all credit for themselves. 

What is more serious is that, under the pretext of "combating the cult of the individual", 
certain persons are crudely interfering in the internal affairs of other fraternal Parties and 
fraternal countries and forcing other fraternal Parties to change their leadership in order 
to impose their own wrong line on these Parties. What is all this if not great-power 
chauvinism, sectarianism and splittism? What is all this if not subversion? 

It is high time to propagate seriously and comprehensively Lenin's integral teachings on 
the interrelationship of leaders, party, class and masses. 

(21) Relations between socialist countries are international relations of a new type. 
Relations between socialist countries, whether large or small, and whether more 
developed or less developed economically, must be based on the principles of complete 
equality, respect for territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, and non- 
interference in each other's internal affairs, and must also be based on the principles of 
mutual support and mutual assistance in accordance with proletarian internationalism. 

Every socialist country must rely mainly on itself for its construction. 

In accordance with its own concrete conditions, every socialist country must rely first of 
all on the diligent labor and talents of its own people, utilize all its available resources 
fully and in a planned way, and bring all its potential into play in socialist construction. 
Only thus can it build socialism effectively and develop its economy speedily. 

This is the only way for each socialist country to strengthen the might of the entire 
socialist camp and enhance its capacity to assist the revolutionary cause of the 



international proletariat. Therefore, to observe the principle of mainly relying on oneself 
in construction is to apply proletarian internationalism concretely. 

If, proceeding only from its own partial interests, any socialist country unilaterally 
demands that other fraternal countries submit to its needs, and uses the pretext of 
opposing what they call "going it alone" and "nationalism", to prevent other fraternal 
countries from applying the principle of relying mainly on their own efforts in their 
construction and from developing their economies on the basis of independence, or even 
goes to the length of putting economic pressure on other fraternal countries—then these 
are pure manifestations of national egoism. 

It is absolutely necessary for socialist countries to practice mutual economic assistance 
and co-operation and exchange. Such economic co-operation must be based on the 
principles of complete equality, mutual benefit and comradely mutual assistance. 

It would be great-power chauvinism to deny these basic principles and, in the name of 
"international division of labor" or "specialization", to impose one's own will on others, 
infringe on the independence and sovereignty of fraternal countries or harm the interests 
of their people. 

In relations among socialist countries it would be preposterous to follow the practice of 
gaining profit for oneself at the expense of others, a practice characteristic of relations 
among capitalist countries, or go so far as to take the "economic integration" and the 
"common market", which monopoly capitalist groups have instituted for the purpose of 
seizing markets and grabbing profits, as examples which socialist countries ought to 
follow in their economic co-operation and mutual assistance. 

(22) The 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement lay down the principles guiding 
relations among fraternal Parties. These are the principle of solidarity, the principle of 
mutual support and mutual assistance, the principle of independence and equality and the 
principle of reaching unanimity through consultation— all on the basis of Marxism- 
Leninism and proletarian internationalism. 

We note that in its letter of March 30 the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. says that 
there are no "superior" and "subordinate" Parties in the communist movement, that all 
Communist Parties are independent and equal, and that they should all build their 
relations on the basis of proletarian internationalism and mutual assistance. 

It is a fine quality of Communists that their deeds are consistent with their words. The 
only correct way to safeguard and strengthen unity among the fraternal Parties is 
genuinely to adhere to, and not to violate, the principle of proletarian internationalism 
and genuinely to observe, and not to undermine, the principles guiding relations among 
fraternal Parties— and to do so not only in words but, much more important, in deeds. 



If the principle of independence and equality is accepted in relations among fraternal 
Parties, then it is impermissible for any Party to place itself above others, to interfere in 
their internal affairs, and to adopt patriarchal ways in relations with them. 

If it is accepted that there are no "superiors" and "subordinates" in relations among 
fraternal Parties, then it is impermissible to impose the programme, resolutions and line 
of one's own Party on other fraternal Parties as the "common programme" of the 
international communist movement. 

If the principle of reaching unanimity through consultation is accepted in relations among 
fraternal Parties, then one should not emphasize "who is in the majority" or "who is in the 
minority" and bank on a so-called majority in order to force through one's own erroneous 
line and carry out sectarian and splitting policies. 

If it is agreed that differences between fraternal Parties should be settled through inter- 
Party consultation, then other fraternal Parties should not be attacked publicly and by 
name at one's own congress or at other Party congresses, in speeches by Party leaders, 
resolutions, statements, etc.; and still less should the ideological differences among 
fraternal Parties be extended into the sphere of state relations. 

We hold that in the present circumstances, when there are differences in the international 
communist movement, it is particularly important to stress strict adherence to the 
principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties as laid down in the Declaration and 
the Statement. 

In the sphere of relations among fraternal Parties and countries, the question of Soviet- 
Albanian relations is an outstanding one at present. Here the question is what is the 
correct way to treat a fraternal Party and country and whether the principles guiding 
relations among fraternal Parties and countries stipulated in the Declaration and the 
Statement are to be adhered to. The correct solution of this question is an important 
matter of principle in safeguarding the unity of the socialist camp and the international 
communist movement. 

How to treat the Marxist-Leninist fraternal Albanian Party of Labor is one question. How 
to treat the Yugoslav revisionist clique of traitors to Marxism-Leninism is quite another 
question. These two essentially different questions must on no account be placed on a 
par. 

Your letter says that you "do not relinquish the hope that the relations between the 
C.P.S.U. and the Albanian Party of Labor may be improved", but at the same time you 
continue to attack the Albanian comrades for what you call "splitting activities". Clearly 
this is self-contradictory and in no way contributes to resolving the problem of Soviet- 
Albanian relations. 

Who is it that has taken splitting actions in Soviet-Albanian relations? 



Who is it that has extended the ideological differences between the Soviet and Albanian 
Parties to state relations? 

Who is it that has brought the divergences between the Soviet and Albanian Parties and 
between the two countries into the open before the enemy? 

Who is it that has openly called for a change in the Albanian Party and state leadership? 

All this is plain and clear to the whole world. 

Is it possible that the leading comrades of the C.P.S.U. do not really feel their 
responsibility for the fact that Soviet-Albanian relations have so seriously deteriorated? 

We once again express our sincere hope that the leading comrades of the C.P.S.U. will 
observe the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries and take 
the initiative in seeking an effective way to improve Soviet- Albanian relations. 

In short, the question of how to handle relations with fraternal Parties and countries must 
be taken seriously. Strict adherence to the principles guiding relations among fraternal 
Parties and countries is the only way forcefully to rebuff slanders such as those spread by 
the imperialists and reactionaries about the "hand of Moscow". 

Proletarian internationalism is demanded of all Parties without exception, whether large 
or small, and whether in power or not. However, the larger Parties and the Parties in 
power bear a particularly heavy responsibility in this respect. The series of distressing 
developments which have occurred in the socialist camp in the past period have harmed 
the interests not only of the fraternal Parties concerned but also of the masses of the 
people in their countries. This convincingly demonstrates that the larger countries and 
Parties need to keep in mind Lenin's behest never to commit the error of great-power 
chauvinism. 

The comrades of the C.P.S.U. state in their letter that "the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union has never taken and will never take a single step that could sow hostility among 
the peoples of our country towards the fraternal Chinese people or other peoples". Here 
we do not desire to go back and enumerate the many unpleasant events that have 
occurred in the past, and we only wish that the comrades of the C.P.S.U. will strictly 
abide by this statement in their future actions. 

During the past few years, our Party members and our people have exercised the greatest 
restraint in the face of a series of grave incidents which were in violation of the principles 
guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries and despite the many difficulties 
and losses which have been imposed on us. The spirit of proletarian internationalism of 
the Chinese Communists and the Chinese people has stood a severe test. 

The Communist Party of China is unswervingly loyal to proletarian internationalism, 
upholds and defends the principles of the 1957 Declaration and the 1960 Statement 



guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries, and safeguards and strengthens 
the unity of the socialist camp and the international communist movement. 

(23) In order to carry out the common programme of the international communist 
movement unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties, an uncompromising 
struggle must be waged against all forms of opportunism, which is a deviation from 
Marxism-Leninism. 

The Declaration and the Statement point out that revisionism, or, in other words, Right 
opportunism, is the main danger in the international communist movement. Yugoslav 
revisionism typifies modern revisionism. 

The Statement points out particularly: 

The Communist Parties have unanimously condemned the Yugoslav 
variety of international opportunism, a variety of modern revisionist 
"theories" in concentrated form. 

It goes on to say: 

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 
League of Communists of Yugoslavia 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. 

The Statement says further: 

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. 

Therefore, it draws the following conclusion: 

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. 

The question raised here is an important one of principle for the international communist 
movement. 



Only recently the Tito clique have publicly stated that they are persisting in their 
revisionist programme and anti-Marxist-Leninist stand in opposition to the Declaration 
and the Statement. 

U.S. imperialism and its NATO partners have spent several thousand millions of U.S. 
dollars nursing the Tito clique for a long time. Cloaked as "Marxist-Leninists" and 
flaunting the banner of a "socialist country", the Tito clique has been undermining the 
international communist movement and the revolutionary cause of the people of the 
world, serving as a special detachment of U.S. imperialism. 

It is-completely groundless and out of keeping with the facts to assert that Yugoslavia is 
showing "definite positive tendencies", that it is a "socialist country", and that the Tito 
clique is an "anti-imperialist force". 

Certain persons are now attempting to introduce the Yugoslav revisionist clique into the 
socialist community and the international communist ranks. This is openly to tear up the 
agreement unanimously reached at the 1960 meeting of the fraternal Parties and is 
absolutely impermissible. 

Over the past few years, the revisionist trend flooding the international working-class 
movement and the many experiences and lessons of the international communist 
movement have fully confirmed the correctness of the conclusion in the Declaration and 
the Statement that revisionism is the main danger in the international communist 
movement at present. 

However, certain persons are openly saying that dogmatism and not revisionism is the 
main danger, or that dogmatism is no less dangerous than revisionism, etc. What sort of 
principle underlies all this? 

Firm Marxist-Leninists and genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties must put principles first. 
They must not barter away principles, approving one thing today and another tomorrow, 
advocating one thing today and another tomorrow. 

Together with all Marxist-Leninists, the Chinese Communists will continue to wage an 
uncompromising struggle against modern revisionism in order to defend the purity of 
Marxism-Leninism and the principled stand of the Declaration and the Statement. 

While combating revisionism, which is the main danger in the international communist 
movement, Communists must also combat dogmatism. 

As stated in the 1957 Declaration, proletarian parties, "should firmly adhere to the 
principle of combining. . . universal Marxist-Leninist truth with the specific practice of 
revolution and construction in their countries". 

That is to say: 



On the one hand, it is necessary at all times to adhere to the universal truth of Marxism- 
Leninism. Failure to do so will lead to Right opportunist or revisionist errors. 

On the other hand, it is always necessary to proceed from reality, maintain close contact 
with the masses, constantly sum up the experience of mass struggles, and independently 
work out and apply policies and tactics suited to the conditions of one's own country. 
Errors of dogmatism will be committed if one fails to do so, if one mechanically copies 
the policies and tactics of another Communist Party, submits blindly to the will of others 
or accepts without analysis the programme and resolutions of another Communist Party 
as one's own line. 

Some people are now violating this basic principle, which was long ago affirmed in the 
Declaration. On the pretext of "creatively developing Marxism-Leninism", they cast aside 
the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, they describe as "universal Marxist- 
Leninist truths" their own prescriptions which are based on nothing but subjective 
conjecture and are divorced from reality and from the masses, and they force others to 
accept these prescriptions unconditionally. 

That is why many grave phenomena have come to pass in the international communist 
movement. 

(24) A most important lesson from the experience of the international communist 
movement is that the development and victory of a revolution depend on the existence of 
a revolutionary proletarian party. 

There must be a revolutionary party. 

There must be a revolutionary party built according to the revolutionary theory and 
revolutionary style of Marxism-Leninism. 

There must be a revolutionary party able to integrate the universal truth of Marxism- 
Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution in its own country. 

There must be a revolutionary party able to link the leadership closely with the broad 
masses of the people. 

There must be a revolutionary party that perseveres in the truth, corrects its errors and 
knows how to conduct criticism and self-criticism. 

Only such a revolutionary party can lead the proletariat and the broad masses of the 
people in defeating imperialism and its lackeys, winning a thorough victory in the 
national democratic revolution and winning the socialist revolution. 

If a party is not a proletarian revolutionary party but a bourgeois reformist party; 

If it is not a Marxist-Leninist party but a revisionist party; 



If it is not a vanguard party of the proletariat but a party tailing after the bourgeoisie; 

If it is not a party representing the interests of the proletariat and all the working people 
but a party representing the interests of the labor aristocracy; 

If it is not an internationalist party but a nationalist party; 

If it is not a party that can use its brains to think for itself and acquire an accurate 
knowledge of the trends of the different classes in its own country through serious 
investigation and study, and knows how to apply the universal truth of Marxism- 
Leninism and integrate it with the concrete practice of its own country, but instead is a 
party that parrots the words of others, copies foreign experience without analysis, runs 
hither and thither in response to the baton of certain persons abroad, and has become a 
hodgepodge of revisionism, dogmatism and everything but Marxist-Leninist principle; 

Then such a party is absolutely incapable of leading the proletariat and the masses in 
revolutionary struggle, absolutely incapable of winning the revolution and absolutely 
incapable of fulfilling the great historical mission of the proletariat. 

This is a question all Marxist-Leninists, all class-conscious workers and all progressive 
people everywhere need to ponder deeply. 

(25) It is the duty of Marxist-Leninists to distinguish between truth and falsehood with 
respect to the differences that have arisen in the international communist movement. In 
the common interest of the unity for struggle against the enemy, we have always 
advocated solving problems through inter-Party consultations and opposed bringing 
differences into the open before the enemy. 

As the comrades of the C.P.S.U. know, the public polemics in the international 
communist movement have been provoked by certain fraternal Party leaders and forced 
on us. 

Since a public debate has been provoked, it ought to be conducted on the basis of equality 
among fraternal Parties and of democracy, and by presenting the facts and reasoning 
things out. 

Since certain Party leaders have publicly attacked other fraternal Parties and provoked a 
public debate, it is our opinion that they have no reason or right to forbid the fraternal 
Parties attacked to make public replies. 

Since certain Party leaders have published innumerable articles attacking other fraternal 
Parties, why do they not publish in their own press the articles those Parties have written 
in reply? 

Latterly, the Communist Party of China has been subjected to preposterous attacks. The 
attackers have raised a great hue and cry and, disregarding the facts, have fabricated 



many charges against us. We have published these articles and speeches attacking us in 
our own press. 

We have also published in full in our press the Soviet leader's report at the meeting of the 
Supreme Soviet on December 12, 1962, the Pravda Editorial Board's article of January 7, 
1963, the speech of the head of the C.P.S.U. delegation at the Sixth Congress of the 
Socialist Unity Party of Germany on January 16, 1963 and the Pravda Editorial Board's 
article of February 10, 1963. 

We have also published the full text of the two letters from the Central Committee of the 
C.P.S.U. dated February 21 and March 30, 1963. 

We have replied to some of the articles and speeches in which fraternal Parties have 
attacked us, but have not yet replied to others. For example, we have not directly replied 
to the many articles and speeches of the comrades of the C.P.S.U. 

Between December 15, 1962 and March 8, 1963, we wrote seven articles in reply to our 
attackers. These articles are entitled: 

"Workers of All Countries, Unite, Oppose Our Common Enemy!", 

"The Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us", 

"Leninism and Modern Revisionism", 

"Let Us Unite on the Basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement", 

"Whence the Differences?— A Reply to Thorez and Other Comrades", 

"More on the Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us— Some Important Problems 
of Leninism in the Contemporary World", 

"A Comment on the Statement of the Communist Party of the U.S.A.". 

Presumably, you are referring to these articles when towards the end of your letter of 
March 30 you accuse the Chinese press of making "groundless attacks" on the C.P.S.U. It 
is turning things upside down to describe articles replying to our attackers as "attacks". 

Since you describe our articles as "groundless" and as so very bad, why do you not 
publish all seven of these "groundless attacks", in the same way as we have published 
your articles, and let all the Soviet comrades and Soviet people think for themselves and 
judge who is right and who wrong? You are of course entitled to make a point-by-point 
refutation of these articles you consider "groundless attacks". 

Although you call our articles "groundless" and our arguments wrong, you do not tell the 
Soviet people what our arguments actually are. This practice can hardly be described as 



showing a serious attitude towards the discussion of problems by fraternal Parties, 
towards the truth or towards the masses. 

We hope that the public debate among fraternal Parties can be stopped. This is a problem 
that has to be dealt with in accordance with the principles of independence, of equality 
and of reaching unanimity through consultation among fraternal Parties. In the 
international communist movement, no one has the right to launch attacks whenever he 
wants, or to order the "ending of open polemics" whenever he wants to prevent the other 
side from replying. 

It is known to the comrades of the C.P.S.U. that, in order to create a favorable 
atmosphere for convening the meeting of the fraternal Parties, we have decided 
temporarily to suspend, as from March 9, 1963, public replies to the public attacks 
directed by name against us by comrades of fraternal Parties. We reserve the right of 
public reply. 

In our letter of March 9, we said that on the question of suspending public debate "it is 
necessary that our two Parties and the fraternal Parties concerned should have some 
discussion and reach an agreement that is fair and acceptable to all". 

The foregoing are our views regarding the general line of the international communist 
movement and some related questions of principle. We hope, as we indicated at the 
beginning of this letter, that the frank presentation of our views will be conducive to 
mutual understanding. Of course, comrades may agree or disagree with these views. But 
in our opinion, the questions we discuss here are the crucial questions calling for 
attention and solution by the international communist movement. We hope that all these 
questions and also those raised in your letter will be fully discussed in the talks between 
our two Parties and at the meeting of representatives of all the fraternal Parties. 

In addition, there are other questions of common concern, such as the criticism of Stalin 
and some important matters of principle regarding the international communist 
movement which were raised at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the C.P.S.U., and we 
hope that on these questions, too, there will be a frank exchange of opinion in the talks. 

With regard to the talks between our two Parties, in our letter of March 9 we proposed 
that Comrade Khrushchev come to Peking; if this was not convenient, we proposed that 
another responsible comrade of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. lead a delegation 
to Peking or that we send a delegation to Moscow. 

Since you have stated in your letter of March 30 that Comrade Khrushchev cannot come 
to China, and since you have not expressed a desire to send a delegation to China, the 
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has decided to send a delegation to 
Moscow. 



In your letter of March 30, you invited Comrade Mao Tse-tung to visit the Soviet Union. 
As early as February 23, Comrade Mao Tse-tung in his conversation with the Soviet 
Ambassador to China clearly stated the reason why he was not prepared to visit the 
Soviet Union at the present time. You were well aware of this. 

When a responsible comrade of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China 
received the Soviet Ambassador to China on May 9, he informed you that we would send 
a delegation to Moscow in the middle of June. Later, in compliance with the request of 
the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U., we agreed to postpone the talks between our two 
Parties to July 5. 

We sincerely hope that the talks between the Chinese and Soviet Parties will yield 
positive results and contribute to the preparations for convening the meeting of all 
Communist and Workers' Parties. 

It is now more than ever necessary for all Communists to unite on the basis of Marxism- 
Leninism and proletarian internationalism and of the Declaration and the Statement 
unanimously agreed upon by the fraternal Parties. 

Together with Marxist-Leninist Parties and revolutionary people the world over, the 
Communist Party of China will continue its unremitting efforts to uphold the interests of 
the socialist camp and the international communist movement, the cause of the 
emancipation of the oppressed peoples and nations, and the struggle against imperialism 
and for world peace. 

We hope that events which grieve those near and dear to us and only gladden the enemy 
will not recur in the international communist movement in the future. 

The Chinese Communists firmly believe that the Marxist-Leninists, the proletariat and 
the revolutionary people everywhere will unite more closely, overcome all difficulties 
and obstacles and win still greater victories in the struggle against imperialism and for 
world peace, and in the fight for the revolutionary cause of the people of the world and 
the cause of international communism. 

Workers of all countries, unite! Workers and oppressed peoples and nations of the world, 
unite! Oppose our common enemy! 



With communist greetings, 



The Central Committee of 
the Communist Party of China 



Scanned and formatted by the Maoist Documentation Project