First Published: Bolshevik, Vol. 8, No. 5, December 1978.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The behind-closed-doors politics and intrigues of the bourgeoisie, especially the U.S. bourgeoisie, have been a historically known fact of subversive activity against all those who value freedom, independence, and the struggle for social progress. Treaties and schemes to partition the world again and again, against the interest of the international proletariat, for the purpose of maintaining the iron claw of imperialist subjugation and annexation of the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world, who are suffering from national oppression, exploitation and plunder.
To the world’s people, who love and struggle for national and social liberation, the Chinese Revolution, which witnessed the heroic Chinese brothers and sisters of the international proletariat, the Chinese proletariat and peasantry, rising up against Japanese imperialism, British imperialism, U.S. imperialism, and against the remnants of the feudal landowning class the Chinese Revolution represented once again the hopes and aspirations of the millions of oppressed and exploited throughout the world. That the Chinese proletariat and peasantry shed their blood for freedom, that in this revolution they gave of their best sons and daughters, that they were inspired by the Great October Revolution lead by the Bolshevik Party, lead by the leader of the international proletariat, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin,, which inspired genuine communists in China, is beyond dispute, as it is beyond dispute that the Chinese Revolution was a revolution for national independence, one which served to weaken imperialism and strengthen the single chain of the worldwide proletarian revolution and the wars of national liberation and social progress. The Chinese Revolution triumphed because of who fought it, but it failed because of who led it.
The Chinese Revolution was never lead by the communist party of the proletariat, although the “Communist” Party of China claimed to be such a party. Since the revolution was not lead by the vanguard party of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie and not the proletariat came to power, and thus the victory of the Chinese revolution could not be consolidated onto the road of socialism. China has never been a socialist country.
It is now a known fact that the leadership of the “Communist” Party of China was seeking to collaborate with the U.S. imperialists in the War of Resistance against Japan. The U.S. imperialists, as well as the writings of Mao Tsetung himself, are revealing this truth. As far back as 1944 the leadership of the “Communist” Party of China, Mao Tsetung and Co., were seeking to strike an alliance with the U.S. imperialists to build China into a powerful capitalist country as soon as possible, but at least by “the year 2000”.
On July 2, 1944, a group of observers reporting to the State Department of the U.S., was flown directly to Yenan to hold talks with Chou En-lai and Mao Tsetung. John S. Service, in charge of the group, reported that Chou had agreed to put the Red Army under the command of Gen. Stilwell as supreme commander of all Chinese forces, something which Chiang Kai-shek opposed to the end. Service also reported that Mao did not oppose democracy and quoted him as saying, “We Chinese consider you Americans the ideal of democracy...The United States would find us more cooperative than the Koumintang. We will not be afraid of democratic American influence; we will welcome it...We must cooperate and we must have American help.”[1]
The U.S. imperialists had this to go on, as well as noting that Stalin had made this assessment of the communists in China, that they were “margarine communists.” The U.S. imperialists were now in quite a predicament, as they flooded American aid of millions of dollars to maintain the Kuomintang regime, totally discredited before the eyes of the Chinese masses who would not fight under Chiang Kai-shek’s command, who was being less cooperative than the “communists”, who were promising cooperation up to and including placing their troops under Stilwell’s command.
Chiang would not have it, loyally he had served as a lackey of U.S. imperialism and now he was feeling betrayed. He feared his power was being undermined and so he demanded that Stilwell be recalled from China, and insisted on no more insults from Roosevelt. Of course the U.S. imperialists were interested only in keeping China as a colony for itself and would help any one who would bring China into its domain, while ousting the Japanese imperialists who had the same goal. The U.S. however was not interested in developing China to be a great power, and so the conflicts between the national bourgeoisie and the U.S. imperialists developed. The compradore bourgeoisie, represented by the Kuomintang with Chiang at the head, despised by the Chinese masses and threatened by the Chinese revolution, was very willing to keep China as a , colony of U.S. imperialism, provided that the U.S. beef up the Chaing regime, that it continue satisfying that regime’s thirst for power solely in its own hands–a demand the U.S. imperialists granted by pouring in millions for its upkeep.
In this situation the next meetings between the U.S. imperialists representatives and Mao Tsetung and Co. were not as warm as the previous ones. The U.S. imperialists sought a meeting of the mines, a deal between the Chiang regime and the “communists”, where Chiang would get the upper hand. Chiang had demanded that the communist troops be brought under the control of the National Government. To this of course the Mao Tsetung group, which then included Chou En-lai, Chu Teh, Lin Piao, told the U.S. to shove it. “The United States believes that Chiang Kai-shek must be retained in power at all costs...If on his record, the United States wishes to prop up this rotten shell that is Chiang Kai-shek, that is her privilege. We believe however, that is spite of all the United States can do, Chiang is doomed to failure...No nation needs to prop us up. We can stand erect and walk... like free men.”[2]
The imperialist camp was not coming through for the Chinese national bourgeoisie. Madame Sun Yat Sen tried to plead with Roosevelt to see it their way, but to no avail. In this situation the “margarine communists” had to lean over to the socialist camp for aid, and to the Soviet Union, the socialist motherland. But while leaning toward the socialist camp, Mao Tsetung made it perfectly clear that he had no Intentions of allowing the of the Great October Revolution, which serves as the model for socialism. To build a powerful capitalist country he Invented a “bourgeois democratic government of a “new type”– this is what he said in 1945, in his “On Coalition Government”:
Some people suspect that the Chinese communists are opposed to the development of individual initiative, the growth of private capital, and the protection of private property, but they are mistaken.[3]
and further on he said–
Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development In certain given conditions.
saying this while also saying that
If any communist or communist sympathizer talks about socialism and communism but falls to fight for this objective, if he belittles this bourgeois democratic revolution, relaxes or slows down ever so slightly and shows the least disloyalty and coldness or is reluctant to shed his blood or give his life for it, then wittingly or unwittingly, such a person is betraying socialism and communism, etc., etc.[4]
So here we have the protection of private property, the advocacy for the development of capitalism in China, and the betrayal of the proletariat who is asked to spill its blood and give its life not for the abolition of private property, not for socialism, no matter how long it takes and what stages must be traversed, but for the bourgeois democratic revolution.
And to assure the bourgeoisie that their power would be maintained till the day that they could be strong enough to make open deals with the “great” powers, Mao Tsetung made clear that the leaning over to the socialist camp was purely for their nationalistic interest. He assured the bourgeoisie that:
Some people are suspicious and think that once in power, the Communist Party will follow Russia’s example and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and a one party system. Our answer is that a new democratic state based on an alliance of democratic classes (!!!) is different in principle (Our Emphasis, Len. Core) from a socialist state under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
and further he stressed–
The Russian system has been shaped by Russian history; in Russia the exploitation of man by man has been abolished as a social system, the political, economic and cultural system of the newest type of democracy, i.e., socialism, has been put into effect, and the people support the Bolshevik Party alone, having discarded the anti-socialist parties.[5]
Marxism-Leninism is not even mentioned. The experience of the international proletariat as summed up by Marxism-Leninism, which is universal! applicable, does not exist before the eyes of the pragmatist who was guided by nationalistic motivations and selfish aims. Mao Tsetung was not a Marxist-Leninist, as history is proving.
By attacking the dictatorship of the proletariat, by liquidating the vanguard role the proletariat exercises through its political party, the communist party, by denying that the proletariat shares power with no other class, and that it joins into a revolutionary alliance with the peasantry to establish the basis for the triumph of socialism, as the long transition period between capitalism and communism, in fact the brakes were being put on to stop any possibility of moving towards socialism in China. While selfishly seeking aid from the socialist motherland who gave it stemming from a proletarian internationalist stand, which the proletariat of the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin rendered without reserve to the struggles that would strengthen the worldwide proletarian revolution, the “Communist” Party of China had to sham. All along the way actively sabotaging the revolution, the international communist movement, and betraying the socialist camp, which it only leaned on but to which it could never belong heart and soul. The economic system in China was never socialist, but capitalist, no matter how much it shammed. Mao Tsetung made it clear that what had been necessary for the Soviet Union was not necessary for China. China would not go for the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, but instead would develop its capitalist mode of economy and would Intensify the exploitation of the working class and the peasantry, and all working people, would develop a “new type” of “democracy”, not of the “newest” type, but of a “new” type of bourgeois democracy where the bourgeoisie would be in power, sharing it just a little with the proletariat– 5%, not too much, nothing that would lead to a civil war, which Mao Tsetung cursed high and low. Just enough to sham to the international proletariat while consolidating its capitalist economy, a great leap forward for the development of a superpower.
This bourgeois theory of New Democracy, which served to cover that in fact in China what existed was the same old bourgeois democratic dictatorship of one class, the bourgeoisie in power, was hailed on as a contribution to Marxism-Leninism that came under the anti-Leninist scheme of “Mao Tsetung Thought”. The third road? A new democracy? But not socialist democracy , the only true democracy for the proletariat, for the exploited masses; no, instead Mao Tsetung professed to have found the impossible democracy, democracy for everybody. Exploited and exploiters alike, oppressed and oppressors alike, were to live happily ever after in this new democracy, a la Kautskyite democracy. This new democracy served to consolidate a sphere of influence in the world for the Chinese revisionists, who would later adopt the theory of “three worlds”, placing China in this world to rule it by force, as all imperialists do, and then, not only lean on the Imperialist camp, but as an imperialist power itself, instigate war.
From this position, they were to attack the only socialist country in the world, Socialist Albania, as the unfolding of events has shown.
From 1949 and onward, the Chinese revisionists were forced by the strength of the socialist camp to adopt certain correct positions, while it is now obvious that it did so to strengthen not the camp of socialism, but In pursuit of building its own powerful capitalist state. This aim alone has motivated it. This explains the wavering stands it has adopted in the struggle against modern revisionism. The Chinese revisionists were compelled by the nature of the class they represent to align themselves with one imperialist power to fight another; this has been not a change in their policy, but the consistent policy of the mandarins in China. When fighting the Japanese imperialists, they sought alliances with the U.S. imperialists, later they would seek alliances with the Soviet social-imperialists and Khrushchev against U.S. imperialism, and today they seek an alliance and have s truck such an alliance, with U.S. imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism.
Tomorrow might witness a change of alliances again; pragmatism and chauvinism compel the Chinese revisionists to seek alliances and instigate war, hoping it will come out top dog.
Something which always raised questions in the international communist movement, we are sure, for it is certainly true for Marxist-Leninists in the U.S., was–If China is in the “third world”, where is Socialist Albania? This question was a reflection of where in fact stood China and how in fact Albania stood alone as the beacon light of socialism, which could not be extinguished. China covered itself for a long time by spreading bourgeois nationalism, calling for “peoples of color to unite”. This was beneficial to the bourgeois nationalists in Peking, who then would try to drive a wedge between the socialist fortress in Albania and the proletariat and the rest of the masses in the colonies and neo-colonies fighting against imperialism, social-imperialism, and all reaction. This bourgeois nationalism is what also found China raising up questions of boundaries and instigating war in Europe over territorial claims which the Party of Labor of Albania has summed up in the following way:
The Party of Labor of Albania did not approve of Mao Tsetung’s raising the problems of rectification of borders. According to the view of our Party, the Chinese leadership was making two gross mistakes. In the first place, the raising of the border problem at that moment did not assist the ideological struggle against Krushchevism. On the contrary, it provided the Soviet leadership with a powerful weapon against China and the Marxist-Leninists in order to neutralize the effect of the ideological struggle they were waging to expose the Krushchevite betrayal and to present our struggle as a border dispute or territorial claims. On the other hand, by calling into question the rectification of borders of the Soviet Union with some European countries following the Second World. War, J.V. Stalin was unjustly attacked, and the accusation levelled by international reaction against him for creating ’spheres of influence’ was backed up. The Chinese leadership agreed with Tito, who, when it came to redress the injustices Yugoslavia had suffered in the past at the hands of the victorious powers, upheld this thesis and raised his voice to the skies, while he kept completely silent about the Injustices done to another people, if they were in Yugoslavia’s favor. The Chinese thesis on the rectification of borders was not as simple as that. It expressed the chauvinistic spirit of the great state and bourgeois nationalism, it was an instigation of war in Europe.[6]
China made use of the contradictions and the principled polemics in defense of Marxism-Leninism waged by the Party of Labor of Albania against Krushchevite revisionism to strengthen its own ambitions of becoming a superpower, and thought it could once again lean over to the socialist camp when the Party of Labor of Albania took the lead of the struggle against Khrushevite revisionism, which had all the revisionists, including the Chinese revisionists shaking from head to toe. The exposure of Khrushchevite revisionism was thorough and the defense of Marxism-Leninism, which includes a defense of Comrade Stalin, waged by the Party of Labor of Albania was resolute. While China presenting a wavering stand, also chose to take the opportunity to raise border disputes.
This caused great harm in the battle against modern revisionism. The Party of Labor of Albania, patiently and in a principled manner, as has been its historic practice, explained this serious error on the part of Mao Tsetung and Co., seeking to win them over to the correct Marxist-Leninist stance, with the purpose of influencing the “Communist” Party of China to take up a resolute struggle against Khrushchevite revisionism to the very end. The Chinese revisionists chose to disregard the letter in which the Party of Labor of Albania addressed this problem, making known its opinion. Mao Tsetung said he would not answer because he “did not want to stir up polemics”. Again we quote from the letter of the Party of Labor to the C.C. of the “Communist” Party and Government of China:
In keeping with Leninist norms, in the spirit of complete correctness and in a comradely manner the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania informed the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao Tsetung personally of its opinions on these questions in a letter addressed to them on Sept. 10, 1964.
The letter reads in part: ’We think that raising territorial problems with the Soviet Union now would gravely harm our struggle. If we were to do this, we would be giving the enemy a powerful weapon to fight us, and this would paralyse our march forward. ’Under the pressure of Khrushchev’s revisionist propaganda, under the influence of Khrushchev’s slanders and calumnies, and for many other reasons, the masses of the Soviet people will not understand why Peoples China is now putting forth territorial claims to the Soviet Union, they will not accept this, and Soviet propaganda is working to make them revolt against you. But we think that even true Soviet communists will not understand it, nor will they accept it. This would be a colossal loss for our struggle. ’We think that we must not open old wounds, if any, we must not start a controversy and polemics over whether or not the Soviet Union has appropriated other countries’ land, but our only concentrated struggle should be spearheaded against the great ulcer, against the great betrayal represented by imperialism and Modern revisionism, the traitor groups of Khrushchev, Tito and all their henchmen![7]
Even though the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party took this unprincipled stand and cowardly attitude, the Party of Labor of Albania continued to struggle against imperialism, exposing the Khrushchevlte revisionist clique before the whole of worldwide public opinion, and it did this together with China. This was absolutely correct as time has confirmed, for the purpose of aiding the revolution in China and the genuine Marxist-Leninists, because the course which China would take was not yet quite clear, and matters were not yet totally settled. This correct stance stemmed from the fact that the Party of Labor of Albania has fought to defend the Leninist norms of relations between fraternal parties, and it has been the revisionists who have violated these norms, while Socialist Albania has come forward triumphant each and every time, Each time a victory for Marxism-Leninism has been scored, while the revisionists in the end show themselves the renegades that they are, because they are incapable of adhering to the most basic of the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, and are motivated by chauvinistic aims. This brings them smack up against the unswerving proletarian internationalist stand of Socialist Albania.
The Party of Labor’s consistent Marxist-Leninist stands continue to aid the revolutionary movements in the colonies and neo-colonies for national and social liberation. Its own history, which is the history of an ancient people tempered in a thousand battles, reflects the application of the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism. Led by the Party of Labor, the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry rose to kick out the foreign aggressors, overthrew the Zog regime, established its national liberation and proceeded to emancipate itself through social progress, building socialism and putting an end to the exploitation of man by man. Socialist Albania has carried on with the revolutionary mission ushered in by the Great October Revolution lead by the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin.
In contrast, the Chinese revolution, misled by the “Communist” Party of China, refused to be guided by the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism. Instead what was “protected” was the interest of the national bourgeoisie, who was seeking control of its own market, to develop China into a powerful capitalist country. Hence, their contradictions with the imperialists and comprador bourgeoisie, who sought to reduce China to a colony.
The U.S. Leninist Core has taken a closer look at three of Mao Tsetung’s so-called “contributions to Marxism-Leninism”, that is “On New Democracy”, “Ten Major Relations”, and “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”. Our analysis of these three deviants from Marxist-Leninist theory is published in this issue of Bolshevik.
For U.S. Marxist-Leninists the drawing of lines of demarcation against the revisionist theory of “three worlds” was as yet incomplete without the total rupture with “Mao Tsetung Thought” which exerted great detrimental influence in the international communist movement in general, and in the U.S. most specifically. “Mao Tsetung thought” served to strengthen alien bourgeois nationalist tendencies, giving rise to a number of deviations away from proletarian internationalism, and to an incorrect appraisal of the national question in the U.S. Rather than persist in the application of the Comintern’s thesis of the handling of the national question in the U.S., the correct resolutions passed and approved at congresses of the Comintern, (which is the subject of much study and reaffirmation within the Leninist Core in order to implement correctly the Marxist-Leninist line on such a crucial question as the national question); instead, Mao Tsetung’s racist “underdeveloped”, “Third World peoples”, “oppressed nationality vanguard”, “people of color unite” line was introduced by the franchised agents of Chinese revisionism, as a way to sabotage and undermine the vanguard role of the U.S. proletariat, and as a way to drive a wedge between the proletariat and the oppressed nationalities in the U.S. This has been much to the liking of the U.S. imperialists and their lap dogs the social-chauvinists, who have made use of this rift and have utilized this weakness of the revolution in the U.S., extending it to justify the U.S. imperialist plunder of the colonies and neo-colonies, and the widespread influence of chauvinism within the ranks of the U.S. proletariat. The influence of Chinese revisionism witnessed the growth of various organizations of nationalist character, with the little red book in hand, Mao buttons on chest, while scarcely versed in the Marxist-Leninist classics. In fact, the Red Book became a way to heighten the existence of the historical right opportunist trend of belittling theory. The little catch phrases of the sophist Mao Tsetung, gave rise to simplicity, empiricism, eclecticism, and a pragmatic approach to revolutionary activity which to this day serves as a stumbling block.
Instead of the fight for one Marxist-Leninist line, and the grouping of the advanced workers in a center to build the Party of the proletariat, “serve the people” programs, which did the social agencies one better, mushroomed. This wave of reformist activity lingered on through the 1960’s, and the genuine communist forces were in no position to come to the lead of the spontaneous awakening of the masses rebelling throughout the major industrial cities in the U.S. It was in these circumstances that the Revolutionary Union and October League, the sponsored agents of Chinese revisionism, moved out of their Ivy League college campuses, placing their petty bourgeois followers in the trade union movement. Trade union politics blossomed and the worship of spontaneity was further justified, economism and reformism were strengthened and revolutionary activity was further hampered by these “big” bureaucratic organizations which were formed to compete with the labor bureaucrats, and who were seeking to replace the old trade unions with their version of radicalized petty bourgeois organizations so that they could receive the crumbs. This gave rise to a further strengthening of the liquidationist trend, which was introduced by Browder and Foster in the 1930’s, and the central task of building the Party was replaced to suit Chinese revisionism’s “united front against imperialism”.
The flirting going on between the Chinese revisionists and Khrushchevite revisionism was kept hidden by the Chinese revisionists, but its effects were expressed by their franchised agents who sought to strike all sorts of deals with the “C“PUSA, The Guardian and wherever they found the old guard, Khrushchevite revisionists hiding. This met with the opposition of the developing Marxist-Leninist movement in the U.S., which had demarcated itself from Khrushchevite revisionism, when it reared its ugly head at the 20th Congress of the “C”PSU in 1956, which found the historically revisionist “C”PUSA cuddled up in Khrushchev’s lap. The Revolutionary Union and October League (Revolutionary “Communist” Party) and (“Communist” Party “Marxist-Leninist”) these franchised agents of Chinese revisionism, were beginning to show their true colors, by calling for “united front” actions with the revisionists. This move on their part served to accelerate their inevitable downfall.
The Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. have been able to draw the line of demarcation against Chinese revisionism precisely because of the unwavering stance in the struggle against modern revisionism, Khrushchevite and Tito-ite revisionism. Although it is an undeniable fact that the theory of the “three worlds” exerted a devastating influence over the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the U.S., at the same time the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. have never been “third worldists”. It is important that this distinction be made in light of the danger which centrism is assuming in the Marxist-Leninist movement In the U.S.
In 1972 Nixon went to China, at the invitation of Mao Tsetung and Chou En-lai. This marked the beginning of the split between Chinese revisionism (which had snuck into the international communist movement) and the rest of the international communist movement.
In the U.S. the genuine Marxist-Leninists were attacked as “ultra-leftist” for not supporting “normalization” of relations between China and the U.S.S.R. and O.L., to cover the support which they gave to their government’s penetration into China, waged a “throw Nixon out” campaign which the Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. also repulsed. As the rapprochement between the Chinese revisionists and the U.S. imperialists unfolded for the world to see, at a time when the U.S. imperialists were bombing Vietnam, the genuine Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. found themselves in intense study of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, which led to a rupture with the representatives of Chinese revisionism, R.U. and O.L. The study of the classics and the struggle to defend its purity, for its strictest application, brought the Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. head-on against the social chauvinists (who had been organized and led by the Chinese revisionists) those defenders of “Mao Tsetung Thought” who were openly calling for unity with their bourgeoisie in case of an invasion from the Soviet social imperialists. Stirred up into a frenzy by Chinese revisionism, the petty bourgeois-Philistines who made up the social basis of the social chauvinist cliques in the U.S., were forced to back down as they were being unmasked and defeated by the genuine Marxist-Leninists who defended Lenin’s teachings, based on the study and application of such classics as Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, and Collapse of the Second International.
The struggle to build the Party in opposition to liquidationism, brought the Marxist-Leninists closer to a confrontation with the franchised agents of Chinese revisionism, and lines of demarcation were drawn. In July 1974 the fight for the one Marxist-Leninist line went to a higher level, and the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the U.S. took up the struggle against “Communist” Labor Party (C.L.P.) liquidationist call for a party congress, and against the theory of “three worlds”. At a low level of understanding we argued that the theory of “three worlds” served the interest of bourgeois nationalism and that it served to undermine the socialist camp, placing Socialist Albania in the so-called “second world”, which was composed of second rate capitalist imperialist countries. We argued that the advocacy of unity with the comprador bourgeoisie was anti-Leninist, and it had the aim of subverting the national liberation wars while apologising for colonialism and neo-colonialism. We argued that the advocacy of unity with the so-called second world was a class collaborationist line, which sought to strike an alliance between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. And we argued that the task in the U.S. was to build the Party to lead the proletariat in a one stage proletarian revolution in the U.S., for the seizure of state power by the proletariat by force, and that the United Front was Identical to “C”PUSA’s anti-monopoly coalition. In conclusion we argued that “Mao Tsetung Thought” lent itself to negate that we’re in the era of Leninism, the era of imperialism, the eve of the socialist revolution which the theory of the “three worlds” denies. These propositions are today proven correct. We could not consolidate our advances, however, because we had not made a thorough rupture, we had not at the time realized that China was not a socialist country, that the “Communist” Party of China was a fraud, and that Mao Tsetung was not a Marxist-Leninist. These misconceptions served to divorce the struggle for the one Marxist-Leninist line from the battle against an international revisionist phenomena now known as Chinese revisionism.
We were belated in the complete rupture but thanks to the guidance of the Party of Labor of Albania, in Battle With Modern Revisionism, and thanks to Enver Hoxha’s report at the 7th Party Congress, our understanding was enhanced. The genuine Marxist-Leninist forces in the U.S. were scattered and suffering from the effects of a vicious campaign of slander; the bourgeoisie, utilizing both its military and social props, had delivered heavy blows. But we were able to begin the process of re-groupment of our forces and make the rupture with modern revisionism more complete.
However, we were still not making the rupture thorough, we had not drawn the line of demarcation completely, for we viewed the events in China as a ’restoration of capitalism’ in a country which has never been socialist. The wheeling and dealing between Mao Tsetung and his cohorts and U.S. imperialism was still not summed up, events were still unfolding. The final act of desperation for Chinese revisionism came with the unilateral, hostile act on the part of the Teng Hsiao Ping warlords, the withdrawal of aid, a big state chauvinist act against Socialist Albania. We began at that moment to question the historic policy of the “Communist” Party of China, which the letter from the Central Committee and government of the Peoples Socialist Republic of Albania to the Central Committee and Government of China, clearly exposes and clarifies From that moment on, a critical attitude toward Mao Tsetung’s writings was adopted, which brought us to the realization that Mao Tsetung in fact sabotaged the Chinese Revolution. Much of his writings are a declaration in the interest of the national bourgeoisie, apologist for imperialism, anti-Marxist-Leninist, and a consistent underhanded attack on Comrade Joseph Stalin, and the entire socialist camp.
We realized then, that no thorough rupture with Chinese revisionism was possible without a thorough rupture with the counter-revolutionary concept “Mao Tsetung Thought”. Once this realization is grasped, the reading of Mao Tsetung’s writing will reveal unbridled sophistry, metaphysics, and idealism. Through catchphrases and cliches, such slogans as “where the broom does not sweep”, vulgarization of criticism and self-criticism, and “non-antagonistic contradictions with the counter-revolution”, “cure the illness to save the patient”, and “imperialism is a paper tiger”, the claim that the bourgeoisie would fight for socialism, “two-line struggle within the Communist Party”, the “30-70”-100% attack on Stalin, on the October 1917 Russian Revolution the Bolshevik Party and the undermining of Lenin, the opposition to one Marxist-Leninist line and to a one-party system, the opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism and communism, run like an uninterrupted thread throughout the five volumes and other pamphlets of “Mao Tsetung Thought” which contribute not to Marxism-Leninism but to the counter-revo1ution.
The “C”P “M-L” acted courageous in defense of Mao Tsetung; their unity lies in rabid anti-communism.
To Mao, Confucius was his mentor; little quotes from Confucius are found throughout his writings. Throwing the entire blame on the counterrevolutionary agent of Soviet social imperialism, Lin Piao, can’t cover the fact that Mao was very fond of Confucius.
By way of further repulsing the theory of “three worlds”, the rupture with “Mao Tsetung thought” serves to further strengthen the fight for the one Marxist-Leninist line, and draws a firm and definite line of demarcation with Chinese revisionism.
[1] Archer, China in the 20th Century
[2] Mao Tse-tung’s Conversation with Patrick J. Hurley, Franklin Roosevelt’s special emissary.
[3]Mao Tse-tung, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 231
[4] ibid., p. 232
[5] ibid., p. 235
[6] “Letter of the CC of the Party of Labour and the Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party and the Government ofChina”, pp. 28-29
[7] ibid., p. 29