« 1. 2345» Pages: ( 1./9 total )
本页主题: 《北京周刊》英文文选 Articles from Peking Review During the Mao Era 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

weihong2
级别: 论坛版主


精华: 0
发帖: 1693
威望: 1694 点
红花: 16930 朵
贡献值: 0 点
在线时间:406(小时)
注册时间:2007-05-31
最后登录:2009-08-25

 《北京周刊》英文文选 Articles from Peking Review During the Mao Era

管理提醒:
本帖被 wengeadmin 从 文革文献 移动到本区(2009-02-16)
图片:
Peking Review Articles — Listed by Date of Publication
[A SUBJECT INDEX is also available.]
1982 — Vol. 25:

Subject Index of Articles from Peking Review
[Mostly From the Mao Era]


An index of these articles by date of publication is available
at: http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/index.htm
In many cases individual articles relate to more than one major
topic and are therefore listed in multiple categories below.






      
      
      

     
     
    顶端 Posted: 2007-12-18 01:42 | [楼 主]
    weihong2
    级别: 论坛版主


    精华: 0
    发帖: 1693
    威望: 1694 点
    红花: 16930 朵
    贡献值: 0 点
    在线时间:406(小时)
    注册时间:2007-05-31
    最后登录:2009-08-25

     

        
    Peking Review: Contents Page
    Feb. 26, 1965       Vol. 8, #9

    [The articles below with active links have been scanned in and posted on this site.
    Comments in brackets added by the MASSLINE.ORG editor.]

    The Week

        * Among the major events of the week
        * Sino-Congolese (B) Anniversary
        * Vice-Premier Chen Yi’s Speech: U.S. Aggressive Troops Must Be Forced to Quit Indo-China
        * Premier Chou Greets Afro-Asian Economic Seminar
        * China Recognizes Gambia
        * Nepal's Democratic Day
        * China-G.D.R. Trade

    Articles and Documents

        Fast Growing Sino-Tanzanian Friendship
        China Hails President Nyerere’s State Visit, by Our Correspondent

        Chairman Liu Reaffirms China’s Firm Support for People of Viet Nam and the Congo

        Document
        Sino-Tanzanian Joint Communique

        Sino-Tanzanian Treaty of Friendship

        Johnson Administration in a Dilemma, editorial from Renmin Ribao. [About the U.S. escalation of its imperialist war against Vietnam.]

        Withdrawal of International Commission’s Fixed Teams From D.R.V. Imperative

        Washington’s New Move to Aggravate Far East Tension

        Japanese Militarists Have Not Abandoned Their Ambitions, by Commentator.
        [Sidebar:] Facts on File: “Operation Three Arrows” — Japanese Militarists’ Secret War Plan

        The Just Stand of the U.A.R. Government, by Commentator.

        International Communist Movement
        E. F. Hill’s Statement. [Rejecting the revisionist C.P.S.U.’s call for an international meeting of Communist parties.]

        Industrial Management in China — How China’s Socialist State-Owned Industrial Enterprises Are Managed, by Ma Wen-Kuei

        Facts on File
        Why U.S. Opposes a Return to the Gold Standard

        Continued Weakening of U.S. Economic Position in the Capitalist World:
        Major economic statistics of European countries and the United States
        [This appears to be a sidebar to the previous article.]

    Round the World

        * U.S. Outrages in Uganda: Africa Protests
        * Indonesia: Ready to Bear Arms
        * U.N. Assembly: Do-Nothing Session

    Across the Land

        * Off to a Good Start   [About spring plowing and planting.]
        * Medical Teams in Countryside
        * New Waterway for Lumber Transport
        * Concern for the People   [On the part of the P.L.A. and police.]
        * Helping Themselves   [The socialist education movement in agriculture in a commune near the Great Wall.]
        * Briefs

    Cinema

        * Serving the Peasants
        * On the Road
        * Helpful Aids





        
          RENMIN RIBAO
    Johnson Administration in a Dilemma

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #9, Feb. 26, 1965, pp. 11-12.]

          Following is a translation of “Renmin Ribao’s” February 19 editorial. Boldface emphases are ours. —Ed.

          THE war of aggression by the United States in south Viet Nam has become a noose around its neck. To get out of it, U.S. imperialism is trying to expand the war in Indo-China. But contrary to its expectations, it finds the noose getting tighter and tighter.

          U.S. imperialism has repeatedly attacked the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam, adopting a swashbuckling posture as if it would not hesitate to risk a bigger war. In point of fact, it is outwardly strong but inwardly brittle; it is weak and jittery despite its fearful appearance.

          The New York Times reported that an atmosphere of uneasiness and anxiety prevailed in Washington in the last few days. It pointed out that “escalation of the war in Viet Nam, such as took place last week, has led the United States to the entrance of a one-way street,” that is, “a major war” in Southeast Asia. Walter Lippmann, a Wall Street ideaman, hastily warned Johnson against repeating the error of Truman. Everybody now knows what a miserable end the Truman Administration came to in the Korean war. The impending total defeat of its war of aggression in south Viet Nam and the prospect of receiving another lesson similar to that in Korea have thrown Washington into a dilemma and unending anxiety.

          Because it cannot go on as it has in south Viet Nam any longer, the Johnson Administration is anxious to try escalating the war in Indo-China. For years, the United States has been fighting a “special war” in south Viet Nam. Far from winning, it is now at a loss as to how to go on with it. Even General Maxwell Taylor, author of “special warfare,” had to admit that he knew of “no ground rules” governing this type of war.

          What are rules? Rules are a reflection of the process of development of objective things independent of the will of human beings. People gain initiative only when they grasp the rules of things. When U.S. imperialism unleashed “special warfare” in south Viet Nam it evidently thought that half of Viet Nam was no match for the number one imperialist power. It never expected that as soon as it intruded into south Viet Nam it would be encircled by the people as though falling into a vast sea and in danger of being drowned. It is not the rules of “special warfare” but those of the people’s war that operate there. The people of south Viet Nam have fully exploited the unlimited potentialities of a people’s war and beaten the U.S. aggressors black and blue. The “Staley-Taylor Plan,” the “heliborne tactics,” the “strategic hamlets,” “limited retaliation” and what not have all gone with the wind. Even the personal command of the war by Maxwell Taylor, whom Washington considers its ablest man, is of no avail. Brave, alert and quick, the south Viet Nam liberation forces have, within the short space of three and a half months, inflicted six bitter defeats on the U.S. aggressors.

          That U.S. imperialism will lose the war is now a foregone conclusion. Each extra day it stays in south Viet Nam means another day’s trouncing. Its ultimate failure is inevitable.

          U.S. imperialism places its hope of retrieving its defeat in south Viet Nam on the venture of escalating the war in Indo-China. Again its move is the wrong one. The United States and its south Vietnamese quislings have committed war provocations against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and taken the lead in breaking the demarcation line between south and north Viet Nam, thus giving the D.R.V. the right and the initiative to hit back in self-defence, and giving China and all other countries which uphold the Geneva agreements the right to aid the D.R.V. in resisting U.S. aggression. In other words, U.S. imperialism has placed the ends of the noose around its neck in the hands of the south Vietnamese people, the D.R.V., China and all other countries which uphold the Geneva agreements.

          It is now asserted in Washington that China’s intentions are still not clear. Does Johnson want to find out China’s true intentions? As a matter of fact they are very clear. So long as you are willing to hand us one end of the noose, we are sure to seize it tightly. How far you go is your own affair. But if you think that the war can be made to develop as you wish, that is a matter you cannot decide.

          U.S. imperialism is doing its utmost to intimidate us, saying that it has naval and air superiority and aren’t you afraid of this?

          But what is that naval and air superiority? It is only a few hundred warships and several thousand aircraft. If U.S. nuclear blackmail has failed to cow people, how can its naval and air superiority ever succeed in doing so? To be frank, no matter how many warships and aircraft the United States may possess, they will not enable it to dominate the world. Far from being afraid of them, the revolutionary people in every land are able to make them rush about from one part of the world to another. The more the United States over-reaches itself, the more vulnerable it will become. It will find itself beaten everywhere, and its being driven from pillar to post all over the world will be more clearly seen.


    In South Viet Nam: Way Out?
    Cartoon by Lan Chien-an

          In so far as the south Vietnamese battlefront is concerned, the United States indeed has naval and air superiority. But what has become of it? The U.S. air force bases in south Viet Nam are now in constant danger of being attacked. In a single raid on the Bien Hoa airfield the south Viet Nam liberation forces destroyed or damaged 59 U.S. planes. The B-57 long-range bombers which remained had to take refuge in the Philippines.

          In view of the insecurity of the air force bases, three more aircraft carriers have been brought in. But even if all 12 U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific are deployed in this area it would only mean 12 more airfields on the sea. What can a few more aircraft carriers do since the outcome of the war in south Viet Nam has to be decided on land?

          U.S. naval and air superiority hasn’t been able to do much even in south Viet Nam. How then can it he relied on to expand the war? The United States is indeed over-reaching itself in trying to do such a thing.

          Though the Johnson Administration wants to expand the war in Indo-China, it has great difficulty because it lacks the necessary means. Its war provocations against the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam have once again served to arouse the opposition of the people of the world to U.S. imperialism.

          At home, the political people has greatly increased. Demonstrations against the Johnson Administration’s expansion of the war have taken place one after another and assumed unprecedented proportions. Inside U.S. ruling circles and even within the Democratic Party there are persons who are worried that such a move by Johnson would invite big trouble.

          Some days ago a few of the allies and satellites of the United States were beating the drums for it but they are now as quiet as cicadas in late autumn. Throughout this wide world, the Johnson Administration cannot find a single true follower except its own shadow.

          The Johnson Administration is neither willing to accept defeat nor bold enough to face the consequences of an extended war, and so it is in a tight spot. This is the real background to the constant talk in Washington about so-called negotiations from positions of strength.

          The aim of the Johnson Administration is quite clear—to get at the conference table what it could not get on the battlefield. It wants to bind the south Viet Nam liberation forces hand and foot, and strengthen the positions of the U.S. forces and the puppet regime so as to get a breathing spell. Isn’t it too much wishful thinking on Johnson’s part to hope to grab back at the conference table what it has lost on the battlefield? Can anything ever be so easy for the United States? Peace in Viet Nam can he readily achieved, but it can only be after the U.S. aggressors have withdrawn from south Viet Nam and certainly not before. The United States must stop its aggression and intervention in Indo-China and let the Indo-Chinese peoples settle their own problems.

          The days of U.S. imperialism in south Viet Nam are numbered. Sooner or later it will be kicked out or wiped out. We have long ago advised the U.S. imperialists: It’s better for you to quit early. We shall bid you farewell if you go; if you choose to stay, you are welcome too. For, in the latter case, the people of south Viet Nam will continue to engage you in battle and obtain an endless supply of weapons free of charge; you teachers by negative example will continue to serve a useful purpose by educating and mobilizing the people of various countries. What’s bad about that? To stay or get out is for you to decide.





        
    Industrial Management in China
    — How China’s Socialist State-Owned Industrial Enterprises Are Managed
    by Ma Wen-kuei

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #9, Feb. 26, 1965,
    pp. 20-23. Bear in mind that this article describes the situation before
    the major transformations of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.]

          SOCIALIST state-owned industrial enterprises require a system of management which meets the demands of large-scale modern production and at the same time helps foster the revolutionary initiative and creativeness of the working class.

          Democratic centralism is fundamental in the administration both of our state and of our socialist state-owned industrial enterprises. Comrade Liu Shao-chi has pointed out: “The system adopted in managing our enterprises is a system which combines a high degree of centralization with a high degree of democracy. All enterprises must abide by the unified leadership and planning of the [Communist] Party and the state, and, by observing strict labour discipline, ensure unity of will and action among the masses. At the same time, they should bring into full play the initiative and creativeness of the workers, develop the supervisory role of the masses, and get them to take part in the management of their enterprises.”1

          All managment in our enterprises must conform to the spirit of democratic centralism. This fully suits the socialist nature of our industrial enterprises and the objective demands of modern industrial production. Both the nature of ownership by the whole people of the enterprises and the highly socialized nature of modern industrial production call for a highly centralized and unified leadership. Failing this, socialized production cannot be carried out in a normal way, nor can the principles, policies and plans of the Communist Party and the state be implemented thoroughly. But the centralized leadership of socialist industrial enterprises, in which staff and workers are also masters and enjoy the right to participate in management, is fundamentally different from the arbitrary dictatorship existing in capitalist enterprises. It should and can be combined with extensive democracy. Our system of democratic centralism is centralism based on democracy, and democracy under centralized guidance.

          In leading socialist construction in China, our Party has developed a whole system of management which integrates a high degree of centralization with a high degree of democracy. Practice has proved that its correct implementation helps bring about in our industrial enterprises a vigorous and lively political atmosphere in which there is both centralism and democracy, discipline and freedom, unity of will and personal ease of mind. As a result, problems arising in the enterprises can be solved more correctly and production developed with greater, faster, better and more economical results.

          The following are among the major features of this system of management: the director assumes full responsibility under the collective leadership of the Communist Party committee; a conference of staff and workers’ representatives; cadres participate in labour and workers participate in management; and close co-operation among leading cadres, technical personnel and workers.

    Director Assumes Full Responsibility Under
    Collective Leadership of Party Committee

          The director assuming full responsibility under the collective leadership of the Party committee is a fundamental feature of the system of management in our state-owned industrial enterprises. The essence of this is the proper integration of collective leadership and personal responsibility with the leadership of the Party as the core.

          Collective leadership is the basic principle and consistent tradition of our Party in given leadership. In his article “On Strengthening the Party Committee System,” Comrade Mao Tse-tung gave a comprehensive summary of the successful experience gained by our Party in carrying out collective leadership. He pointed out that “all important problems (of course, not the unimportant, trivial problems, or problems whose solutions have already been decided after discussion at meetings and need only be carried out) must be submitted to the committee for discussion, and the committee members present should express their views fully and reach definite decisions which should then be carried out by the members concerned.”2

          Why must we adhere to the collective leadership of the Party and persist in having all important problems decided by the collective concerned instead of by individuals? This is because different opinions of the masses and various aspects of objective things in the courise of their development can be more comprehensively reflected through collective discussions with the airing of different views. In this way the masses’ experience and opinions can be brought together and summed up more correctly and decisions more consistent with reality reached. This has been fully borne out by the experience of our Party in leading revolution and construction over a long period.

          In our state-owned industrial enterprises, the technical equipment for production is modern, the division of labour is extensive, links among various departments are close and production is highly technical, scientific and socialized. At the same time, the struggle between bourgeois and proletarian ideology and between the roads of socialism and capitalism runs in various forms through every aspect of the enterprises. The problem of management is, therefore, very complicated. In order to pool and sum up the masses’ opinions and experience in a fairly correct manner and successfully carry on the class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiments, the leadership of the enterprises must closely adhere to the Party’s principle of collective leadership.

          Experience has proved that excellent results are achieved in those enterprises which persist in correctly integrating collective leadership and personal responsibility with the Party as the core, because (1) more correct decisions are reached through collective discussion in the Party committee and by relying on the experience and wisdom of the collective, and (2) the method of leadership characterized by division of responsibility and the mass line is employed to ensure the realization of various important measures. Precisely because of this, the Eighth National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party held in 1956 clearly stipulated that the principle of the director assuming full responsibility under the collective leadership of the Party committee must be put into practice in all industrial enterprises.

          It goes without saying that by collective leadership of the Party committee, we do not mean the abandonment of personal responsibility. On the contrary, collective leadership and personal responsibility supplement and complement each other, neither can be ignored. Collective leadership can be brought about only through the division of responsibility among individuals, while the role of individuals can be brought into full play only by combining their experience and wisdom with those of the collective through collective leadership.

          The highly centralized production of state-owned industrial enterprises calls for highly unified control and requires that the director assume responsibility for routine productive and administrative work under the leadership of the Party committee. Without the director strictly assuming full responsibility under the collective leadership of the Party committee, a state of confusion would arise in which duties are not clearly defined and no one bears responsibility. As Lenin said: “At any rate, and under all circumstances without exception, committee methods must be accompanied by the precisest definition of the personal responsibility of every individual for a precisely defined job. Irresponsibility on the plea of committee methods is the most dangerous evil.”3 Our own experience has furnished proof of this.

    Staff and Workers’ Representatives Conference

          The staff and workers’ representatives conference is an important means of broadening democracy and getting the masses of staff and workers to take part in management and to supervise the work of the administration. Comrade Teng Hsiao-ping has said: “The staff and workers’ representatives conference under the leadership of the Communist Party committee is a good means of broadening democracy in the enterprises, of recruiting workers and staff to take part in the management and of overcoming bureaucracy. It is an effective method of correctly handling contradictions among the people.” The conference helps integrate centralized leadership with the bringing into play of the initiative of the masses of staff and workers, thus simultaneously strengthening the centralized leadership from top to bottom and providing supervision by the masses from below. This results in continuously improving administrative work and ensuring the overall fulfilment of state plans.

          In state-owned industrial enterprises, the staff and workers’ representatives conference is an important form through which the staff and workers all participate in management. The conference may hear and discuss the director’s report on the work of the enterprise, examine and discuss production, financial, technological and wage plans as well as major measures to realize them, check regularly on the implementation of these plans and put forward proposals. It may examine and discuss the use of the enterprise’s bonus, welfare, medical, labour protection and trade union funds as well as other funds allotted for the livelihood and welfare of the staff and workers. On condition that the directives and orders issued by higher authorities are not violated, the conference may adopt resolutions on the expenditure of the above funds and charge the administrative or other departments concerned to carry them out. It may criticize any of the leaders of the enterprise and, when necessary, make proposals to the higher administrative authorities for punishing or dismissing those leaders who seriously neglect their duties and behave badly. Should there be disagreement with the decisions of the higher administrative authorities, the conference may put forward its own proposals, but if the higher authorities insist on the original decisions after due study, it must carry them through accordingly.

          This is why the staff and workers’ representatives conference is an important means of developing democracy and getting the masses of staff and workers to participate in management throughout the factory. Through this conference, the Party’s principles and policies can be better implemented among the masses, the relations between the interests of the state and those of the staff and workers of the enterprise in question can be correctly handled, those between the administration on the one hand and the trade union organization and the masses of the staff and workers on the other can be correctly adjusted; and at the same time the socialist consciousness of the staff and workers and their sense of responsibility as masters in their own house can be raised, the masses’ supervision over administrative work strengthened, and the improvement of management promoted.

          The staff and workers’ representatives conference is convened regularly and presided over by the trade union. When the conference is not in session, its routine work is done by the trade union under the leadership of the enterprise’s Party committee and with the active support and co-ordination of the enterprise’s administration.

    Cadres Participate in Physical Labour and Workers in Management

          Another important means of correctly implementing the mass line in the management of industrial enterprises is that of cadres participating in physical labour and workers participating in management. This is also a means of key importance in correctly handling contradictions among the people and contradictions between those engaged in production and management.

          As regards the significance of cadres’ participation in labour, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party has pointed out: “When leading cadres take part in productive labour and become one with the masses, this helps in the timely discovery and practical solution of problems, helps improve the style of leadership and consequently makes it easier to avoid and overcome many errors of bureaucracy, sectarianism and subjectivism, and helps to change the attitude of despising physical labour which exists in society.... The Central Committee holds that provided they are fit for physical work, not only cadres working at county, district and hsiang levels, but also the main leading personnel of Party committees at various levels above the county and the leading Party cadres who are working in government organs and people’s organizations, including the members of the Party’s Central Committee, must devote some time every year to doing some physical labour.”4 The Central Committee also pointed out that “our Party’s tradition of keeping in close touch with the masses and of hard work and plain living must be carried forward. Participation in physical labour by leading cadres at all levels helps gradually integrate mental and physical labour and constitutes a system whereby this splendid tradition can be carried forward.”

          Experience has shown that by regularly participating in physical labour and production in order to give on-the-spot leadership, cadres can acquaint the masses with the Party’s policies more directly and more promptly and their relations with the masses will become closer. In this way, the masses’ initiative and the workers’ sense of responsibility as masters in their own house can be greatly stimulated.

          Through taking part in labour, cadres can improve their style of work and method of leadership. By regularly going to the production front, taking part in labour and acquainting themselves with conditions on the spot, cadres in leading posts are able to combine general directives with concrete guidance and to discover and solve problems promptly, thus giving better leadership in production.

          Adhering to the practice of cadres participating in labour and the style of work which embodies the Party’s mass line is, therefore, of great significance in improving the management of industrial enterprises and promoting industrial production. Moreover, by taking part in labour and maintaining close contacts with the masses, cadres can raise their level of ideological and political consciousness and thus promote their own revolutionization. Meanwhile, they can learn production techniques and gradually make themselves cadres who are both politically advanced and professionally proficient.

          In a word, by having cadres participate in labour we can avoid bureaucracy and prevent revisionism and dogmatism. For the socialist system, it is a matter of fundamental significance.

          There are many ways in which cadres take part in labour in the industrial enterprises. Here are some of them: working with a shift of workers to make investigations and studies; working with a shift to find solutions to actual problems; living and working together with a shift which lags behind in order to help it catch up with the more advanced; working with a shift when conditions are hardest and most difficult; working with a shift which is doing the most critical and important job or faces complicated conditions. Some enterprises have developed cadres’ participation in labour into a regular system by demanding that they do physical labour on a fixed day (or days) in the week, at a fixed job and with specific responsibilities and that, when they become skilful enough, they fulfil an ordinary worker’s quota. This is good experience. But whatever form is chosen, when cadres participate in labour, they must at the same time help organize production and do ideological and political work.

          The participation of workers in management embodies the Party’s principles of running enterprises well by relying on the working class. This takes various forms. In addition to the above-mentioned staff and workers’ representatives conference, workers take part in the management of the routine work of the production groups. As a result of workers participating in management, the centralized leadership of enterprises can be put on a more extensive mass basis, management by administrative personnel and by the masses can be closely integrated and management can better meet the need for the development of production, thus giving it a constant forward impetus.

          At the same time, through participation in management, workers can be further tempered; they are enabled to master production skills and continuously raise their level of class consciousness as well as enhance their organization ability and learn the work of management. In this way, the workers’ role as masters in their own house can be brought into fuller play in socialist construction and in the life of the state as well as in the management of industrial enterprises.

    Close Co-operation Among Leading Cadres, Technical Personnel and Workers

          The close co-operation among leading cadres, technical personnel and workers of industrial enterprises to study and solve problems of production technique and management is a practical application of the Party’s mass line in the period of socialist construction. Putting into operation technical policies, technical measures, methods of management, and so on, to develop production, involves a series of complex problems. To arrive at the correct decisions and implement them in every respect requires a high level of political and class consciousnes and a good knowledge of economic affairs, natural science and techniques. Consequently, it is necessary to rely on the initiative and creativeness of the workers, technical and administrative personnel, and to pool their knowledge and experience in the course of practice. Close co-operation among leading cadres, technical personnel and workers is a good way to do so.

          This method not only stimulates the initiative of the broad masses but also brings into play the initiative of the technical staff—those who are technically better qualified as well as those who are not so highly qualified. It also furthers the integration of politics with techniques, politics with professional work, the leading personnel with the masses, theory with practice, and popularization with the raising of standards, thus swiftly lifting the workers’ technical and theoretical levels and furthering the ideological remoulding of intellectuals. In this way, it will be possible gradually to lessen the difference between mental and physical labour, and to develop science and technology more swiftly.

          By means of staff and workers’ representatives conferences, of cadres taking part in physical labour and workers taking part in management, and of co-operation among leading cadres, technical personnel and workers, industrial enterprises are enabled to develop, under centralized and unified leadership, political democracy and democracy pertaining to matters relating to production and technique and economic affairs.

          To foster political democracy is to insure that the masses of staff and workers have the right to struggle against all that is contrary to Party or estate policies, or which violates law and order, and that every staff member and worker has the right to criticize cadres at cextain meetings. This helps to raise the class conciousness of staff and workers, adjust internal relations and strengthen internal unity.

          To promote democracy in matters pertaining to production and techniques is to draw in the broad masses to take part in the management of production and technical matters, to co-ordinate management by the masses with that by administrative personnel, to mobilize staff and workers to discuss production plans and important problems of production and technique and to go in for technical innovations in a big way.

          To develop economic democracy is to have workers participate in management and business accounting work. Fully fostering political democracy and democracy in matters pertaining to production and technique, and economic democracy will stimulate the initiative of staff and workers and achieve the aim of strengthening unity, consolidating discipline, improving management and developing production.

    Rules and Procedures

          Another important problem in managing industrial enterprises is the necessity to change in a revolutionary spirit those rules and set procedures of industrial enterprises which have got out of step with reality, or have become irrational, and to adopt new rational rules and procedures and perfect them.

          No modern industrial enterprise can do for a moment without rules and set procedures. All those which accurately reflect the objective laws governing the production processes of an enterprise serve to bring into play the initiative and creativeness of the masses and help promote the development of the productive forces. Those which do not accurately reflect the relations of man to man in productive labour and which violate objective laws of productive operations, shackle and hinder the development of the productive forces. The Party’s Central Committee has pointed out: “Standing rules and procedures not conducive to the growth of productive forces will be constantly upset by new creations of the masses during the movement [to oppose waste and extravagance and conservatism]. We must study modestly the creations of the masses, and revise original rules and procedures according to the needs of development and the tests in practice by the masses. Those which really restrain the growth of the productive forces and can be readily revised, must be immediately amended.”5

          Socialist industrial enterprises must change irrational rules and set procedures and at the same time conscientiously abide by those which are rational; only thus can production and management be carried on in a normal way in industrial enterprises and the growth of production be continuously promoted.

          The adoption or discarding of any rule or procedure should be governed by the principle of “from the masses, and back to the masses,” and therefore based on the practical experience of the masses. Only those creations of the masses which have been repeatedly tested, appraised, proved in practice and confirmed as successful should be included in the rules and set procedures. Rules and procedures should be continuously improved and perfected in the course of practice. However, for a given period there should be a certain degree of stability. The adoption or discarding of important rules and procedures must have the approval of the higher leadership of the departments concerned.

          In this way, production and management of industrial enterprises can be carried out in a more orderly manner, more smoothly and, through the actual practice of production and management, we can continuously recognize and master new laws of production and management, continuously overcome old forces of habit, and really become the masters of rules and procedures.


    _______________

    1   Message of greetings delivered by Comrade Liu Shao-chi on behalf of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China at the Eighth All-China Congress of Trade Unions (Dec. 2, 1957).

    2   “On Strengthening the Party Committee System,” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, F.L.P., Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 267.

    3   Lenin; “All Out for the Fight Against Denikin!”, Selected Works in two volumes, F.L.P.H., Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 242.

    4   Directive of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning Participation in Physical Labour by Leading Functionaries at All Levels (May 10, 1957).

    5   Directive of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Movement of Opposing Waste and Extravagance and Conservatism (March 3, 1958).



        
          Facts on File
    Why U.S. Opposes a Return to the Gold Standard
    by Shih Yuan

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #9, Feb. 26, 1965, pp. 24-25.]

          FRENCH President Charles de Gaulle’s recent call for an end to U.S. dollar dominance in the international monetary market and a return to the gold standard has met with an immediate spate of abuse from Washington. The alarmed U.S. rulers are apprehensive of losing their financial hegemony over the capitalist world.

          It is well known that under the gold standard system gold is considered the only world currency in international payments. The French President’s proposal means that from now on gold should be used as the final medium in international payments and clearance. This would deprive the dollar of its privileged position as an “international currency,” and more than ever many countries would need gold rather than dollars and would rush to cash in dollars for gold from the United States. Consequently, there would be a still greater American gold outflow.

          In the capitalist world, the U.S. dollar has occupied for 31 years a privileged position of equality to gold. Many capitalist countries kept the dollar as a reserve to support their domestic currency. Particularly in international payments and transactions, the dollar has enjoyed special prerogatives. Thus, the United States has actually become a central bank for the capitalist world, issuing paper currency and using it as an equivalent to gold. Such an abnormal state of affairs has given the U.S. Government innumerable advantages.

          As a rule, a country cannot pay off its debt to another except by exporting goods or in gold. Payment in the currency of a debtor nation would not be accepted by a creditor nation. However, the United States takes advantage of the dollar’s supremacy and compels other countries to accept payment in dollars as a means of making up its own deficits.

          All that the U.S. financial authorities need do to carry out expansionist and aggressive policies abroad is to print more dollars which are then used to grab huge amounts of foreign resources, buy over puppet governments and lease military bases. When their domestic economy and finances are in crisis, they can also shift or export the crisis to other countries. Nothing could be more beneficial to the United States. As Johnson admitted in his latest economic report, the position of the American dollar “is central to all U.S. objectives abroad.” Under such conditions, why should the United States be willing to give up the dollar’s position as an international currency?

          The U.S. ruling class has been able to dominate the Western monetary world with the dollar only because it once held a great amount of gold.

          As a result of the unstable political situation in Europe before World War II and the completely ravaged West European economy after that war, gold flowed into the United States. Hence, gold holdings in U.S. hands had amounted to 70 per cent of the capitalist world total for a long time, and the dollar, therefore, became the only currency which can be converted into gold at a fixed rate. Although the actual purchasing power of the dollar has dropped by more than 50 per cent over the past decades, the U.S. Treasury Department has continued purchasing gold from foreign countries at the official rate of 35 dollars an ounce. Since other countries do not have enough gold to back their own currencies, they had to take the dollar as a substitute for gold in international trade and payments. Even though they were dissatis4ed with this, they had no other choice except to bow to U.S. manipulation.

          Since 1950, however, the strength of the other capitalist countries has gradually been revived and their gold reserves have increased rapidly. U.S. gold reserves, on the other hand, have been dwindling, and confidence in the dollar becomes more and more shaky. Under these circumstances, it is natural that the dollar as an international currency should have been opposed by the other countries.

          As a matter of fact, the U.S. financial authorities have long called for support from the monetary authorities of the West European countries who possess large amounts of dollars, asking them not to convert their dollar holdings into gold.

          While the reality of the dollar slump can no longer be concealed, the U.S. Government still holds fast to the dominating position of the dollar. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and other officials of the Johnson Administration have emphasized recently that the dollar will not be devaluated and the United States is determined to maintain the official rate of 35 dollars to one ounce of gold, an admission that Washington will not easily give up its financial hegemony unless it comes to the end of its rope.

          Both the government and press in the United States in the past few weeks have made various attacks on the gold standard system, in an effort to find a way out of the difficult American situation caused by de Gaulle’s speech. They asserted that the gold standard system is out of date; that the total amount of gold in the world is far from enough, and if the dollar is not used to supplement gold, international trade and economy will be harmed by a “deflation,” and so forth. One would think international trade and economy could not go on even for a day without the dollar.

          In fact, it is largely due to the unstability of the dollar that capitalist world finance—which is based on the dollar—has become so shaky today. Since 1958, because the United States has issued paper currency abroad on a more lavish scale, the dollar has suffered a tremendous loss of confidence, and the price of gold rose suddenly several times in the international financial market. Countries with huge dollar holdings and those keeping the dollar as their domestic monetary reserve were thrown into a state of panic, fearful that a sudden dollar devaluation would bring them unexpected disaster. The rise in the price of gold in London to 40 dollars an ounce in November 1960 flung the whole capitalist world into confusion, clear evidence of the prevailing panic.

          The dollar is no equivalent to gold, to begin with. And now it has become a root cause of the Western world’s unstable monetary and financial situation. Therefore, the demand to reform the present Western International monetary system, which has the dollar as its foundation, is actually an irreversible trend. Although de Gaulle’s speech has provoked loud U.S. official outrage, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and other countries have expressed sympathy. This attests to the fact that on this question it is the United States and not France which has been isolated.

          More and more the countries of Western Europe, which hold a great quantity of dollars and gold, have been controlling the destiny of the dollar. Thus, however hard the U.S. rulers may struggle, their days of hegemony in the international financial market are numbered.

          [Sidebar: “Continued Weakening of U.S. Economic Position in the Capitalist World: Major economic statistics of European countries and the United States”.]




        
    Continued Weakening of U.S. Economic Position in the Capitalist World
    Major economic statistics of European countries and the Untied States

    [This short unsigned article is reprinted from Peking Review,
    #9, Feb. 26, 1965, p. 25. It seems to be a sidebar to the article
    “Why U.S. Opposes a Return to the Gold Standard”.]

          SINCE the late 1950s, the balance of economic strength among the European imperialist countries and the United States has steadily changed in favour of France and West Germany to the detriment of Britain and particularly of the United States. This finds its clearest expression in the weakening of the U.S. international financial position, as shown in the following tables.

          I.   Changes in the industrial production, export trade and gold and foreign exchange reserves of European countries and the United States expressed in percentages of capitalist world totals.


        Industrial
    Production1     Export
    Trade2     Gold and Foreign
    Exchange Reserve3

        1957     1963     1964
    (1st
    quarter)     1957     1963     1964
    (1st 6
    months)     1957
    (Dec.)     1963
    (Dec.)     1964
    (End of
    June)
    U.S.     47.30     43.58     43.30     20.6     17.2     17.3     40.6     24.2     24.0
    Britain     8.90     7.77     7.88     9.6     8.7     8.5     4.2     4.1     4.1
    Common Mkt. Six     19.45     21.05     21.47     22.5     27.8     28.1     13.6*     28.0*     27.9*
    France     5.22     5.64     5.75     5.1     5.9     6.1     1.1     6.8     7.2
    W. Germany     8.33     8.73     8.95     8.5     10.8     10.7     9.1     10.9     10.9
    Italy     3.10     4.04     4.00     2.5     3.7     3.8     2.4     4.9     4.5

          Sources: 1. Calculated according to the Economic Review of the British National Institute Of Economic and Social Research; 2. Calculated according to the journal Foreign Trade of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; 3. All except asterisks are calculated from the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund; * Figures for the gold reserves of the Common Market Six taken from the General Statistics of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

          II.Changes in international payments and gold and foreign exchange reserves of European countries and the United States. (Unit: 100 million U.S. dollars.)


        International Payments
    Surplus (+), Deficits(-)     Gold and Foreign
    Exchange Reserve*
    Increase (+), Decrease (-)

        1958-63     1964     1958-63     1964
    (1st 3
    quarters)
    U.S.     -183.70*1     -25.70*6     -70.49     +0.62
    W. Europe     +124.03*2    
        +154.13*2     +7.26
    Britain     -10.75*3     -22.40*7     +3.84     -1.17
    France     +52.20*4     +2.55*6
    (1st 6    
    months)      +40.86     +5.83*8
    (The whole
    year)  
    W. Germany     +17.69*5     -5.84*5
    (1st 3    
    quarters)      +29.98     -0.42

          Sources: *1. Survey of Current Business of the U.S. Department of Commerce; *2. Report on Western Europe of the Chase Manhattan Bank; *3. British Monthly Digest of Statistics; *4. From British journals, the Times, the Banker, the Economist; *5. West German Monatsberichte der Deutschen Bundesbank; *6. Estimated by the London Financial Times; *7. Estimated by the British Government; *8. The French Bulletin Mensuel de Statistique, and Le Figaro; * All figures not marked with footnotes are based upon the General Statistics of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.








        


        


        
        
    Peking Review: Contents Page
    Jan. 1, 1966       Vol. 9, #1

    [The articles below with active links have been scanned in and posted on this site.
    Comments in brackets added by the MASSLINE.ORG editor.]

    The Week

        * D.R.V. Army Day
        * E.F. Hill Arrives For Visit
        * Persecution of Chinese Nationals in Bali Protested
        * Sino-Korean Protocol
        * Sino-Rumanian Trade Agreement
        * Mao Tse-tung’s Works in English
        * China-G.D.R. Treaty Anniversary

    Articles and Documents

    “Welcoming 1966 — The First Year of China’s Third Five-Year Plan”, — Renmin Ribao Editorial.

    “The Leaders of the C.P.S.U. Are Betrayers of the Declaration and the Statement”, by the Editorial Department of “Renmin Ribao”.

    “The U.N. — A Market-Place for U.S.-Soviet Political Deals”

    “U.N. Has No Right to Discuss Korean Question”

    “How Low Can They Sink!”, by “Renmin Ribao” Commentator.
    [Sidebar:]“U.S.S.R., U.S. Gang Up to Slander China”

    “Foreign Ministry Statement:
    China Backs Cambodia Against U.S. War Threats”

    “Building an Independent National Economy:
    How China Raises Funds for National Construction”, by Li Cheng-jui
    Round the World

        * In Beleaguered Saigon: Butterflies in the Stomach
        * Dominican Republic Unreconciled: Adding Fuel to the Fire
        * William Epton Case: Judes Will Be Judged
        * U.S.A.: Not So Merry Christmas
        * A Matter of Faith [About how Cardinal Spellman took out a $1 million insurance policy before visiting Saigon, rather than “trusting in God”.]
        * Johnson-Erhard Talks: Give and Take
        * Foreign Press Review: U.S. Aggressors Quagmired in South Vietnam

    Across the Land

        * Industrial Achievements of 1965

    Entertainments

        * New Year Holiday Attractions





        
          RENMIN RIBAO
    Welcoming 1966 — The First Year of China’s Third Five-Year Plan
    — New Year's Day Message —

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #1, Jan. 1, 1966, pp. 5-9.]

          NINETEEN SIXTY-SIX, the first year of China’s great Third Five-Year Plan, has arrived. Full of boundless joy, the Chinese people of all nationalities are determined to make still greater achievements in the socialist revolution and socialist construction in the new year, to make the new Five-Year Plan a success from the very start.

    The Third-Five Year Plan

          The Third Five-Year Plan is a magnificent plan of the Chinese people to develop their national economy. During the period of the Third Five-Year Plan, we must hold aloft the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, continue to carry out, in a deep-going way, the three great revolutionary movements of class struggle, the struggle for production, and scientific experiment. We will carry out the socialist education movement in the countryside and cities on a still wider scale. We will strive to increase agricultural production year by year, and implement still more effectively the National Programme for Agricultural Development. While bringing into full play the latent capacities of present industrial enterprises and transport and communications services on the basis of constant technical innovations and a constant rise in labour productivity, great efforts will be made to build a number of new enterprises, strengthen national defence, strengthen basic industries, communications and transport, and further improve the distribution of industry in the country; corresponding efforts will be made to expand light industry and improve the people’s livelihood step by step on the basis of the development of production—to do all this in order to build up an independent, fairly comprehensive industrial system and national economy. We will make strenuous efforts in order to catch up with and surpass advanced world levels in science and technology and build China into a strong socialist country with modern agriculture, modern industry, modern national defence and modern science and technology within twenty to thirty years.

    Most Favourable Conditions

          Since liberation, there have never been such favourable conditions for the national economy as now, when China’s Third Five-Year Plan is being launched.

          Since liberation, China has gone through a period of two Five-Year Plans, after the period of the rehabilitation of the national economy. The First Five-Year Plan was overfulfilled by 1957. The Second Five-Year Plan, which was launched in 1958, was basically fulfilled in 1960, two years ahead of schedule. In the five years from then to the present, we made an overall readjustment of the national economy in the first three years and, in the following two years, we organized a new upsurge in the national economy, creating in every respect sound and adequate foundations for implementing the Third Five-Year Plan. From 1959 to 1961, China was hit by three successive years of natural calamities and there were some shortcomings and mistakes in our work; moreover, the Khrushchov revisionist clique perfidiously and suddenly attacked China by tearing up several hundred agreements and contracts, cutting off the supply of important items of equipment and technical data and withdrawing all Soviet experts working in China, thus adding to our economic difficulties. But all these serious difficulties did not overwhelm us. Through the efforts of the whole Party and the whole people, these big difficulties were turned into very good things.

          In the past several years, under the brilliant leadership of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and Comrade Mao Tse-tung, we have made progress in learning how to apply Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse-tung’s thinking in understanding things, analysing situations and grasping and solving problems. We found in good time ways of overcoming difficulties and ways of bringing about a great leap forward in a certain historical period. We have learnt methods of implementing the mass line more effectively. By relying on and bringing into play the strength of the masses, not only did we overcome our difficulties but we have brought about an all-round upsurge in the national economy. The Khrushchov revisionist clique’s betrayal strengthened our determination to exert greater efforts to implement the policy of self-reliance and to break down the notion of relying on others and having blind faith in them. This has greatly increased the material forces for building the country by our own efforts, and enabled us to find the correct road and a whole set of concrete measures for carrying out the socialist revolution and socialist construction in conformity with objective laws and the specific conditions of China. We have seriously summed up the experience and lessons of our work and learnt how to more comprehensively implement the general line of going all out, aiming high and achieving greater, faster, better and more economical results in building socialism. Facts have fully confirmed that our experience has become richer and our strength greater.

    Socialist Education Movement

    Class Struggle. It should be particularly pointed out that based on Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s teaching that classes and class struggle should always be borne in mind, we have taken class struggle in the past few years as the key to all our work, unfolded the socialist education movement in the countryside and the cities, and re-educated Communist Party members, cadres and the masses with the spirit of uninterrupted and thoroughgoing revolution, of carrying the socialist revolution through to the end. We have consolidated and expanded the position of socialism in the political, economic, ideological and organizational spheres and dealt a heavy blow to the noxious influences of capitalism. This greatly invigorated the outlook of the people throughout the country and their revolutionary enthusiasm is rising higher and higher. The struggle against Khrushchov revisionism has greatly raised the Marxist-Leninist ideological level and proletarian internationalism of the cadres and the masses. This is of far-reaching historic significance in preventing the restoration of capitalism and in promoting the advance of socialism in China and of world revolution.

    Cultural Revolution. The cultural revolution has been developed in depth; a series of great debates and reforms have been carried out in philosophy, history, literature, art and education, spreading Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, repudiating revisionism, upholding proletarian thinking and uprooting the ideas of the bourgeoisie and the landlord class. Many of those working in the social science field have gained a deeper understanding of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse-tung’s thinking. Many writers and artists have more clearly recognized their direction of serving proletarian politics, serving the workers, peasants and soldiers and serving the economic base of socialism. While continuing to reform the full-time schools, educational workers started to put the system of part-farming, part-study and part-work, part-study into practice experimentally. The intellectuals have gone to rural areas, factories and army units to integrate themselves with the workers, peasants and soldiers; this has helped them to remould their thinking and greatly heighten their socialist consciousness.

    Mass Movement to Study Mao Tse-tung’s Thinking. The study of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking by people all over the country has developed on an unprecedented mass scale. A vast number of people and cadres have creatively studied and used Mao Tse-tung’s works and their socialist consciousness has been raised to an all-time high. Reading Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s books, following his teachings and working in accordance with his guidance have become conscious acts of the masses of people. Mao Tse-tung’s teaching has become a powerful ideological weapon which is being used by tens of millions of people with increasing consciousness, and a great motivating force for progress in all fields of work. Learning from the People’s Liberation Army, from the Tachai Production Brigade and from the Taching Oilfield has become a nationwide campaign. The revolutionary spirit of self-reliance and hard struggle is taking root, blossoming and bearing fruit in different trades and occupations. Learning from Lei Feng and Wang Chieh and from all advanced people has grown into a movement of self-education for the broad masses. The revolutionary style of doing everything in the interest of others, disregarding one’s own interests, fearlessness in the face of trials or death and wholehearted devotion to the revolution have become new lofty moral trends in our society. All this encourages the masses of people to make greater contributions to the socialist revolution and construction, since the spirit it engenders is transformed into a material force.

    Most Powerful Material and Technical Basis Ever

          The material and technical basis of our country has never been so powerful as now, when we are embarking on the great Third Five-Year Plan.

          In the past few years, under the guidance and inspiration of the general line for building socialism, we have had great success in carrying out the general policy of developing the national economy with agriculture as the foundation and industry as the leading factor.

    Agricultural Production. Agricultural production has made tremendous advances and remarkable results have been achieved in steadily increasing output. The system of rural people’s communes has been further consolidated and its superiority has been brought into fuller play.

          The work of building water conservancy projects and improving farmland has been very fruitful. In agriculture, the Tachai Production Brigade has come forward as a brilliant pace-setter. Rural areas all over the country made great efforts to learn from Tachai. Many outstanding farming units have emerged in the style of Tachai. In 1965, there were good harvests for the fourth year running. Grain, cotton, sugar-bearing crops and tobacco output rose considerably.

    Industrial Production. There was new progress in industrial production, with a new leap forward in the increased number of varieties and improved quality. Many weak links in industry were greatly strengthened. Many gaps were filled in. The petroleum industry in particular made an important breakthrough and has made China virtually self-sufficient. Communications and transport also made great advances. The Taching Oilfield rose up as an illustrious pace-setter on the industrial, communications and transport front. Various places in the country are making great efforts to learn from Taching. As a result, many outstanding industrial enterprises have emerged in the style of the Taching Oilfield. Industrial production last year registered considerable increases, with higher labour productivity and lower costs. Many construction projects made fairly rapid progress; the quality of construction work improved, and investments yielded rather substantial results.

          The supply of commodities on the market increased steadily, in line with the development of industrial and agricultural production. In 1965, there was a big increase in the supply of pork, edible oil, sugar and cotton cloth; commodity prices remained stable and the market was brisk.

    A Country That Owes No Foreign Debt. In the past few years state revenue and expenditures were balanced and the foreign trade plan was well fulfilled. All foreign debts were repaid and China has become a country that owes no debt to any country. The capital and interest on government bonds have been repaid on time, and in two or three years China will be a country without any domestic debt.

          In the past few years, great achievements have been made in culture, education, public health and physical culture work; research in science and technology in particular advanced by leaps and bounds. All departments in the national economy made significant gains in the use of new designs, new techniques, new technological processes, new materials and new equipment. The successful explosion of two atomic bombs showed in a concentrated way that China has made a big leap forward in its efforts to catch up with and surpass the world’s advanced scientific and technical levels.

    China’s National Defence Strength Has Become Unprecedentedly Great. It is especially noteworthy that in the past few years the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, public security forces and the militia, troops who are the sons and brothers of our people, have creatively studied and used Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, given prominence to politics, persisted in carrying out the “four firsts”1 and “three-eight” working style.2 They have made great strides in their advance to revolutionization and modernization and have won important victories in the defence of our territorial air and waters and our border areas and in strengthening public security. China’s national defence strength has become unprecedentedly great.

          All this has provided a solid ideological base and a powerful material basis for our country to carry out the Third Five-Year Plan. Our people have never been so high in spirit and so strong in morale as at present. Our country has never before been so prosperous.

    1966—A Good Beginning

          Nineteen sixty-six is the first year of the Third Five-Year Plan. We must fight the battle of the first year well so as to make a good start in bringing about the smooth realization of this grand plan.

    Central Task for 1966. In the coming year, we shall continue the socialist education movement thoroughly and effectively, carrying it out by stages and by groups. We shall continue to implement in an all-round way the Party’s General Line of going all out, aiming high and achieving greater, faster, better and more economical results in building socialism. We shall launch a solid nationwide movement to increase production and practise economy. We shall put great effort into the development of agriculture. All Communist Party committees at provincial, regional, county and people’s commune levels should place agriculture first. They should increase grain and cotton production, develop a diversified economy and work energetically to resist and take precautions against natural calamities. We shall carry forward the movement for technical innovations and the technological revolution so as to give full play to the existing potentialities in the fields of industry and communications and transport; at the same time we shall have to speed the construction of new projects by way of “waging a war of annihilation with concentrated forces” in order to enable them to go into early operation. We shall redouble our effort to increase the production of raw materials and other materials, fuels, electricity and major machinery and electrical equipment. We shall give agriculture vigorous support by turning out more products suited to the needs of the countryside. We shall organize the circulation of commodities rationally and raise the standard of the trading services so as to better serve production and the people. We shall take further steps in directing our work towards the rural areas in the fields of culture, education and health in order to push forward the cultural revolution. We must also work hard to strengthen national defence, the People’s Liberation Army and the militia.

    The Viewpoint of One Dividing Into Two. We should always bear in mind Mao Tse-tung’s teaching that we should apply the viewpoint of one dividing into two in dealing with our work. The more successful our work and the greater our achievements, the more attention we must devote to the difficulties that will arise along the road of advance as well as to the shortcomings and mistakes that exist in our work. For example, our agriculture is still not strong enough to withstand the natural calamities which always affect some parts of the country every year. There are still quite a number of weak links in our industry, communications and capital construction. And quite a number of our departments still have a considerable gap to bridge before they reach advanced world scientific and technical levels.

          Comrade Mao Tse-tung taught us: “Even if we have achieved extremely great successes, there is no reason whatever to be conceited or complacent. Modesty helps a person to make progress whereas conceit makes him lag behind. This is a truth we must always bear in mind.” All areas, departments and units must, in accordance with the teachings of the Party’s Central Committee and Comrade Mao Tse-tung, constantly sum up their experience, improve their work, make discoveries and inventions, and keep on creating and advancing.

    Politics in Command. Politics is the supreme commander, the very soul of our work. It is necessary to put ideological and political work above all other work. The key in striving to accomplish and overfulfil the tasks for 1966 is to strengthen the Party’s leadership, give prominence to politics, put Mao Tse-tung’s thinking in command, and accelerate the revolutionization of man’s ideology. Practice has proved that the more prominence we give to politics and the higher we hold the red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, the more fully does the superiority of the socialist system show itself and the more assured is the victory of the cause of revolution and construction. In order to achieve still greater successes, we must follow the road of engaging energetically in revolution so as to promote production and construction.

          In the new year, we must do still better in leading and organizing the cadres and the masses in studying Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s works, and in particular do our best to apply his thinking to practice. In all fields of work, we should carry out the mass line still better and bring the initiative of all people into fuller play. We should persist in effectively combining revolutionary spirit with scientific approach, work with great vigour and advance in steady steps, and do things in a careful and thoroughgoing manner. We should be proficient at summing up and popularizing the experience of the people and units that have become pace-setters. We should be good at discovering, supporting and fostering the new things that continually appear. We must go further in learning from the People’s Liberation Army, the Tachai Production Brigade and the Taching Oilfield by developing the mass movement to “compare with, learn from, catch up with and surpass the advanced and help the less advanced.” We should carry forward and develop the fine tradition of self-reliance, working assiduously and with vigour to make China strong, and building the country by thrift and diligence. In this way, we shall certainly be able to accomplish and overfulfil the great tasks for 1966.

    Never Forget the International Class Struggle

    Be Prepared for Early and Large-Scale War by U.S. Imperialism. While we carry out socialist revolution and socialist construction, we must never for a moment forget the international class struggle. U.S. imperialism regards as the biggest obstacle to carrying out its policies of aggression and war the increasingly powerful China which holds aloft the banner of Marxism-Leninism, the banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking and the banner of proletarian internationalism, and which resolutely supports the revolutionary struggles of all countries. U.S. imperialism constantly carries out all kinds of wild provocations against China and wants to have another trial of strength with it. Many facts show that the focus of the counter-revolutionary global strategy of the United States is being shifted from Europe to Asia. U.S. imperialism is extending its war of aggression against Vietnam and plotting to impose war upon the Chinese people. We must maintain sharp vigilance and arrange all our work on the basis of coping with the eventuality that U.S. imperialism will launch an early and large-scale war. If the U.S. aggressors should dare to invade our country, we shall wipe them out resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely.

    Resolute Support for Revolutionary Struggles of the Peoples of the World. U.S. Imperialism is the common enemy of the people of the whole world. The people of all countries support each other in the struggle against U.S. imperialism. We must never confine our view to China only, but should see the world as a whole. We are engaging in production and construction not only for the Chinese revolution and in the service of the Chinese people but also for the world revolution and in the service of the people of the whole world. Comrade Mao Tse-tung told us: “The people who have triumphed in their revolution should help the struggle of those who are still struggling for liberation. This is our internationalist duty.” In order to fulfil this great duty, we must spare no effort in resolutely supporting the Vietnamese people, who are in the forefront of the anti-U.S. struggle, and the people of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the rest of the world in their struggles to overthrow U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.

    Combat Khrushchov Revisionism to the End. The Khrushchov revisionists are following a line, diametrically opposed to ours. They betray Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, regard U.S. imperialism as their closest friend, dream of world domination through U.S.-Soviet collaboration, and work in every conceivable way to sell out the revolutionary interests of the people of all countries. We must carry through the struggle against Khrushchov revisionism to the very end. More than 90 per cent of the people of the world want revolution. We stand firmly on their side, and we shall never be isolated. The ones who are isolated are the handful of imperialists, revisionists and reactionaries who are hostile to the masses, and these are bound to become more and more isolated as time goes on. For 16 years the U.S. imperialists have been pursuing their policy of isolating China, and for a number of years the Khrushchov revisionists have done the same. But the result in both cases is that they have lifted a rock only to crush their own feet. China’s prestige is rising higher and higher and its revolutionary influence is growing greater and greater. We have friends all over the world.

    International United Front. We shall unite still more firmly with the people of the countries in the socialist camp, with the people in Asia, Africa and Latin America, with the people of all countries in the world, including the American people, and with all peace-loving countries and all forces opposed to U.S. imperialism, to form a broad international united front and struggle to the very end for the defeat of U.S. imperialism and its lackeys.

          In the new year let us hold still higher the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, have the country in our hearts and a world view in our minds, and forge ahead to win new, great victories.




    _______________
    1   The “four firsts” are: First place must be given to man in handling the relationship between man and weapons; to political work in handling the relationship between political and other work; to ideological work in relation to the other aspects of political work; and to living ideas in ideological work.

    2   The “three-eight” working style (which in Chinese is written in three phrases and eight additional characters) means firm and correct political orientation; a plain, hard-working style; flexibility in strategy and tactics; and unity, alertness, earnestness and liveliness.




        
    The Leaders of the C.P.S.U. are Betrayers
    of the Declaration and the Statement
    by the Editorial Department of "Renmin Ribao"

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #1, Jan. 1, 1966, pp. 9-12.]

          ON the fifth anniversary of the issuance of the Statement of 1960, the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. staged a short anti-Chinese farce by publishing a batch of articles.

          The revolutionary principles of the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960 are as diametrically opposed to Khrushchov revisionism as is fire to water. In trying to confuse people by flaunting the banner of the Declaration and the Statement the faithful followers of Khrushchov revisionism only help to reveal their own ugly features still further.

          During the drafting of the Declaration and the Statement, the Marxist-Leninists waged intense struggles against the Khrushchov revisionists.

          The revisionist line advanced by Khrushchov at the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. is the opposite of the revolutionary principles of the Declaration of 1957. The 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. created grave confusion in the international communist movement. Together with other fraternal Parties, the Communist Party of China conducted a principled struggle against Khrushchov’s revisionist line at the Moscow Meeting.

          It was again at Khrushchov revisionism that the revolutionary principles of the Statement of 1960 were directed. By that time, Khrushchov had completely transposed enemies and friends, was openly collaborating with U.S. imperialism, had thoroughly undermined the principles guiding relations among fraternal Parties and countries and was creating a split in the international communist movement. Together with other Marxist-Leninist Parties, the Communist Party of China waged a tit-for-tat struggle against the Khrushchov revisionist clique and safeguarded the purity of Marxism-Leninism.

          Of course, the formulation of certain questions in the Declaration and the Statement is not altogether clear and there are even weaknesses and errors. As the leaders of the C.P.S.U. repeatedly requested that allowances should be made for their need to connect this formulation with the formulation of the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U., we made certain concessions at that time in order to reach agreement. On more than one occasion, we have expressed our readiness to accept any criticism of us on this point. Despite all this, the Declaration and the Statement set forth a series of revolutionary principles which all Marxist-Leninist Parties should abide by.

          In the eyes of the Khrushchov revisionists, however, both the Declaration and the Statement were mere scraps of paper. They tore up these documents on the very day they signed them. The Khrushchov revisionists had made up their minds to sing a tune opposite to that of Marxism-Leninism and the Declaration and the Statement. By the time of the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U. they produced the revisionist Programme of the C.P.S.U., casting to the four winds all the basic theses of Marxism-Leninism and all the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement.

          Let us contrast the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement with the line laid down at the 20th and 22nd Congresses and in the Programme of the C.P.S.U., which is being followed tenaciously by its new leaders.

          The Declaration and the Statement lay down a revolutionary line. But the Khrushchov revisionists are pressing forward with their anti-revolutionary line of “peaceful coexistence,” “peaceful competition” and “peaceful transition.” They themselves do not want revolution and forbid others to make revolution. They themselves oppose the armed revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations and forbid others to support armed revolutionary struggles.

          The Declaration and the Statement point out that U.S. imperialism is the common enemy of the people of the world and that the people throughout the world must form the broadest united front against the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war. But the Khrushchov revisionists are uniting with U.S. imperialism against the people of the world and carrying out the policy of U.S.-Soviet collaboration for world domination.

          The Declaration and the Statement point out that socialist countries must maintain the dictatorship of the proletariat and carry out socialist revolution and socialist construction. But the Khrushchov revisionists advance the fallacies of the “state of the whole people” and the “party of the entire people,” abolishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and changing the character of the C.P.S.U. as the vanguard of the proletariat. They are enforcing the dictatorship of the privileged bourgeois stratum in the Soviet Union and have embarked on the road of capitalist restoration.

          The Declaration and the Statement point out that unity among all the Communist Parties and socialist countries must be based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and that in their relations with each other fraternal Parties and countries must follow the principles of independence, complete equality, mutual support and the attainment of unanimity through consultation. But the Khrushchov revisionists practise big-power chauvinism, national egoism and splittism, waving their baton everywhere, wilfully interfering in the affairs of fraternal Parties and countries, trying hard to control them and carrying out disruptive and subversive activities against them, and splitting the international communist movement and the socialist camp.

          The Declaration and the Statement point out that all Communist Parties must wage struggles against revisionism and dogmatism, and particularly against revisionism, which is the main danger in the international communist movement at present, and the Statement, moreover, explicitly denounces the Yugoslav Tito clique as renegades. But the Khrushchov revisionists join the Tito clique in a passionate embrace and publicly try to reverse the verdict an this gang of traitors. They gather around themselves revisionists of all descriptions to oppose the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people throughout the world.

          The great debate in the international communist movement over the last few years represents a great struggle over whether to uphold or to betray Marxism-Leninism and whether to safeguard or to discard the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement.

          The “Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement” which the Communist Party of China put forward on June 14, 1963, sums up the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement, upholds the Marxist-Leninist position and refutes Khrushchov revisionism on a series of fundamental questions relating to the revolution in our times.

          Preliminary but important results have already been achieved in the Marxist-Leninists’ fight against the Khrushchov revisionists. The new leaders of the C.P.S.U. love to talk of the “line confirmed by life itself,” don’t they? Please open your eyes and have a look. The results “confirmed by life itself” are quite clear. In the face of resolute struggle by all the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people, the great people of the Soviet Union included, Khrushchov revisionism has been discredited and its founder driven off the stage of history. This is a great victory in the struggle to defend Marxism-Leninism. It is a great victory in the struggle to defend the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement.

          In an article in Pravda, the new leadership of the C.P.S.U. said, “The C.P.S.U. has been and will continue to be loyal to the general line of the international communist movement.” Well, let us now examine what the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. have been and will continue to be.

          What were they in the past? They were Khrushchov’s close comrades-in-arms. They were loyal to the general line of Khrushchov revisionism. They had to relegate to limbo the illustrious Khrushchov, the founder of their faith and the maestro who “creatively developed Marxism-Leninism,” simply because Khrushchov was too disreputable and too stupid to muddle on any longer, and because Khrushchov himself had become an obstacle to the carrying out of Khrushchov revisionism. The only way the Khrushchov revisionist clique could maintain its rule was to swop horses.

          What are they now? They are the old cast of the Khrushchov revisionist leading group. They remain loyal to the general line of Khrushchov revisionism. They never weary of swearing that the general line worked out at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the C.P.S.U. under Khrushchov’s sponsorship is their “only, immutable, line in the entire home and foreign policy.” At times they give the appearance of opposing the United States, but all their policies boil down to one of U.S.-Soviet collaboration for the domination of the world. They have reaffirmed time and again “the immutability of the policy of the U.S.S.R. aimed at establishing all-round co-operation with the United States.” While proclaiming that they are building “communism” in the Soviet Union, they are speeding up the restoration of capitalism. Amidst the dust and din of their “united action,” they called the divisive March Moscow meeting, stepping up their divisive activities, and they are now hatching a big plot for a general attack on China and a general split in the international communist movement and the socialist camp. They are going farther and farther along the road of Khrushchov revisionism.

          And what will they continue to be? Whether or not they can return to the path of Marxism-Leninism and whether or not they can return to the path of the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement, depend mainly on whether or not they themselves can repudiate the revisionist general line laid down at the 20th and 22nd Congresses and in the Programme of the C.P.S.U. Unless they utterly repudiate this line, whatever tricks they play and whatever patching they do can only prove that they are still practising Khrushchov revisionism without Khrushchov. All Marxist-leninists, the great Soviet people and the revolutionary people everywhere have no alternative but to continue to expose them and fight them to the end.

          The new leaders of the C.P.S.U. are shouting themselves hoarse for “united action.” Above all, they are clamouring for “united action” on the question of Vietnam. But it is precisely on this question, which is the focus of the present international struggle, that their anti-revolutionary position is revealed in its most concentrated form. Far from believing that the Vietnamese people can win in a people’s war against U.S. imperialist aggression, they are afraid that this will bring “troubles” and hamper their collaboration with U.S. imperialism. Whatever pretences they put up, in the final analysis all their activities are aimed at united action with U.S. imperialism to bring the question of Vietnam into the orbit of Soviet-U.S. collaboration, help U.S. imperialism to realize the plot of “peaceful negotiations” and extinguish the raging flames of the Vietnamese people’s revolution. The slogan of “united action” has now become a poisoned weapon in the hands of the Khrushchov revisionists for sowing dissension. In co-ordination with U.S. imperialism, they are vainly trying to use this slogan to undermine the fighting friendship between the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples and the Vietnamese people’s unity against U.S. aggression. The Vietnamese people are waging a victorious struggle against U.S. imperialism and for national salvation. It is the duty of the Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people to give their staunch support to the just revolutionary struggle of the Vietnamese people and firmly expose the plot of “united action” hatched by the new leaders of the C.P.S.U.

          The new leaders of the C.P.S.U. assert that anyone who does not take “united action” with them is “encouraging the imperialists to launch their ventures.” This is turning things upside down. Is it not the very policies of appeasement and capitulationism of the revisionist leading group of the C.P.S.U. and its line of Soviet-U.S. collaboration for world domination that are helping to inflate the aggressive arrogance of U.S. imperialism? It should be pointed out that it is the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. themselves who are actually “encouraging the imperialists to launch their ventures.”

          What the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. fear most is that the Marxist-Leninists will draw a line of demarcation between themselves and these leaders. But, as Lenin said,

              The great work of uniting and consolidating the fighting army of the revolutionary proletariat cannot be carried out unless a line of demarcation is drawn and a ruthless struggle is waged against those who serve to spread bourgeois influence among the proletariat.1

    By clinging to their revisionism and splittism the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. have placed themselves in direct antagonism to Marxism-Leninism. In such circumstances, can the Marxist-Leninists be expected to fall to draw a line of demarcation, both politically and organizationally, between themselves and the new leaders of the C.P.S.U.?

          If we failed to draw a clear line of demarcation, both politically and organizationally, between ourselves and the Khrushchov revisionists:

          Wouldn’t we be joining them in betraying Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement and become revisionists ourselves?

          Wouldn’t we be joining them in entering into the service of U.S. imperialism and acting as its accomplices?

          Wouldn’t we be joining them in undermining the revolution of the fraternal Vietnamese people and rendering service to the U.S. imperialist policy of aggression against Vietnam and of war expansion?

          Wouldn’t we be accepting them as the “patriarchal father Party” and serving as an instrument under their baton, recognizing their big-power privileged status and serving as their appendage?

          Wouldn’t we be following them in restoring capitalism at home and once again reducing the broad masses of labouring people to a position in which they are oppressed and exploited?

          Wouldn’t we be following them in putting ourselves in antagonism to the people of our own country and the whole world and heading for a miserable end without being able to escape the punishment of history?

          As a serious Marxist-Leninist Party, the Communist Party of China can only give the categorical answer that we will do none of these things either now or in the future.

          The Chinese Communist Party has consistently upheld the unity of the international communist movement and of the socialist camp. The only genuine unity is unity based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and on the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement. What the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. call “unity” is sham unity. They have betrayed Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism and the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement, and their betrayal can only lead to a split. We want genuine unity and resolutely oppose sham unity. It is for the sake of achieving genuine international proletarian unity that we are waging struggles against Khrushchov revisionism.

          Together with all the other Marxist-Leninists and revolutionary people of the world, the Chinese Communists will continue, as always, to hold aloft the banner of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, abide by the revolutionary principles of the Declaration and the Statement and carry the struggle against Khrushchov revisionism through to the end.

          The world is on the march. It is our strong conviction that the struggle of the people of the world against imperialism, reaction and modern revisionism and the cause of world peace, national liberation, people’s democracy and socialism are bound to keep on winning new great victories.

    _______________

    1   V.I. Lenin, “Resolution Adopted by the Second Paris Group of the R.S.D.L.P. on the State of Affairs in the Party,” Collected Works, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1963, Vol. XVII, p. 223.

          On December 30, 1965, the day the foregoing article was published, Renmin Ribao reprinted in full the December 12 anti-Chinese article by the editorial department of Pravda, entitled “Line Confirmed by Life Itself.” It also reprinted extracts from the following six anti-Chinese articles appearing recently in the Soviet press. They are: “Correct Path of Unity” in Izvestia on December 7; “Guarantee of New Victories for World Communist Movement Is Solidarity” by the editorial department of Krasnaya Zvezda on December 14; “Banner of Unity” in Sovietskaya Rossiya on December 14; “Let Revolutionary Forces Unite” in Komsomolskaya Pravda on December 14; “Militant Banner of International Communist Movement” in Selskaya Zhizn on December 7; and “A Compass to Steer By” in issue No. 50, 1965, of New Times.

          Renmin Ribao, on December 29, 1965, devoted nearly three pages to the full text of the following three articles marking the 5th anniversary of the publication of the Moscow Statement:

          1, The December 6 editorial of the Korean paper Rodong Shinmoon, “Unite All Revolutionary Forces and Wage a More Powerful Anti-Imperialist Struggle.”

          2, The December 10 article of the editorial department of the Albanian paper Zeri i Popullit, “The Khrushchov Revisionists Are Facing Serious Difficulties, Setbacks and Contradictions.”

          3, The December 7 editorial of the Japanese Communist Party organ Akahata, “Struggle Against Modern Revisionism, Strengthen the International Fight Against U.S. Imperialism.”

          On the same day, Renmin Ribao also reprinted extracts from an article in the December issue (No. 17) of the Australian Communist, the theoretical journal of the Australian Communist Party (Marxist-leninist). The article condemned the Khrushchov revisionists for entering into an alliance with the U.S. imperialists and the Indian reactionaries to oppose China and oppose revolution. —P.R. Editor.





        
    How Low Can They Sink!
    by “Renmin Ribao” Commentator

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #1, Jan. 1, 1966,
    pp. 16-17. Included is an unsigned sidebar from p. 17.]

          THE Khrushchov revisionists have spread quite a lot of malicious reports about China on the subject of “the transit of supplies of aid to Vietnam.”

          Recently the Moscow weekly Za Rubezhom (Life Abroad) has made an addition by reprinting a New York Times’ dispatch which said that China, according to its regulations, had demanded payment in dollars, not rubles, for freight charges of shipments of Soviet military and medical aid in transit to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. In these few words, an attempt is made to portray China as a money-grubber so obsessed by lust for profit that it would profiteer in a war at the expense of the Vietnamese people’s blood and sacrifices. What an attempt! Nothing could be more sinister.

          But it is really too crude for those gentlemen, the editors of Za Rubezhom, to attack China by quoting from the American press.

          One may inquire: If the facts are such as given in the weekly, why should Soviet journals rely on quotations from the U.S. imperialist press instead of themselves saying what they want to say with a clear conscience?

          One may also ask these people: Since you want the readers to believe what is said in the New York Times, and since China and the Soviet Union are the only two parties involved in the transit of aid supplies to Vietnam, isn’t it clear that you and you alone are the source of the rumours spread by the Americans?

          This is not the first time that the Soviet leaders have kicked up a big fuss against China over the so-called question of aid supplies to Vietnam. Slanders and rumours have been spread far and wide ever since last March. At one time it was alleged that China “obstructs the transit of Soviet supplies of aid to Vietnam,” and at another time it was said that China was “creating difficulties” for such transit. Such rumours were first spread by Western newsmen in Moscow, and then the party organs of certain East European countries jumped at them and published them. Now the Soviet press, in turn, has used the New York Times dispatch in an attempt to vilify China and undermine the unity of China and Vietnam in opposing U.S. imperialism. This has shed further light on the fact that the Khrushchov revisionists and the U.S. imperialists are working in complicity and echoing each other.

          However, lies cannot stand up to facts. We do not find it necessary to make public all the details about this subject, suffice it to mention a few points:

          1.   After assuming power, the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. have seen that the Vietnamese people have won tremendous victories in their anti-U.S. struggle, so they have switched from Khrushchov’s policy of disengagement to a policy of involvement and decided to send weapons to Vietnam. Their aim is to gain the right to have a say, control and representation on the Vietnam question in the name of aid so as to strike a political deal with the United States.

          2.   The Soviet Union is duty bound to aid the Vietnamese people in their struggle to resist U.S. aggression and to save their country. As far as Soviet military materiel to Vietnam is concerned, the greater the quantity and the more practical the better. But so far, a great part of the Soviet military equipment supplied to Vietnam consists of obsolete equipment discarded by the Soviet armed forces or damaged weapons cleaned out of warehouses. Both in quantity or quality, they not only are far from commensurate with the strength of the Soviet Union but also far, far inferior to the aid the Soviet Union has given to the Indian reactionaries.

          3. To discharge its proletarian internationalist duty, China has always done what it can to support the Vietnamese people, politically, economically and militarily, in their struggle to resist U.S. aggression and to save their country. China has always honoured the agreements and done its utmost to speedily transport to Vietnam all military materiel in overland transit which was furnished by the Soviet Union. Every shipment thus made is on record. China makes no charge for all these trans-shipments. We have not charged the Soviet Union a single kopeck, let alone U.S. dollars.

          This is the truth of the matter.

          Ever since they came to power, the new leaders of the C.P.S.U., when they cannot come up with reasonable arguments and have no facts to present, have outdone Khrushchov in resorting more frequently to rumour-mongering, slander and sowing discord. At meetings of various kinds in the Soviet Union, in bilateral contacts between the Soviet Union and other countries and at all international meetings, they have created and spread all sorts of new and extraordinary lies about China to deceive the Soviet and other peoples of the world who do not know the true state of affairs. The new leaders of the C.P.S.U. have sunk to the depths of depending on rumour-mongering for their existence.

          But lies do not go far. Once the slander is exposed, the ugly features of the slanderer are completely revealed.

    (“Renmin Ribao,” December 23, 1965.)      



    U.S.S.R., U.S. Gang Up to Slander China

          AN outright fabrication by the New York Times to the effect that China was demanding payment in dollars from the Soviet Union for the freight charges of the latter’s supplies of aid to Vietnam was reprinted by the Soviet weekly Za Rubezhom (Life Abroad) in its issue No. 50 of December 10-16 last year.

          This is one more example of how far the Khrushchov revisionists have gone in joining up with the U.S. imperialists to vilify China and drive a wedge between China and Vietnam.

          Both publications dared not give the source of this lie, the real manufacturer. They simply said in vague terms that “this was reported among Asian circles.”

          The fabrication as reprinted in Za Rubezhom said: “Communist China demands and receives from the Soviet Union payments for freight charges for shipments of military and medical supplies in transit to north Vietnam. This was reported among Asian circles. Peking refused to accept payments in rubles and demanded dollars, which it needs for overseas purchases, these circles said. This was reported soon after the representative of the Soviet Union speaking at the Political Committee of the (U.N.) General Assembly promised to give north Vietnam further economic and military aid as well as full political support.”

          What, then, are the actual facts? The truth is: On February 25, 1965, the Soviet side requested the Chinese side to help transport a shipment of military supplies to Vietnam and said that the Soviet Government was ready to pay the transit charges. The Chinese Government, nevertheless, decided to do this free of all charges.

          On March 30, the two sides signed a protocol in which it was explicitly stipulated that China would transport such shipments in transit free of charge. Since then, all shipments of Soviet military supplies to Vietnam, which the Soviet side requested China to transport by Chinese railways, were transitted free of charge in accordance with the protocol.

          With regard to Soviet economic supplies sent to Vietnam by Chinese railways, the Soviet side did so through arrangements of transportation by railways of the socialist countries and paid the freight charges in rubles in accordance with the provisions of the International Agreement on Transportation of Goods by Railways.

          The Soviet Union itself is well aware of all these facts.

          The fact that Za Rubezhom reprinted and spread the U.S. imperialist anti-China slander reveals’ to what depths the Khrushchov revisionists have sunk.

    [End of Sidebar]




        
    How Low Can They Sink!
    by “Renmin Ribao” Commentator

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #1, Jan. 1, 1966,
    pp. 16-17. Included is an unsigned sidebar from p. 17.]

          THE Khrushchov revisionists have spread quite a lot of malicious reports about China on the subject of “the transit of supplies of aid to Vietnam.”

          Recently the Moscow weekly Za Rubezhom (Life Abroad) has made an addition by reprinting a New York Times’ dispatch which said that China, according to its regulations, had demanded payment in dollars, not rubles, for freight charges of shipments of Soviet military and medical aid in transit to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. In these few words, an attempt is made to portray China as a money-grubber so obsessed by lust for profit that it would profiteer in a war at the expense of the Vietnamese people’s blood and sacrifices. What an attempt! Nothing could be more sinister.

          But it is really too crude for those gentlemen, the editors of Za Rubezhom, to attack China by quoting from the American press.

          One may inquire: If the facts are such as given in the weekly, why should Soviet journals rely on quotations from the U.S. imperialist press instead of themselves saying what they want to say with a clear conscience?

          One may also ask these people: Since you want the readers to believe what is said in the New York Times, and since China and the Soviet Union are the only two parties involved in the transit of aid supplies to Vietnam, isn’t it clear that you and you alone are the source of the rumours spread by the Americans?

          This is not the first time that the Soviet leaders have kicked up a big fuss against China over the so-called question of aid supplies to Vietnam. Slanders and rumours have been spread far and wide ever since last March. At one time it was alleged that China “obstructs the transit of Soviet supplies of aid to Vietnam,” and at another time it was said that China was “creating difficulties” for such transit. Such rumours were first spread by Western newsmen in Moscow, and then the party organs of certain East European countries jumped at them and published them. Now the Soviet press, in turn, has used the New York Times dispatch in an attempt to vilify China and undermine the unity of China and Vietnam in opposing U.S. imperialism. This has shed further light on the fact that the Khrushchov revisionists and the U.S. imperialists are working in complicity and echoing each other.

          However, lies cannot stand up to facts. We do not find it necessary to make public all the details about this subject, suffice it to mention a few points:

          1.   After assuming power, the new leaders of the C.P.S.U. have seen that the Vietnamese people have won tremendous victories in their anti-U.S. struggle, so they have switched from Khrushchov’s policy of disengagement to a policy of involvement and decided to send weapons to Vietnam. Their aim is to gain the right to have a say, control and representation on the Vietnam question in the name of aid so as to strike a political deal with the United States.

          2.   The Soviet Union is duty bound to aid the Vietnamese people in their struggle to resist U.S. aggression and to save their country. As far as Soviet military materiel to Vietnam is concerned, the greater the quantity and the more practical the better. But so far, a great part of the Soviet military equipment supplied to Vietnam consists of obsolete equipment discarded by the Soviet armed forces or damaged weapons cleaned out of warehouses. Both in quantity or quality, they not only are far from commensurate with the strength of the Soviet Union but also far, far inferior to the aid the Soviet Union has given to the Indian reactionaries.

          3. To discharge its proletarian internationalist duty, China has always done what it can to support the Vietnamese people, politically, economically and militarily, in their struggle to resist U.S. aggression and to save their country. China has always honoured the agreements and done its utmost to speedily transport to Vietnam all military materiel in overland transit which was furnished by the Soviet Union. Every shipment thus made is on record. China makes no charge for all these trans-shipments. We have not charged the Soviet Union a single kopeck, let alone U.S. dollars.

          This is the truth of the matter.

          Ever since they came to power, the new leaders of the C.P.S.U., when they cannot come up with reasonable arguments and have no facts to present, have outdone Khrushchov in resorting more frequently to rumour-mongering, slander and sowing discord. At meetings of various kinds in the Soviet Union, in bilateral contacts between the Soviet Union and other countries and at all international meetings, they have created and spread all sorts of new and extraordinary lies about China to deceive the Soviet and other peoples of the world who do not know the true state of affairs. The new leaders of the C.P.S.U. have sunk to the depths of depending on rumour-mongering for their existence.

          But lies do not go far. Once the slander is exposed, the ugly features of the slanderer are completely revealed.

    (“Renmin Ribao,” December 23, 1965.)      



    U.S.S.R., U.S. Gang Up to Slander China

          AN outright fabrication by the New York Times to the effect that China was demanding payment in dollars from the Soviet Union for the freight charges of the latter’s supplies of aid to Vietnam was reprinted by the Soviet weekly Za Rubezhom (Life Abroad) in its issue No. 50 of December 10-16 last year.

          This is one more example of how far the Khrushchov revisionists have gone in joining up with the U.S. imperialists to vilify China and drive a wedge between China and Vietnam.

          Both publications dared not give the source of this lie, the real manufacturer. They simply said in vague terms that “this was reported among Asian circles.”

          The fabrication as reprinted in Za Rubezhom said: “Communist China demands and receives from the Soviet Union payments for freight charges for shipments of military and medical supplies in transit to north Vietnam. This was reported among Asian circles. Peking refused to accept payments in rubles and demanded dollars, which it needs for overseas purchases, these circles said. This was reported soon after the representative of the Soviet Union speaking at the Political Committee of the (U.N.) General Assembly promised to give north Vietnam further economic and military aid as well as full political support.”

          What, then, are the actual facts? The truth is: On February 25, 1965, the Soviet side requested the Chinese side to help transport a shipment of military supplies to Vietnam and said that the Soviet Government was ready to pay the transit charges. The Chinese Government, nevertheless, decided to do this free of all charges.

          On March 30, the two sides signed a protocol in which it was explicitly stipulated that China would transport such shipments in transit free of charge. Since then, all shipments of Soviet military supplies to Vietnam, which the Soviet side requested China to transport by Chinese railways, were transitted free of charge in accordance with the protocol.

          With regard to Soviet economic supplies sent to Vietnam by Chinese railways, the Soviet side did so through arrangements of transportation by railways of the socialist countries and paid the freight charges in rubles in accordance with the provisions of the International Agreement on Transportation of Goods by Railways.

          The Soviet Union itself is well aware of all these facts.

          The fact that Za Rubezhom reprinted and spread the U.S. imperialist anti-China slander reveals’ to what depths the Khrushchov revisionists have sunk.

    [End of Sidebar]



        
          Building an Independent National Economy
    How China Raises Funds for National Construction
    by Li Cheng-jui
    China finances its socialist construction out of its own resources.
    The following article describes why and how this is done.

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #1, Jan. 1, 1966, pp. 19-23.]

          THE People’s Republic of China has risen to its feet like a giant. In the short space of 16 years it has radically transformed the face of old China. Its great achievements in industry, agriculture, conupunications, transport and other fields inspire its friends and dismays its enemies. Today it is marching forward with lengthened, firmer strides.

    Where Investment Funds Come From

          To build one must have funds to invest. Old China was known for its poverty. New China, however, has successfully accumulated and invested a large amount of funds in the course of construction over the past decade and more. In the First Five-Year Plan period (1953-57), state investments in economic and cultural construction alone were equivalent to 700 million taels of gold. Where did these funds come from?

          Modern industrial enterprises were established in China in the latter years of the Ching Dynasty and during the subsequent Northern warlords’ regime and the Chiang Kai-shek regime. Including those privately-owned by the national bourgeoisie and those set up in northeast China under Japanese rule, the total value of the fixed assets of enterprises built during these 70 years (1880-1949) amounted to only about 20,000 million yuan. Yet in the First Five-Year Plan period alone, 46,000 million yuan of new fixed assets were added. The amount of fixed assets added in the Second Five-Year Plan period (1958-62) was even much greater. How was this achieved?

          By foreign loans? The loans which New China received from the Soviet Union and their accrued interest totalled only 1,406 million new rubles. It must be noted that these debts were mostly incurred in the early days of the People’s Republic. If state revenue from 1950 to 1959 is taken as 100, only 2 per cent of this was made up of foreign loans. That is to say, 98 per cent of the revenue came from internal sources. Moreover, these loans, received from the Soviet Union, and the accrued interest had all been paid off ahead of time by 1965. China is now a country without any foreign debts. Furthermore, New China has provided in aid to other socialist and nationalist countries a much larger amount in funds and material than the foreign loans it itself received.

    Road of Self-Reliance

          A study of history shows that nations have followed different paths in carrying out industrialization and the modernization of agriculture and in tackling the problem of raising funds for construction.

          Britain relied on savage plunder of its colonies over a period of several decades or even several centuries. Marx pointed out: “Speaking only of the value of the commodities the Indians have gratuitously and annually to send over to England—it amounts to more than the total sum of income of the sixty millions of agricultural and industrial labourers of India!”1 Germany depended mainly on war indemnities. After defeating France in 1870, it extorted 5,000 million francs from the vanquished. The number of factories, mines and railway lines built in the four ensuing years exceeded what could have been built in 25 years under normal conditions.

          Tsarist Russia relied mainly on enslaving loans, with the result that it steadily reduced itself to dependence on foreign capital.

          Many other capitalist countries more often than not employed all three methods at one and the same time. The United States, for instance, brutally slaughtered the Indians, engaged in the slave trade, ceaselessly expanded its colonial interests and exploited other countries.

          New China could never adopt the methods of the capitalist countries. Plunder, extortion, exploitation and fleecing are as incompatible with the socialist nature of New China as fire and water.

          What therefore should be done? Some people proposed that China should be developed with the aid of foreign capital. But history has proved that far from speeding up the tempo of construction, reliance on foreign investments could only plunge China into a colonial abyss. That road could not be taken.

          The path New China chose was the road of self-reliance pointed out by Chairman Mao Tse-tung.

    Three Revealing Figures

          Can such a poor country as China rely on its own efforts? Has it got internal sources for the accumulation of funds for construction?

          The answer is: Yes. And the most important reason for this is that the national democratic revolution has been accomplished in China, and so has socialist transformation of ownership of the means of production. As a result of these two revolutions:

          Imperialist rule in China has been uprooted. The wealth which used to be carried off by the imperialists can now be invested in construction.

          Feudalism has been overthrown. The wealth seized in cold-blooded exploitation by the landlords to indulge their lavish way of life can now be used partly for construction, with the bulk being set aside to improve the peasants’ livelihood.

          Bureaucrat-capitalism has been overthrown. The national wealth grabbed by the bureaucrat-capitalists to squander on luxury and loose-living can now be used for construction too.

          Socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce has been carried out. Following the conversion of capitalist enterprises into joint state-private enterprises, the profits of these enterprises are mostly used for national construction with only a small part going to the capitalists as a “fixed rate of interest” on their shares.

          In a word, China is not without funds of its own for construction. The fact is that in the past the bulk of these potential funds were pocketed by the imperialists, landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists. The victory of the Chinese revolution has enabled the real owners—the people—to regain what belongs to them. The labouring people are now building their own country with the wealth which they themselves have created.

          To understand this in more concrete terms, let us examine three figures found in modern Chinese history: 450 million taels of silver; 500 million taels of gold and 70,000 million jin of grain.

          The 450 million taels of silver was the war indemnity imposed upon China in 1901 following the armed invasion of China by the Eight-Power Allied Army. This was merely one of many such indemnities. In addition to this, an incalculable amount of wealth was seized by the imperialists through such other means as dumping, exports of capital, unequal tariff rates and smuggling.

          The 500 million taels of gold was the wealth amassed through exploitation by the Four Big Families of Chiang Kai-shek, T.V. Soong, H.H. Kung and the Chen brothers over 22 years of Kuomintang rule.

          The 70,000 million jin of grain was the aggregate total of rent paid by the peasants each year to the landlords before the land reform. Because of the exorbitant rents which they paid, the peasants were unable to expand production; they were even unable to keep their farms going or eke out a bare livelihood.

          These figures indicate how considerable were the riches which the industrious and courageous Chinese people could use for construction once they became the masters of their country!

    Develop the Economy and Ensure Supplies

          But the possibility of making use of the wealth which used to be seized by the imperialists and the exploiting classes at home is only one aspect of the matter. Still more important is this other aspect: When the broad masses of the labouring people shake off exploitation and oppression and get organized on the basis of a generally high level of political consciousness, they can give full play to their initiative and creativeness, and, in the words of the slogan of the general line for building socialism, “go all out and aim high” to carry forward the national economy “with greater, faster, better and more economical results.” Under the socialist system, with its superior advantages, the working people, once their wisdom and talents are brought into play, can raise the productive forces ten or even a hundred times above that of the old society, and thereby give continuous drive to the development of the entire national economy. The growth of the economy and expansion of production and circulation in turn provide more financial resources.

          As early as the revolutionary war period, Chairman Mao Tse-tung pointed out: “The general policy guiding our economic and financial work is to develop the economy and ensure supplies.” He added that “while a good or a bad financial policy affects the economy, it is the economy that determines finance.”2 The history of the revolutionary wars and the present-day reality of socialist construction alike testify to the correctness of this policy.

          The First Five-Year Plan period, for instance, averaged a yearly progressive increase of 18 per cent in industrial production, 4.5 per cent in agriculture, and 12.1 per cent in financial revenue (somewhere between the tempo of industrial and agricultural advance). Financial revenue amounted to 17,500 million yuan in the year preceding implementation of the Plan and increased to 31,000 million yuan in the last year of the Plan (1957).

          During the Second Five-Year Plan period, China’s national economy met with temporary difficulties as a result of three consecutive years of natural calamities and the Khrushchov revisionists’ perfidious withdrawal of Soviet experts, and scrapping of hundreds of agreements and contracts. Such difficulties naturally found expression in the scale of state accumulation of funds. But with thorough implementation of the Party’s policy of “readjustment, consolidation, filling out and raising standards” and a series of other measures, the national economy quickly achieved a turn to an all-round improvement. The scale of accumulation also saw a corresponding increase. The 1965 state plan provided that total agricultural and industrial output value would go up by about 5 per cent and 11 per cent respectively over the previous year and budget revenue and expenditure by more than 10 per cent.

          To develop the economy means developing not just any type of economy but socialist economy. Our finances can be consolidated only if they are based on a socialist economy.

          In the early days of the People’s Republic, China’s economy comprised five sectors, namely, the state-owned economy, co-operative economy, individual economy of peasants and handicraftsman, state capitalist economy and capitalist economy. In 1950, 34.1 per cent of state revenue came from state-owned enterprises and co-operatives, 29.6 per cent from the individual peasants and 32.9 per cent from capitalist industry and commerce.

          As socialist transformation (so far as ownership of the means of production is concerned) of our agriculture, handicraft industry and capitalist industry and commerce was in the main completed in 1956, China’s economy was then mainly composed of the socialist state-owned economy and the socialist collective economy. Thus in 1959, 91.8 per cent of state revenue was derived from state-owned economy; 7.4 per cent from the people’s communes and other collective enterprises, and less than 1 per cent from the remnants of the capitalist economy and individual peasant economy. This shows that China’s financial revenue comes almost entirely from the socialist sector, and that, more significantly, over 90 per cent of the receipts from the socialist sector comes from the state-owned enterprises. This is also indicative of the rock-firm foundation on which China’s financial revenue is built.

    Building the Country With Diligence and Thrift

          Chairman Mao Tse-tung has said that “factories, stores, state-owned and co-operative enterprises, all other enterprises—each should be run in keeping with the policy of diligence and frugality. This is a policy of economy, one of the basic policies of socialist economics.”3 Ever since it was founded, New China has stressed the importance of running enterprises with thrift and diligence so as to accumulate funds for the state for national construction. We can rely on our own efforts in accumulating such funds because of the great strength represented by the diligent labour of the 650 million Chinese people and their practice of industry and economy in all their undertakings.

          In the past few years, many outstanding units characterized by diligence, thrift and tireless effort in the struggle have emerged on every construction front.

          On the agricultural front, the Tachai Production Brigade4 of Shansi Province has long been an example of self-reliance and hard work. Today, production brigades of the Tachai type are spread all over the country. The Xiadingjia Brigade of Huanghsien County, Shantung Province, is one of the many farming units of this fine type. This brigade is situated in the mountains on the north of the Chiaotung Peninsula among barren hills. It has some 2,400 mu of arable land, 80 per cent of which is scattered on the hill slopes. The arable topsoil in many places was only three to four inches thick. In rainstorms water poured in a destructive flood down the mountainsides; in the dry season, the river-beds dried up.

          Following the setting up of the people’s commune in 1958, the Xiadingjia Production Brigade began the radical transformation of their farmland. Mobilizing their own resources—labour power, materials and funds—they built dams to create reservoirs, cut canals and ditches, set up pumping stations and an irrigation system from the river banks to the mountains. At the same time, they organized large-scale work to level up their fields and afforest the bare mountain slopes. On more than 1,600 mu of arable land they have thickened the topsoil to about one metre. They planted orchards on the mountainside. In pre-liberation days, under normal conditions, this brigade raised some 200 jin of grain per mu. Its years of hard work paid off with an average per-mu yield of grain of 920 jin in 1964 and all-round advances in forestry, animal husbandry and side-occupations.

          On the industrial front, the Taching Oilfield is a typical big enterprise that persists in self-reliance and hard work. This was a vast waste land when the builders of this oilfield arrived. At the start of construction, they slept in tents and with their own hands built huts for wintering. When the cranes came late, to save time, they manhandled huge drilling machines from the trains. This was the spirit that built the Taching Oilfield in record time. The deposits were fully surveyed in a little over a year and a big modern oil enterprise was built up in a short three years.

          The Lanchow Oil Refinery, Kansu Province, is another enterprise characterized by diligence, thrift and hard work. Since it went into production in 1959, this refinery has overfulfilled its plan each year; output has risen year by year; its range of products has increased fivefold and more over what was originally planned for it, the quality of all its products is up to standard and production costs have been reduced year by year. This refinery has always maintained a strict system of business accounting. In the four years between 1959 and 1963, it accumulated funds for the state amounting to over 60 million yuan more than the total sum the state invested in its construction.

          China is relatively poor and this seems to be an unalloyed disadvantage; but as a matter of fact advantage can be taken of this very fact. Poor people want a change, they are full of enthusiasm for it and so are ready to make a great effort to bring that change about. It is by relying on this spirit of building their country with diligence and thrift and through hard work that the Chinese people are promoting their nation’s economic growth and accumulating investment funds.

    Concentration of Funds in State Hands

          The worker and peasant masses create capital accumulations in the course of production. But such accumulations are scattered in the hands of all their various enterprises and people’s communes. It is, therefore, necessary to concentrate them in the hands of the state by appropriate methods so that the state can use them in a unified, planned way.

          This is done mainly by two methods:
          1. Each state enterprise is required to turn in its profits to the state on schedule.
          2. Different kinds of taxes are levied. The main taxes are as follows: consolidated tax of industry and commerce; industrial and commercial income tax; the salt tax; customs duties; the agricultural tax; animal husbandry tax, etc. Except for the agricultural tax and the animal husbandry tax which are paid by the production teams or brigades of the rural people’s communes, most of the rest of these taxes are paid by state enterprises. No personal income tax is paid in New China.

          The funds collected by the two above-mentioned methods have varied in ratio at different periods in the past.

          In 1950, the profits paid in by state enterprises made up 13.3 per cent of state revenue; industrial and commercial taxes, 36.3 per cent; and the agricultural tax, 29.2 per cent.

          In 1959, profits paid in by state enterprises made up 61.6 per cent of state revenue; industrial and commercial taxes, 29 per cent; while the agricultural tax accounted for only 6.1 per cent.

          This change reflects the growth of the socialist economy and demonstrates, in the financial field, the policy of stabilizing the tax burden which the state has adopted towards the peasants for many years now. This policy provides that over a certain period of time the amount of agricultural tax paid to the state by the peasants remains unchanged. Those who have a short-fall in their harvest caused by natural calamities are either exempted from tax or pay a reduced tax. Increase in production is not followed by increased taxation; extra output remains in the hands of the peasants who may use it to better their life and increase the reserve and welfare funds of the production teams or brigades of the people’s communes.

          State enterprises should not only seek profit because that way leads to revisionism and capitalism and must be resolutely opposed. To make profits by unlawful means, such as speculation or forcing up prices, is all the more impermissible. However, each state enterprise is required to make an earnest effort to improve its business accounting, increase production and reduce production costs and, while fulfilling the state production plan, achieve the quota of profit set by the state and thus provide the state with funds for construction.

          In addition to the main methods mentioned above, the state, with the help of its banks, absorbs temporarily idle funds from enterprises in the form of deposits and uses them to provide credits for other enterprises for use as temporary working funds. At the same time, in accordance with the principle of “making banking deposit on a voluntary basis” and “freedom to withdraw deposits,” the state absorbs and uses the savings of the people to speed up the turnover of funds and thus increase its financial strength. This also helps to promote among the people the practice of “running one’s household industriously and frugally.”

    “Do What You Can Afford, Do More With Less Money”

          The question of funds is not confined to how to accumulate them; it also involves how to make the most rational use of them.

          There are always contradictions between the possibilities of capital accumulation and the needs of construction, between the available state revenue and the demands for state expenditure. Our policy for dealing with these contradictions is: Do what we can afford and do more with less money.

          To do what we can afford means to take full account of objective laws and carefully calculate our strength and resources. To do more with less money means to give full play to our initiative and do our best. If we guide our actions by wishful thinking and insist on doing more than our money and other material resources allow, the result will be “more haste, less speed.” On the other hand, if we refrain from doing things which can be done by making an earnest effort, this will retard construction.

          The fiscal policy of the People’s Republic of China has always been to ensure a budgetary balance with a small surplus. The financial deficits which plagued old China and beset capitalist countries have long disappeared in New China as a result of implementation of the policy of doing what we can afford and of doing more with less money.

          To apply this policy in allocating state outlays means putting most of our appropriations into economic and cultural construction and cutting down state administrative expenses as much as possible. Take the First Five-Year Plan for example: of total expenditure, 49.5 per cent went to economic construction; 14.5 per cent to culture, education, public health and social welfare; 22.3 per cent to national defence; and 8.6 per cent to administration.

          Since the winter of 1964, China has carried out on an extensive scale the movements to revolutionize management of enterprises and designing work. One of the objectives of these movements is to realize the aim of doing more with less money. To revolutionize management of enterprises means mainly to reform management systems, streamline administrative structures, reduce the number of non-productive personnel, organize cadres to take part in productive labour and thus enable leading and functional organs of enterprises to serve the work teams and shifts as well as production better, maintain closer contact with the masses and rely on them to get the work done. This will reduce non-productive expenses of enterprises, overcome bureaucracy, improve efficiency, strengthen the unity between leadership and rank and file and thereby ensure that enterprises will continue consistently to develop along socialist lines.

          The revolutionization of designing work mainly requires that designers should go out of their offices to join in physical labour, make investigations and studies at the construction sites themselves and in drawing up their designs integrate the efforts of cadres, specialists and the masses. Working in this way, designers are able to gear their designs closely to actual conditions in China, free themselves from the shackles of outmoded ideas or unsuitable foreign conventions and formulae, bring their professional knowledge and skills into fuller play, and, at the same time, draw on the valuable experience of the masses. This not only makes for better designing but leads to economies in the use of investment funds.

          Implementation of the policy of doing what we can afford and of doing more with less money makes it possible to achieve greater results in economic construction with a given amount of funds. The economy is the basis of finance. As the economy grows, more funds are accumulated. The increased accumulations of funds can then be used to further the development of the economy.

    Bettering People’s Livelihood Goes Together With Construction

          A foreigner once said: The economic development of China is really amazing; it is like the miracle in which a mountain is built overnight. But, though the mountain is there, large tracts of ground in the neighbourhood have sunk under the digging. He clearly meant that the construction was going on all right with great rapidity, but that this building was exhausting the resources of the people.

          Is that true? No, it is quite untrue.

          In New China, the distribution of national income takes into consideration the interests of the state, the collective and the individual. For instance, in 1954, 78.4 per cent of the national income was allocated for consumption as against 21.6 per cent for accumulation; in 1955, the corresponding figures were 79.5 per cent as against 20.5 per cent; and in 1956, they were 77.2 per cent as against 22.8 per cent.

          It is true that the living standards of the Chinese people are still not high. But they all have enough to eat and to wear. Unemployment and hunger can no longer be found anywhere in China. today. Compared with the utter destitution which the Chinese people suffered before liberation, this is a remarkable achievement.

          In the past 16 years, the living standards of the Chinese people have improved year by year. The average wage of workers and staff rose by 70 per cent during the period of economic rehabilitation (1950-52); it increased again by 42.8 per cent during the First Five-Year Plan period (1953-57). The state besides has earmarked large sums for labour insurance and housing projects for workers and staff.

          The income of the peasants has also increased steadily. It rose by more than 30 per cent during the economic rehabilitation period, and again by nearly 30 per cent during the First Five-Year Plan period.

          A look at China’s domestic market also proves this point. Commodities are in relatively abundant supply on the market today and we can see signs of prosperity everywhere. Supplies of pork, mutton, vegetables and other non-staple foodstuffs in 1964 were more than 30 per cent greater than in 1957; supplies of machine-made paper, aluminium utensils, enamelware, bicycles, radios and other important consumer goods were more than 50 per cent larger.

          At the same time commodity prices in China have long remained stable. Prices of grain, cotton piece goods, coal and other main daily necessities are not only stable but also low. The Chinese people no longer need to worry about price fluctuations.

          New China’s currency, renminbi, is stable in value and enjoys high prestige both at home and abroad. The running inflation of the days of reactionary Kuomintang rule was ended soon after the founding of the People’s Republic.

          These facts are eloquent. It is not the People’s Government of New China but the rulers of old China—the imperialists, landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists—who “dug up the ground” and exhausted the resources of the people.

          What we have achieved in our national construction is only a beginning. We still have to overcome many difficulties and shortcomings in our work. We must be modest and prudent and guard against arrogance and impetuosity. Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman Mao Tse-tung, we must devote still greater efforts to building our great motherland and giving support to the struggles of all the oppressed of the world. This is our glorious task. As Chairman Mao said in July last year: “Our cuntry is somewhat stronger than it was before, but it is still not very strong. We need to build it up for another 20 or 30 years at least in order to make it really strong.”5


    _______________

    1   Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Eng. ed., International Publishers, New York, pp. 335-86.

    2   “Economic and Financial Problems in the Anti-Japanese War,” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1965, Vol. III, p. 111.

    3   Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1957, p. 67.

    4   See Peking Review, No. 25, 1964.

    5   See Peking Review, No. 31, 1965, p. 3.





        
    Peking Review: Contents Page
    Jan. 7, 1966       Vol. 9, #2

    [The articles below with active links have been scanned in and posted on this site.
    Comments in brackets added by the MASSLINE.ORG editor.]

    The Week

        * Mao Tse-tung’s Works in Minority Languages
        * Premier Chou Greets Afro-Asian-Latin American Conference
        * India’s Interference in China’s Affairs Protested
        * Cuba’s Liberation Anniversary
        * Burma’s National Day
        * Teng Hsiao-ping Meets E. F. Hill
        * N. Sanmugathasan Leaves Peking
        * Thailand Patriotic Front Anniversary

    Articles and Documents

    “Foreign Ministry Statement Condemns U.S.-Engineered Thai Aggression Against Cambodia”

    “Vice-Premier Chen Yi:
    A New and Great Anti-U.S. Revolutionary Storm is Approaching”. Replies to “Akahata” Correspondent.

    “Work-Study Schools
    A Significant Development in China’s Educational Revolution”, by Liang Nien.

    “South Vietnamese People’s Five Years of Victorious Struggle”. [Summation of an important N.F.L. communique.]

    “‘Peace’ Smokescreen Won’t Cover Up Aggressive Schemes”

    “News Analysis:
    How U.S. Plots to Set All Indo-China Ablaze”

    “Foreign Press Review:
    Bottleneck? Shortage?”

    “International Communist Movement:
    Political Report and Resolution of Peruvian C.P.”

    “Retrospect and Prospect — Foreign Press Crystal-Gazing”
    Round the World

        * Indonesia: Anti-Communist Orgies
        * Malayan Patriots Under Arrest
        * A.A.J.A. Secretariat Forced Out
        * Cambodia: Prepared to Repulse Aggression
        * Thailand: On the Path of War
        * Revisionist Preaching: Soviet-U.S. Logrolling
        * White House Trickery: Passport As a Mask
        * The Passing Show: Where’s That Hero?

    Across the Land

        * Nationwide Water Conservancy Campaign
        * Tibet: 7 Bumper Harvests in a Row
        * Simpler Accounting: Wider Economic Democracy
        * Briefs

    Films

        * Moving With the Times
        * Up in the Himalayas



        
          Vice-Premier Chen Yi:
    A New and Great Anti-U.S. Revolutionary Storm is Approaching
    Replies to “Akahata” Correspondent

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #2, Jan. 7, 1966, pp. 5-9.]

            * No reactionary current can prevent the victorious advance of the revolutionary people of the world.
            * The Chinese people firmly stand on the side of the people who constitute over 90 per cent of the world’s population, resolutely oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and resolutely support all oppressed peoples and nations in their just struggles for freedom and independence.
            * If U.S. imperialism insists on extending the war to China, we cannot but resolutely take up the challenge and we will not call off the battle until complete victory.
            * Together with the other peoples of Asia and the whole world, we will do our part in overthrowing U.S. imperialism, which is the arch-aggressor and arch-warmonger of our time.
            * China’s Third Five-Year Plan is to further develop the national economy, raise the people’s standard of living and strengthen national defence.


          On December 30, 1965, Vice-Premier Chen Yi answered important questions put by Takano Yoshihisa, Peking correspondent of the Japanese paper “Akahata.” Following are the questions and answers. -Ed.

    One Can Never Be “Excessive” in Combating Aggression

    Question: The press conference given by Vice-Premier Chen Yi on September 29, 1965, in Peking has had great repercussions throughout the world. In particular, the view has arisen among some people that “excessively tough” words were used in expressing China’s determination to fight against the U.S. imperialist policy of aggression. What do you think of this reaction?

    Answer: I have also read about this reaction. I can understand how it has arisen, but I cannot agree with it.

          I believe that most of those who think my words “excessively tough” do so because they are not acquainted with the facts of the ruthless aggressions committed by U.S. imperialism. U.S. imperialism has forcibly occupied China’s territory of Taiwan, is constantly intruding into China’s territorial waters and air space and is making frequent military provocations against China. It has surrounded China with a chain of military bases directed against her. It is steadily expanding its war of aggression in Vietnam. And recently it has publicly called China the “enemy number one of the United States.” It may be asked, under these circumstances what other policy can we adopt than that of resolute struggle against the U.S. policy. of aggression? One can never be “excessive” in combating aggression. The fact is that the U.S. imperialists are too truculent and tyrannical.

          Of course, there are other people who have described my words as “excessively tough” out of ulterior motives. They are obsessed with the idea of peaceful coexistence with the U.S. aggressors, whereas I said a resolute struggle must be waged against the U.S. policy of aggression. So how can they not feel my words “excessively tough”?

          U.S. imperialism is the enemy of the Chinese people; it is also the common enimy of the people of the whole world. It is subjecting nearly every country to its threat, control, interference or aggression, with the aim of attaining world hegemony. For this purpose, it has built up the biggest war machine in human history. It has more than 2,200 military bases and installations on foreign soil and has sent over one million aggressor troops abroad. In these circumstances, it is only natural for China, as a socialist country, to resolutely oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and resolutely support all oppressed peoples and nations in their just struggles for freedom and independence. Otherwise, she would be betraying her internationalist duty.

          Firm opposition to the U.S. policies of aggression and war is in the fundamental interests of the people of the world. I am deeply confident that this just stand of ours accords with the interest of the people of the world and will surely win their sympathy and support.

    Excellent General Situation in Asia and Africa

    Question: Recently, there have been great upheavals in Asia and Africa, such as the postponement of the African-Asian conference and the coup d’etat in Indonesia. Some people are spreading the view that China is isolated. What is your view of the recent turbulent situation in Asia and Africa? Moreover, I would like to ask for your estimate of how the international situation, and particularly the Afro-Asian situation, will develop in 1966.

    Answer: It is true that great upheavals have recently occurred in Asia and Africa. This is a manifestation of the deepening of the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the Asian and African peoples. Although some adverse currents have appeared in certain areas in Asia and Africa, the general situation in these continents is excellent; it is most favourable to the Afro-Asian peoples and most unfavourable to U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. In this connection, I wish to emphasize the great international significance of the heroic Vietnamese people’s struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation. Suffering one defeat after another, U.S. imperialism has come to the end of its tether in its war of aggression against Vietnam. It has met with firm opposition and strong condemnation by the people of the whole world, the American people included. President Ho Chi Minh has called on the Vietnamese people “to be determined to persevere in the fight and to undergo sacrifices for 10 or 20 years or a longer time, till complete victory.” The brilliant victories won by the Vietnamese people in their struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation are inspiring the fighting will of the people of the whole world. This is the most important factor in the current situation in Asia and Africa. At the same time, tempestuous struggles against imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism headed by the United States have arisen everywhere—in Japan, south Korea, the Congo (Leopoldville) and Southern Rhodesia. The surging revolutionary struggles of the Asian and African peoples against imperialism are the main current in the situation in Asia and Africa.

          Not reconciled to their defeats, imperialism and reaction headed by the United States are throwing in all their forces to suppress the forces of revolution in Asia and Africa in an attempt to undermine the Afro-Asian peoples’ cause of unity against imperialism. If the Afro-Asian peoples’ struggles have met with some set-backs in individual areas, these are only temporary phenomena. The course of advance of a people’s revolutionary struggle is never straight, it is bound to be wavelike.

          Contrary to the view spread by some people, China is not isolated. Take the case of the postponement of the Second African-Asian Conference, to which you have referred. Together with many other Asian and African countries, China initiated the holding of the Second African-Asian Conference. When the situation became unfavourable to its success, China and many other Asian and African countries, proceeding from the consistent stand of upholding Afro-Asian solidarity, proposed to postpone the conference. The Second African-Asian Conference was postponed, and the imperialist plot to split the Afro-Asian countries was foiled. China has stood with the overwhelming majority of the Afro-Asian countries, and we do not feel alone. Again, take the case of U.S. obstruction to the restoration of China’s legitimate rights in the United Nations. It is precisely in 1965 that for the first time the United States has failed to muster a majority on this question in the United Nations. The number of those who follow the United States is getting smaller and smaller, while that of China’s supporters is growing bigger and bigger. How can it be said that China is isolated?

          China is not isolated, and I am confident that she never will be. The reason is that the Chinese people firmly stand on the side of the people who are subjected to control, bullying, exploitation and oppression by imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism headed by the United States and the reactionaries in various countries, and who constitute over 90 per cent of the world’s population. Although certain individuals in Afro-Asian countries have joined the imperialists’ anti-Chinese chorus because they have entered into the service of imperialism, and although the modern revisionists are also supporting the anti-Chinese hullabaloo, they are after all a small handful. The broad masses of the people of the world want friendship with China. We have friends all over the world. And with the steady development of the struggle against imperialism and its lackeys, China will definitely have more and more friends. It is those who aid and abet U.S. imperialism and cry out against China that are becoming increasingly isolated.

          The year 1966 will witness the further deepening and expansion of the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles of the people of the world and will witness still greater victories for them. In the coming year, the national-democratic revolutionary movement may still meet with new difficulties and set-backs in certain areas of Asia and Africa, and adverse currents may still arise. We Afro-Asian peoples and revolutionary and progressive parties, organizations and individuals must be vigilant and prepared for this.

          No reactionary current can prevent the victorious advance of the revolutionary people of the world. The hundreds of millions of Afro-Asian people are determined to carry their revolutionary struggles against imperialism headed by the United States and its lackeys through to the end. They are advancing wave upon wave in their valiant and dauntless march. This constitutes the main current of our era which no force on earth can stop. There are already signs of an approaching new and great anti-U.S. revolutionary storm in Asia and Africa and the whole world.

    We Have No Illusions About U.S. Imperialism

    Question: The U.S. imperialists am still pursuing the policy of “escalation” in Vietnam. Particularly, after McNamara’s recent visit to south Vietnam, they have sent large U.S. reinforcements there, intensified their bombing of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and extended their aggression against Laos and Cambodia, thus aggravating the tension. How will China cope with this situation in Indo-China?

    Answer: You are perfectly right. U.S. imperialism is continuing its policy of “escalation” in Vietnam. While intensifying its war of aggression against Vietnam, it is preparing to extend the war to Laos and Cambodia, to the whole of Indo-China. In the meantime, it has instructed the Sato government of Japan and Pak Jung Hi puppet clique in south Korea to conclude the “Japan-ROK Treaty” in order to hasten the revival of Japanese militarism and has instigated the Indian reactionaries to launch constant provocations on the Sino-Indian border. It is quite obvious that U.S. imperialism is directing the spearhead of its aggression against the Indo-Chinese peoples, the Chinese people, the Korean people and all the Asian countries and peoples who refuse to be its slaves, and that it is trying through the instrumentality of the Japanese reactionaries to plunge the Japanese people into the disaster of a new war and launch a general war of aggression in Asia.

          We have no illusions about U.S. imperialism, and we have made full preparations. We resolutely support the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea and Japan and all other peoples suffering from U.S. imperialist aggression in carrying their fight against U.S. imperialism through to the end. No matter what tricks U.S. imperialism plays and no matter how it “escalates” the war, it will never be able to change this just stand of ours.

          We are very glad to see that more and more Americans have come to realize that it is the United States that is bullying China, not vice versa. They have begun to take action against the Johnson Administration’s policies of aggression and war. Nevertheless, the iron-clad fact confronting us is that the spearhead of U.S. imperialist aggression is more and more clearly directed against China. If U.S. imperialism insists on extending the war to China, we cannot but resolutely take up the challenge and we will not call off the battle until complete victory. Together with the other peoples of Asia and the whole world, we will do our part in overthrowing U.S. imperialism, which is the arch-aggressor and arch-warmonger of our time.

    Soviet Leaders’ Ulterior Motives in “Aiding” Vietnam

    Question: The people of China and the whole world have given material and moral support to the Vietnamese people in their struggle. In this connection, in the spring of 1965 the rumour was spread through the medium of the Western press that China was holding up the transport of Soviet aid material to Vietnam. This rumour has recently cropped up again. Would you please tell me the facts of the matter?

    Answer: China has abided by agreement and punctually transported the military material for Vietnam which the Soviet Union asked us to help transport. And this has always been done free of any charge. Such is the truth of the matter. It is an absolutely deliberate slander to say that China has held up the transport of Soviet military material for Vietnam.

          The Soviet Union is the largest European socialist country. If it really wanted to help the Vietnamese people, if it really wanted to support and help their struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation in an effective and all-round way, it could have taken all kinds of measures in many fields to immobilize forces of the United States and constantly exposed the U.S. plots of peace talks. But the Soviet leaders have not done so; on the contrary, they have in fact been giving the United States every facility, so that it can concentrate its forces against Vietnam and continuously spread smokescreen of peace talks to becloud world opinion. In these circumstances, who can believe that the Soviet leaders are giving genuine support to Vietnam?

          The Soviet leaders are evading the major issue when they deliberately reduce the important political question of supporting the Vietnamese people’s struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation to a matter of “transit of aid material for Vietnam,” to say nothing of their complete lack of justification on the latter question. The Soviet leaders harp on the fact that the Soviet Union has no common borders with Vietnam, as if all aid material for Vietnam has of necessity to go through China. This is not true. There are sea routes between the Soviet Union and Vietnam. Why can’t Soviet military material for Vietnam be shipped by sea as is that of other countries? But the Soviet Union dare not take the sea routes. It has asked us to transport all of its military material for Vietnam. We know very well what are the things we have helped it to transport. Both in quantity and quality, they are far from commensurate with the strength of the Soviet Union. But the Soviet leaders are boasting about this meagre aid and have constantly and everywhere spread the rumour that China is obstructing the transit of Soviet aid material for Vietnam. Naturally, this cannot but strengthen people’s conviction that their so-called aid to Vietnam is given with ulterior motives. In reality, the Soviet leaders have not been sincerely helping the Vietnamese people to carry their struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation through to the end, but want to make use of their so-called aid to control the Vietnamese situation and bring the Vietnam question into the orbit of U.S.-Soviet collaboration. Otherwise, why should they have been continuously and groundlessly slandering the Chinese people, who are giving full support to the struggle of the Vietnamese people?

    No Good End for U.S. Cat’s-Paws

    Question: The Sato cabinet of Japan has railroaded through the “Japan-ROK Treaty” in an attempt to push Japan on to a more perilous path. What are your views on the recent policies of the Sato government? How do you envisage the future relations between Japan and China?

    Answer: The forcible passage of the “Japan-ROK Treaty” by the Sato cabinet is a grave step taken by U.S. imperialism in its scheme to enlarge its war of aggression in Asia; it is also a grave step taken by the Japanese reactionaries to accelerate the revival of militarism and the organization of a Northeast Asia military alliance, a step which marks their determination to take an open part in U.S. wars of aggression. The spearhead of aggression of the “Japan-ROK Treaty” is directed against Korea, and likewise against China and other Asian countries.

          This act of the Sato government is in direct contravention of the interest of the Japanese people and the fundamental interest of the Japanese nation. All those who are willing to be cat’s paws of U.S. imperialism in its extension of aggression and in its plot to “use Asians to fight Asians” will certainly come to no good end.

          The Japanese and Korean peoples have already gone into action to oppose the “Japan-ROK Treaty” and the aggressive schemes of the U.S. imperialists and the Japanese reactionaries.

          The Communist Party of Japan and the other democratic and progressive forces in Japan are uniting the people on a broader and broader scale and are unfolding a gigantic struggle against the “Japan-ROK Treaty,” the revival of Japanese militarism and the U.S. imperialist aggression in Vietnam and other Asian countries. The Japanese people will never allow U.S. imperialism to turn Japan into a military base for expanded wars of aggression. They will never consent to become cannon-fodder for the U.S. aggressors. They will never permit the Japanese reactionaries to commit aggression against the fraternal peoples of Korea, China and other Asian countries in collaboration with the U.S. imperialists.

          Under the leadership of the Korean Workers’ Party headed by Comrade Kim Il Sung, the heroic Korean people have achieved brilliant successes in socialist revolution and socialist construction following their great victory in the War of Liberation of the Fatherland. The Korean people have sufficient experience and strength to frustrate the aggressive schemes of the U.S. and Japanese reactionaries.

          The Chinese people firmly support the heroic Japanese and Korean peoples in their great struggle against the U.S. and Japanese reactionaries.

          Ever since it entered office, the Sato government has been following U.S. imperialism and working hard to undermine the positive results accumulated over the years in Sino-Japanese relations. No improvement in Sino-Japanese relations is possible unless the Sato government changes its policy of tailing after U.S. imperialism, reviving Japanese militarism and being hostile to China.

          The Chinese and Japanese peoples have always been friendly to each other. In recent years, the fraternal Japanese people have worked tirelessly for the normalization of Sino-Japanese relations and won great successes. We are sincerely grateful for this. I firmly believe that Sino-Japanese relations will eventually be normalized through the joint efforts of the Japanese and Chinese peoples.

    Ever-Victorious Thought of Mao Tse-tung Guides Us On

    Question: China will start her Third Five-Year Plan in 1966. In the context of the present internal and external situation, what special features and character does it have as compared with the two previous five-year plans?

    Answer: The central content of our Third Five-Year Plan is to further develop the national economy, raise the people’s standard of living and strengthen national defence on the basis of the results of the First and Second Five-Year Plans.

          We had great difficulties in our socialist construction in the Second Five-Year Plan period because our country encountered three consecutive years of natural calamities, because there were some shortcomings and mistakes in our practical work, and because, on top of this, Khrushchov abruptly tore up several hundred agreements and contracts and withdrew all the Soviet experts within a month. After strenuous work of readjustment, we have achieved tremendous successes under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman Mao Tse-tung, and our economy has been further strengthened and developed in the last few years. In 1965 we have paid up our foreign debts and become a state free from all foreign debt. We have overfulfilled the annual state plan ahead of schedule in the output of major industrial products, such as iron, steel, coal and petroleum. We have gathered very good harvests. There is an ample supply of commodities on the market, and prices remain stable. Our country is entering a period of new upsurge, a period of all-round development in industrial and agricultural production.

          As our country embarks on the Third Five-Year Plan, she is richer in experience in socialist construction, there are broader foundations for regeneration through self-reliance, and the revolutionary spirit of our people is more vigorous than ever. Of course, we shall still encounter difficulties of one kind or another along our path of socialist revolution and socialist construction. For instance, some areas in our country were hit by drought in 1965, and natural calamities may occur again in the coming years. Take another example. U.S. imperialism is now scheming to spread its war of aggression against Vietnam to China. All such factors must be taken into account in the drawing up of our Third Five-Year Plan.

          Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese people are continuing to develop the revolutionary tradition of thrift and hard work, firmly executing the policy of attaining national prosperity and strength through self-reliance, and striving to fulfil the Third Five-Year Plan. Our people are determined, in a short historical period, to build China into a socialist power with modern agriculture, modern industry, modern defence and modern science and technology. We are convinced that, under the guidance of the brilliant and ever-victorious thought of Mao Tse-tung, we can surely attain our goal whatever happens in the world.

    *       *       *
          In conclusion, let me take this opportunity to pay high tribute to the Communist Party of Japan and the Japanese people who are engaged in a heroic struggle. May the Communist Party of Japan and the Japanese people win still greater victories in the coming year in their struggle against the U.S. imperialists and the Japanese reactionaries.




        
          Work-Study Schools
    A Significant Development in China’s Educational Revolution
    by Liang Nien

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #2, Jan. 7, 1966, pp. 9-12.]

          The introduction of the work-study educational system in China is fully in keeping with the wishes of the broad masses of the people and with the needs for the development of industrial and agricultural production. It will exercise a far-reaching influence on the training of a new generation of revolutionaries who are both “red and expert” and can work with both hand and brain. It is a fundamental measure for the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and for the prevention of the restoration of capitalism.

          THE establishment of a new system of work-study education which combines classroom study with work in the factories and on the farms is a development of far-reaching importance in China’s cultural revolution.

          Though experiments are still being made in order to best solve the common and specific problems of its many different kinds of schools, the new system has already brought universal education nearer and is showing its value in bringing up a new generation of revolutionaries who are accustomed to both mental and physical labour and who are both “red and expert,” i.e., who are both politically conscious and professionally competent.

    Suited to Objective Needs

          Work-study schools were first tried out in 1958 in accordance with the principle that education should serve proletarian politics and be combined with productive labour. In 1964, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party directed that, side by side with the existing full-time schools, part-work and part-study education should be gradually introduced throughout the country. Since then, there has been a vigorous development in this system of schooling, both in the urban and rural areas. In the cities, work-study specialized middle schools and work-study schools equivalent to junior middle schooling have been established; in the countryside, there are work-study primary schools, work-study agricultural middle schools, and work-study technical middle schools. The new system is also being tried out in higher education. It can be expected that on the basis of the experience now being gained, it will make still greater advances in the future.

          Socialist China is a vast country with a huge population, and in the past economic and cultural development was so uneven that today levels still differ greatly from one place to another. Under these circumstances, it is just not realistic to expect to make education universal in China through full-time schooling only. This poses the task of setting up schools to suit all conditions in order to meet the needs of the broad masses, and of the workers and peasants in particular. This is where the work-study educational system comes in.

    Schools of Many Kinds

          In the countryside today, besides full-time primary schools, there are work-study primary schools of many kinds. These schools operate on flexible lines, so that youngsters who have work to do in the family or field can attend classes. There are half-day schools, and schools with special morning, noon or evening classes. If these are not practical, classes without fixed hours are held, and school begins when the students come. Mobile schools make their rounds to bring lessons to children who live in scattered mountain villages and on the grasslands.

          In a word, the schools are set up for the convenience and benefit of pupils, especially those from working families. Great care is taken to keep all expenses down to a minimum and to ensure that what is taught is of practical use.

          As a result, enrolment of children from former poor and lower-middle peasant families has risen sharply. There are now 17 million children studying in work-study primary schools, 80 per cent above the 1964 enrolment in these schools. The rapid development of the new schools is also stimulating reforms in the full-time rural schools. Many of the latter have changed from the usual two terms each of five months a year to three shorter terms and now close during the busy periods of harvesting and sowing. Some have set up additional classes for pupils who cannot attend full time. All this has helped to bring about an increase of 14 per cent in total primary school enrolment compared with 1964. This is a big step forward in making primary education universal.


    Students of the work-study Agro-Technical School run by
    Peking’s Evergreen People’s Commune attending a course
    on the cultivation of hothouse vegetables

          The spread of secondary education has been likewise improved. In the cities primary education is already universal and the majority of primary school graduates can go on to full-time junior middle school. For those who cannot, work-study schools and classes in a variety of forms, as well as other forms of schooling such as the Television School in Taiyuan, Shansi Province, and the Home for Youngsters in Mutankiang, Heilungkiang Province, are being set up by factories and mines, government organizations and enterprises, and neighbourhood organizations. In the villages, work-study agricultural middle schools are being developed. State farms specializing in agriculture, forestry or animal husbandry have set up a number of technical middle schools based on the new system, and in big cities like Shanghai, Peking and Tientsin, enterprises and organizations are running similar schools of their own. Enrolment in these work-study middle schools in 1965 was 87 per cent more than in 1964.

          The new system has also been extended to higher education. Work-study institutes, technological universities and teachers’ training colleges have been set up by a number of big state farms and factories. Many full-time higher educational institutions are actively experimenting with the new system. More than half of the agricultural institutes of higher learning have introduced the work-study system and 70 per cent of the agro-technical middle schools are also trying it out. Under an overall plan, conditions are being created for the existing full-time specialized middle schools to be transformed into work-study schools step by step.


    Kazakh youngsters from a people’s commune on their
    way to a work-study primary school on the grasslands
    of Sinkiang’s Altai County

          From the above, it is clear that the new system is not only contributing greatly to the universalization of primary education in China. It has also opened up ways for the gradual universalization of secondary and even higher education in the future. This is in marked contrast to the position in capitalist countries. In order to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie and to maintain the differences between mental and manual labour, the bourgeois educational system can only universalize primary or general secondary education at the most. It definitely cannot, nor is it willing to universalize higher and specialized secondary education. The socialist countries, in order to render immediate service to the socialist revolution and socialist construction and to diminish gradually the differences between mental and manual labour, besides universalizing primary and general secondary education step by step, must go further and universalize higher and specialized secondary education also.

    Developing a Technical Force

          The gradual modernization and development of industrial and agricultural production has created a pressing need for a huge technical force both in the cities and the countryside. This is where the new schools fulfil an increasingly important function. Work-study schools set up by factories can produce in a relatively short period large numbers of workers of a new type—workers who are good with their hands and have specialized skills and an adequate level of general education. The Tientsin Electronic Instruments Plant solved its shortage of skilled workers and cadres by setting up a technical middle school on a work-study basis. The plant now has 405 graduates from this school in its workshops and other departments and they form the nucleus of its technical and administrative force.

          Since 1958, Tientsin has set up a number of work-study technical middle schools on a trial basis. In the last two years this city has made considerable advances in work-study education. Today there are altogether 119 work-study schools and classes, mostly middle schools and some institutions of higher learning, with a total enrolment of over 24,000 students. Investigations made by the city among some 2,000 of its graduates from work-study technical middle schools showed that the majority of them are now factory workers. Some have become technicians or administrative cadres. Collectively these people are an important technical force in Tientsin’s factories.

          In the countryside, the situation is the same. Many graduates from work-study agricultural middle schools have become leaders,of production teams, book-keepers, storemen, tractor drivers, irrigation and drainage equipment operators, technicians, health workers, electricians, veterinarians and livestock breeders. Excellent results have also been obtained from the special short courses run by these schools to meet the need for agro-technicians, veterinarians, accountants and other technical personnel. An equally important role is played by the work-study technical middle schools in supplying skilled personnel needed by state farms specializing in agriculture, forestry or livestock breeding, fishing enterprises, hydroelectric and farm machinery stations and other production units.

          The graduates are well equipped for the jobs that lie ahead of them as they have already done practical work. While studying, they are an effective productive force, too. Students of some agricultural middle schools, for example, have turned low-yielding land into high-yielding land by scientific farming. Some have raised improved strains of seeds. Some have assisted production teams in disease and pest control and prevention, and in this way they have helped to ensure high yields over large areas of farmland.

          In cities some work-study schools divide their day equally into two, others study and work on alternate days or weeks. After a very short time their students have shown that they are at home in the workshops, able both to operate machines and to solve technical problems. They are already worker-technicians in the making.

    Stress on Industry and Thrift

          These new schools implement in an improved way the established policy of building up the country through industry and thrift. Through work, the students not only gain knowledge but also create wealth to cover part or the whole of their expenses and those of the school. This of course lightens greatly the burden on the state and parents and makes it much easier to set up large numbers of schools in all parts of the country.

          Most of the work-study schools in the countryside in fact grew out of practically nothing. They were set up on the principle of making the fullest use of what is available on the spot and keeping expenses and equipment down to the barest minimum. Old buildings are repaired and new ones put up by the teachers and students who use local materials. Equipment and furniture, too, are usually made in the same way.

          The Taching Oilfield provides an outstanding example of industry and thrift in education. In the spirit of hard work and self-reliance, men and women of Taching who succeeded in building a huge oilfield in three years, have in the last six years set up 130 schools and classes in diverse forms. These include full-time schools and different kinds of work-study schools and short-term courses. In Taching today, primary education is already universal; junior middle school education is practically universal. A basic educational network covering primary, secondary and higher education has been set up throughout the oilfield. In establishing these schools, the Taching people met with all sorts of difficulties. They were in want of almost everything at the start—buildings, equipment, teachers, and teaching experience. ... They solved their accommodation problem by making use of dining-rooms, store-rooms, and stables, and by putting up simple, crude buildings themselves. They piled up sun-dried bricks to make tables, and made wooden benches out of waste material from the construction sites. They sought their teachers from among cadres, workers and housewives, bearing in mind an old Chinese saying “the capable ones are the teachers.” They gained experience through “learning to do by doing” and “making improvements as you go along.” It is with such a revolutionary spirit and such revolutionary measures that the Taching people, guided by Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, have managed to turn the many unfavourable conditions for their life and work to good account—making every difficulty contribute to the education and steeling of the younger generation.

    Working People of a New Type

          Most important of all, the students in these schools are closely linked to production, to reality and to the working people. They are at the same time students and farmers or students and workers. Their theoretical studies and experiments tie in closely with production. What they study in books is tested and assimilated through practice. This stimulates and holds the students’ interest and helps them to learn and master what is taught. The teachers, too, are out in the fields or factories when they are not teaching and this links their classroom work more closely with life. Facts prove that there is no lowering of standards. As schools of this type can better implement the policy of putting education at the service of proletarian politics and linking it with productive labour, they are better capable of bringing up working people of a new type, people with an all-round development, moral, intellectual and physical.

          Although it is not long since these schools first came into being, they have proved their worth and their graduates are warmly welcomed by rural people’s communes and industrial enterprises alike. There is a consensus of opinion that youth thus educated are in general conscientious in work, progressive in outlook, and technically competent. Because of this they have played a praiseworthy role in the three great revolutionary movements—the class struggle, the struggle for production, and scientific experiment. Since 1958, more than 4,000 people have graduated from work-study schools of higher learning, some 10,000 from work-study agro-technical middle schools. These young people, who have received training in both theory and practice, are capable of doing both mental and manual labour. They make themselves very useful wherever they may be, are quite at home with the masses, and are not pretentious or snobbish. They are socialist-minded, cultured working people of a new type.

          The most recent development in the work-study schools is the emphasis placed on graduates going back to their home communes. Some agricultural institutes, agro-technical middle schools, and specialized middle schools training public health workers last summer recruited new students directly from rural communes with the understanding that they would return home after graduation. Urban work-study schools have also undertaken to train personnel for the rural areas from among young people in the cities.

          The introduction of the work-study educational system is fully in keeping with the wishes of the broad masses of the people and with the needs for the development of industrial and agricultural production. It embodies on the educational front the general line of getting greater, faster, better and more economical results in building socialism. In the long-term view, this will create the conditions for the gradual diminution of the differences between mental and manual labour; and it is one of the basic measures for the training of a new generation of proletarian revolutionaries and for guarding against any restoration of capitalism in our country.

          The work-study system of schooling at the present time is still in the initial stages and we lack experience with it. There will inevitably be difficulties on our way ahead. But introduction of the system is definitely not a measure of expediency. It will remain and advance in step with the forward movement of our socialist revolution. Travelling along this road, we shall gradually build up a complete educational system of our own, which brings up people who can work with both hand and brain.



        
    South Vietnamese People’s Five Years of Victorious Struggle

    [This unsigned article is reprinted from Peking
    Review, #2, Jan. 7, 1966, pp. 13-15.]

            * The south Vietnamese people have creatively developed people’s war to a new peak.
            * They are ready to make all necessary sacrifices to thoroughly defeat the U.S. imperialists.


          A TOTAL of 540,000 enemy troops were put out of action by the liberation armed forces and people of south Vietnam from the beginning of 1961 to October 1965. This included about 20,000 American troops killed, wounded or captured up to November 1965.

          These incomplete figures were contained in a South Vietnam Liberation Press Agency communique reviewing the south Vietnamese people’s accomplishments in their struggle since the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation (N.F.L.) was founded five years ago.

    N.F.L. Assumes Function of State Power

          The N.F.L., the communique pointed out, “has now become an organization which is in practice assuming the function of a stable, strong and really democratic state of the people in south Vietnam, exerting its effect on the overwhelming majority of the south Vietnamese people.”

          The past five years of growth by leaps and bounds of the N.F.L. had been five years of life-and-death struggle against U.S. imperialism and the traitors, a struggle waged by all patriotic Vietnamese in the spirit of “rather die than be enslaved.” In this utterly unequal fight, the south Vietnamese people had won fundamental and most glorious victories.

    Johnson’s “Peace Talks” Hoax

          The communique recalled the criminal deeds by U.S. imperialism after the 1954 Geneva Conference and drew attention to the frantic efforts it was making to expand its war of aggression against Vietnam.

          “By the end of 1964, there were 24,000 U.S. troops in south Vietnam. By June 1965, U.S. effectives were boosted up to 50,000. At present, the U.S. forces in this area have soared to 170,000 men,” the communique said. “The freshly reinforced Seventh Fleet, Guam-based B-52 strategic bombers and troops from U.S. satellite countries have also taken part in the fighting. Recently, Johnson and McNamara declared that preparations were being made for the dispatch of another 50,000 U.S. troops to south Vietnam. At the same time, the strength of the puppet army has been increased to 600,000 men.”



          The communique further exposed the Johnson Administration’s fraudulent “peace talks” offer designed to cover up manoeuvres for a wider war. It said that each time the U.S. imperialists talked of “peace” and “negotiation,” they took another step in their escalation by stepping up and expanding their war of aggression in south Vietnam. “The higher they raise their voice praying for ‘peace’ and ‘negotiation’ the deeper they dip their hands in the blood of the south Vietnamese people and the more they shed the American people’s blood.”

    Enemy Casualties Increase Sharply

          The communique also recalled the great victories won by the south Vietnamese people under the leadership of the N.F.L. in their armed struggle to resist U.S. aggression and save the country.

          “According to incomplete data, the number of enemy troops killed, wounded, captured or disbanded from the beginning of 1961 to October 1965 was 540,000. This includes about 20,000 American troops killed, wounded or captured up to November 1965. Also during this period, our army and people shot down or destroyed on the ground 2,394 aircraft of various types not counting the damaged ones, set afire, damaged or destroyed 1,922 military vehicles of different types, sank 912 warships and motor boats including the U.S. aircraft carrier Card, razed to the ground about 2,000 posts, headquarters of military sectors and sub-sectors and training centres, captured 68,105 guns of various kinds, and completely destroyed more than 6,000 of the more than 8,000 ‘strategic hamlets.’”

          “The liberated zone has been broadened and is covering many district capitals and towns, and so far 80 per cent of the total territory of south Vietnam with a population of more than 10 million have been completely liberated by the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation.”

    Surging Movement to Annihilate U.S. Aggressors

          The communique stressed: “Particularly worthy of note recently is the surging movement to annihilate the U.S. aggressors on all battlefields and its brilliant successes.”

          The number of American troops killed, wounded or captured from the beginning of 1961 to the end of 1964 was 3,069, an average of 64 per month. During the first six months of 1965, it rose to about 3,005 or an average of 501 per month.

          In the third quarter of 1965, the number of U.S. troops put out of action rose to 5,076, an average of 1,692 per month. In October 1965, 3,035 U.S. troops were wiped out. In November, with the victories won by the liberation armed forces and people at Plei Me, Bau Bang, Dat Cuoc, Dau Tieng and other places, the U.S. casualty toll increased sharply. In October 1965, the U.S. casualty figure equalled that in the first six months or in the four previous years (1961-64). In November alone, it equalled the figure in the third quarter of 1965 or more than half that of the first nine months or nearly double that of the four previous years (1961-64).



          “The monthly rate of annihilation of whole U.S. combat units by our armed forces was even higher than the yearly rate of annihilation of entire puppet units in the past.

          “Another new feature of the movement to annihilate the U.S. aggressors is that not only our regular army but our regional army and guerrillas can also wipe out whole U.S. platoons or companies. This rate is also higher compared with the rate of annihilation of puppet troops in the past....

          “Alongside the continuous and vigorous developments of the movement to annihilate the U.S. aggressors, our army and people continue to attack and wipe out the puppet troops. In particular, our regional armed forces in various provinces and districts have brought in to full play their active role.”

          “Obviously, the liberation armed forces have grown up and made rapid progress in quantity and quality, technique and tactics, organization and command, and have become more powerful than ever and have gained the initiative on the battlefront.”

    People’s War Triumphs

          The communique also said: “The glorious exploits of our army and people over the past five years and especially over the recent past bear a great political significance.

          “Our army and people have defeated the puppet army and an expeditionary army equipped with most up-to-date weapons. They did so not by means of aircraft, artillery or tanks but with their own strength: the strength of people’s war, and moral strength.... This strength is being reinforced by the encouragement of the army and people in north Vietnam who are determined to defeat the U.S. aggressors and by the active support of the world’s people including the American people.”

          The communique described in detail direct or indirect political struggles against the U.S.-puppet clique waged by the people in all parts of south Vietnam under the leadership of the N.F.L. in the past five years. It said that the south Vietnamese people had repeatedly organized meetings, demonstrations, strikes, market strikes, occupation of workshops, demonstration funeral processions ... held dozens, hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands of rallies in the heart of towns and cities.

          “The political struggle of the people in the past five years has opened a large-scale, powerful and deep-going counter-attack on the puppet army and administration, especially the puppet army, in close co-ordination with the armed struggle.

          “It is precisely the strength of the struggle of our Liberation Army and people which has led to the repeated changes in the puppet machine.”

          The communique stressed: “At present, de jure and de facto, there is no administration of the U.S. and its henchmen on this land of south Vietnam.”

          The communique dealt in detail with the tremendous political, economic and cultural achievements in the liberated zone. “During the past five years, in the midst of an earth-shaking revolutionary storm, the embryo of a new, genuinely national and democratic regime has emerged and powerfully developed in the liberated zone of south Vietnam, which ensures freedom and happiness for all the people. Under the banner of the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation, the life of our people has recorded big and fundamental changes in all fields, political, economic, cultural and social.”

          It said that the people of the liberated zone, by bringing into full play the spirit of self-reliance, dauntlessly overcoming all difficulties and hardships, defeating the enemy’s sabotage and overcoming natural calamities, had recorded many successes in the economic and production fields.

          “A new regime, a new society, a new south Vietnam has taken shape and is developing on four-fifths of our beloved south Vietnam.”

          The heroic struggle for self-liberation of the south Vietnamese people had, the communique added, won the wholehearted support of the 17 million people in north Vietnam and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam headed by President Ho Chi Minh.

    South Vietnamese People’s Successes Are Also Successes of the World’s People

          The communique gave an account of the warm support for the heroic struggle of the south Vietnamese people by the people of the world, including the American people. It also pointed out that U.S. imperialism and its lackeys were placed in unprecedented isolation.

          It emphasized that the valiant resistance to U.S. aggression by the south Vietnamese people, under the leadership of the N.F.L., had an extremely great international significance. The U.S. imperialists had harboured the illusion of turning the southern part of Vietnam into their colony and military base as a spring-board to annex the whole of Vietnam and invade the countries in Indo-China and Southeast Asia. At the same time, they did not conceal their scheme of experimenting with “special” and “escalation” war in south Vietnam to draw experiences for suppressing the revolutionary movements in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.

          “For these reasons, the south Vietnamese people are obviously standing on the frontline of the movement for independence, democracy, peace and progress of the peoples against U.S. imperialism—the international gendarme and enemy of the whole of mankind including the American people. Our successes are also successes of the world’s people.”



          While pointing to the brilliant victories of the south Vietnamese people, the communique noted that the Johnson-McNamara clique was still not reconciled to defeat, but on the contrary, was recklessly plunging headlong into a bloody adventure, concentrating all its efforts on intensifying and enlarging its war of aggression in south Vietnam and its “escalation” war against north Vietnam.

          The communique stressed: “Now more than ever the south Vietnamese people have seen clearly that there cannot be the least illusion or confusion about the nature of the U.S. imperialists. The latter are the chieftain of the disintegrating imperialist system. They are utterly barbarous and wily, utterly reactionary and stubborn....

          “That is why our people decidedly cannot bend their knees to solicit their commiseration, instead, must firmly hold their guns and unceasingly increase their determination to fight and to win and mount repeated attacks on them in all forms and by all means of violence.

          “To defend their very existence and win victory, our people have to persist in their struggle in order to defeat them [the U.S. imperialists] completely and force them to give up their evil designs.”

          Concluding, the communique said: “We pledge our determination to defeat the U.S. imperialists and their lackeys whether they will carry on their special war or recklessly wage a local war, even if they bring in 250,000-500,000 or more expeditionary troops, and even if they use nuclear-powered warships, atomic cannons or any other barbarous means of war.

          “Our people are ready to sacrifice everything to defeat the U.S. imperialists, however the situation may develop....

          “There is still enough room in south Vietnam to bury several hundred thousand more American expeditionary troops.”





        
    Peking Review: Contents Page
    Jan. 21, 1966       Vol. 9, #4

    [The articles below with active links have been scanned in and posted on this site.
    Comments in brackets added by the MASSLINE.ORG editor.]

    The Week

        * U.S. “Peace Talks” Hoax Condemned
        * Malayan Representatives Welcomed
        * Murder of Chinese Nationals on Lombok Island Protested   [About an anti-Chinese pogrom in Indonesia.]
        * Soviet Delegation Leaves for Home

    Articles and Documents

        “P.L.A. Conference on Political Work” — The P.L.A. puts Mao Tse-tung’s thought in command of everything. It stands ready at any time to smash U.S. imperialist aggression.

        “Foreign Ministry Statement:
        China Condemns Towering U.S. Crimes in South Vietnam”

            * While pressing ahead with its “peace talks” fraud, U.S. imperialism is pursuing an inhuman “scorched earth” policy and using poison gas and toxic chemicals on a large scale in south Vietnam.
            * Cowards are the worst brutes. Johnson is more brutal and cowardly than Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. The more brutal its aggression, the nearer U.S imperialism is to its doom.

        “Genocide in South Vietnam:
        U.S. Intensifies Atrocities”   [Includes a two-page spread of six pictures of U.S. atrocities, entitled “Genocide!”]

        “Bertrand Russell Denounces U.S. War Criminals”   [Short item accompanying the above article.]

        “Foreign Ministry Statement:
        Strongly Denounces Wanton U.S. Bombing of Laos”

            * Intensified U.S. bombings of Laos constitute an important step in spreading the war from south Vietnam to the whole of Indo-China.
            * The Chinese Government and people fully endorse the just stand taking by the Neo Lao Haksat and the Laotian patriotic neutral forces and resolutely support the Laotian people’s struggle against the U.S. aggressors and their lackeys.

        “Renmin Ribao:
        Johnson’s Challenge” — Comments on U.S. President’s State of the Union Message.

        “Asia, Africa and Latin America:
        The Tide of the People’s Anti-Imperialist Revolutionary Struggle is Irresistible”

        “Report From Havana:
        The First Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference”
        The conference witnessed a sharp struggle between two lines. It marked a tremendous upsurge and victory for the Afro-Asian and Latin American peoples’ cause of solidarity against U.S. imperialism. It was a damning exposure and heavy defeat for the new Soviet leaders’ capitulationist and divisive schemes.

        “U.S.S.R. Refuses to Clear Up Anti-China Rumours”   [Regarding the unfounded rumors spread by pro-Soviet forces that China was holding up rail shipments of weapons to Vietnam.]

        “A.A.J.A. Upholds Anti-Imperialist Banner”   [The Afro-Asian Journalists’ Association.]

    Round the World

        * “Peace Offensive” Escalation: Washington Gives Itself Away
        * Panama’s Anti-U.S. Demonstrations: Fresh in Their Memory
        * American Negro Struggle: The Gathering Storm
        * African Opinion: Origin of Anti-China Slanders
        * I.U.S. Meeting: Capitulationist Line Denounced  : [International Union of Students.]
        * News Notes: All Quiet on the Western Front ... His Master’s Voice ... Ugly Americans Abroad

    Across the Land

        * Tachai Learns From the Rest of the Country
        * Books for the Blind
        * Briefs




        
    P.L.A. Conference on Political Work
    The P.L.A. puts Mao Tse-tung’s thought in command of everything.
    It stands ready at any time to smash U.S. imperialist aggression.

    [This unsigned article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, pp. 5-6.]

          THE General Political Department of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army concluded its conference on political work in the army on January 18 in Peking.

          During its twenty days of meetings the conference made a serious study of the important instructions given by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and Chairman Mao Tse-tung on building up the army and on its political work; there were discussions on implementation of the five-point principle1 advanced by Comrade Lin Piao to keep on putting politics first; the experience gained in political work in the past two years was summed up and arrangements for political work in 1966 were decided upon.

          The conference called on all commanders and fighters of the P.L.A. to rally closely around the Central Committee of the Party and Chairman Mao Tse-tung, to hold still higher the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thought, to continue to put politics first and resolutely apply the five-point principle in this connection, and to heighten combat-readiness and be prepared at all times to smash U.S. imperialist aggression.

          All those attending the conference were received by the Party and state leaders Chou En-lai, Chu Teh, Teng Hsiao-ping and Peng Chen. Comrades Chou En-lai, Teng Hsiao-ping and Peng Chen gave important reports at the conference on the present domestic and international situation and present tasks.

          Hsiao Hua, Director of the P.L.A. General Political Department, presided over the conference and delivered a report on the implementation of the five-point principle of putting politics first. Yang Cheng-wu, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the P.L.A., spoke at the conference.

          The conference agreed that there was a new mass upsurge in the creative study and application of Mao Tse-tung’s works throughout the army since Comrade Lin Piao’s instructions on putting politics first were implemented. It was noted that the broad masses of cadres and fighters showed a deeper class feeling towards Mao Tse-tung’s thinking and greater political consciousness in remoulding their ideology and directing their activities in accordance with the guidance given by Chairman Mao Tse-tung. Great numbers of fine people like Lei Feng and Wang Chieh had come forward, and they had good deeds to their credit. There were new developments in the campaign to produce outstanding companies. There were remarkable achievements in fighting, training and the fulfilment of various other tasks.

          The consensus at the conference was that the principle of putting politics first formulated by Comrade Lin Piao conforms with what Chairman Mao Tse-tung has always taught us; it was put forward in accordance with the historical experience of the Chinese people’s armed forces and the present situation, in accordance with the laws of development and the economic basis of socialist society, and with the fact that classes and class struggle still exist in socialist society. This principle is the foundation on which to strengthen the revolutionization and modernization of the army, to make good preparations for the smashing of the U.S. imperialist war of aggression and to combat and prevent the rise of modern revisionism, and ensure that the army never degenerates. Comrade Lin Piao’s five-point principle which calls for putting politics first not only serves as the general principle and task for all army work in 1966 but is the guiding policy in army building for all the years to come.

          “Putting politics first” means putting Mao Tse-tung’s thinking first, said the conference. It means regarding Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s works as the highest instructions on all aspects of the work of the whole army, and putting Mao Tse-tung’s thinking in command of everything. Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s instructions are the criterion for all work. All his instructions must be resolutely supported and carried out, even if their accomplishment involves “climbing a mountain of swords and crossing an ocean of flames.” Whatever runs counter to his instructions must be rejected and firmly opposed.

          The conference called for the creative study and application of Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s works and, in particular, for the utmost effort in applying them. Whether Mao Tse-tung’s thinking has been really mastered must be judged above all by its application after study. In assessing anyone, hear what he says and see what he does, with emphasis, on the latter. It is incumbent not only on the soldiers and cadres at grass-root levels, but even more on the senior cadres, to read Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s works, follow his teachings, act in accordance with his instructions and be a good soldier of Chairman Mao Tse-tung. One must make the study of Chairman Mao’s works and the remoulding of one’s ideology a life-time endeavour if one is to devote one’s life to the revolution.

          The conference decided that in order to put politics first and resolutely carry out the five-point principle, the whole army must hold still higher,the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thought, and stimulate a new upsurge in the creative study and application of Mao Tse-tung’s works on an even wider scale and in still greater depth.

          Consistent adherence to the mass line and the continued practice of democracy in political, military and economic affairs were stressed at the conference. The instructions of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, the principles and policies of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the directives issued by the Party’s Military Commission and Comrade Lin Piao must be made known directly to the broad masses of cadres and fighters and translated into the conscious action of the masses.

          It was important to encourage all cadres and fighters to do political and ideological work, including the political, military and other cadres, declared the conference. Ideological work must penetrate the heart and mind of every fighter. Army units should do their administrative and educational work by means of political work and by the method of persuasion and education.

          The conference stressed that the decisive factor in putting politics first was Party leadership. The Principle that military affairs should be run by the whole Party must be adhered to. The system of dual leadership by the military command and the local Party committee under the unified leadership of the Party’s Central Committee must be resolutely enforced. The army must come under the absolute leadership of the Party and the supervision of the masses in order to ensure that the line, principles and policies of the Party are resolutely implemented in the army.

          The conference pointed out that Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s ideas on Party building must be follewed in order to strengthen the work of building the Party organization in the army, and strengthen collective leadership by the Party committees. Democratic centralism must be adhered to and there must be a vigorous inner-Party life, criticism and self-criticism, and democracy, so that military work will be done well by concerted efforts.

          The conference particularly emphasized that it was necessary to keep firmly in mind Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s teaching that “modesty makes one progress, whereas conceit makes one lag behind” and be modest, prudent, and honest in word and deed at all times.

          The conference called on all members of the army to sharpen their vigilance a hundred-fold and work earnestly to increase their combat-readiness.

          It noted that U.S. imperialism was now shifting the focus of its strategy to Asia. It was frenziedly enlarging its war of aggression in Vietnam and directing the spearhead of its aggression against China. At the same time the modern revisionists were working even more shamelessly in the service of U.S. imperialism, thereby aggravating the danger of war.

          The conference declared: “All members of the army must know that the root cause of war will remain until imperialism is overthrown and capitalism is eliminated. U.S. imperialism has obstinately set itself against the Chinese people, and against the people of all countries. It has always wanted to impose war on the Chinese people and have a contest of strength with us. Therefore, to increase our combat-readiness is not a temporary measure but a long-term strategic task.

          “We will not only defend our motherland and be ready at any moment to smash aggression by U.S. imperialism. We will also resolutely support and help the people of other countries in their struggle against U.S. imperialism. This is our bounden internationalist duty.

          “We must make full preparations against the war of aggression which U.S. imperialism may launch at an early date, on a large scale, with nuclear or other weapons, and on several fronts. All our work must be put on a footing of readiness to fight.”

          In conclusion the conference declared: “We are convinced that we will be invincible provided we put politics first, maintain an atmosphere of keen study of Mao Tse-tung’s thought and foster a high level of proletarian consciousness, high morale, solid unity and deep hatred for the enemy, and a spirit of revolutionary heroism, the spirit of daring to make revolution and daring to struggle, fearing neither war nor sacrifice.”

          Should U.S. imperialism dare to attack China, “our army, like a steel hammer, will crush anything it hits. Armed with the thinking of Mao Tse-tung, closely linked with the people throughout the country, and closely linked with the people throughout the world, we shall be more than a match for such a thing as U.S. imperialism, and final victory will certainly be ours.”

    _______________
    1   Comrade Lin Piao’s five-point principle guiding the work of the P.L.A. in 1966 is: 1) creatively study and apply Chairman Mao’s works and, in particular, make the utmost effort to apply them; regard Chairman Mao’s works as the highest instructions on all aspects of the work of the army; 2) persist in giving first place to man as between man and weapons, in giving first place to political work as between political and other work, in giving first place to ideological work as between ideological and routine tasks in political work, and, in ideological work, in giving first place to living ideas as between ideas in books and living ideas. And, in particular, make the greatest effort to grasp living ideas; 3) leading cadres must go to the basic units and give energetic leadership in the campaign to produce outstanding companies and ensure that the basic units do their work effectively, and, at the same time, that a good style of leadership by the cadres is fostered; 4) boldly promote really good commanders and fighters to key posts of responsibility; 5) train hard and master the finest techniques and close-range and night fighting tactics. —Ed.




        
         Foreign Ministry Statement
    China Condemns Towering U.S. Crimes in South Vietnam

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, pp. 7-8.]

        *

          While pressing ahead with its “peace talks” fraud, U.S. imperialism is pursuing an inhuman “scorched earth” policy and using poison gas and toxic chemicals on a large scale in south Vietnam.
        *

          Cowards are the worst brutes. Johnson is more brutal and cowardly than Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. The more brutal its aggression, the nearer U.S. imperialism is to its doom.


          ON January 11, 1966, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam issued a statement, exposing with a mass of facts the crimes committed by U.S. imperialism in pressing forward with its inhuman policies of “scorched earth” and of “kill all, burn all and destroy all” in southern Vietnam. Previously, on January 9, the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam issued a statement exposing the use by U.S. imperialism of poison gas and toxic chemicals on a large scale for massacre and destruction in southern Vietnam. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam called on all peace-loving countries and peoples, including the American people, to take action to sternly condemn and stop the U.S. aggressors’ brutal atrocities. Moreover, it reiterated that “the United States must withdraw all U.S. and satellite troops from south Vietnam, definitively and unconditionally end all encroachments on the territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, respect the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam, and let the people of south Vietnam settle themselves their own internal affairs.” The Chinese Government and people strongly condemn U.S. imperialism for its atrocious acts of aggression and resolutely support the just stand of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Vietnamese people.

          The 650 million Chinese people are extremely indignant at the heinous crimes committed by U.S. imperialism in southern Vietnam. These heinous crimes are being committed while the U.S. Government is resorting to the trick of “suspension of bombing” of northern Vietnam and is launching a “peace offensive” all over the world. This serves all the more to expose the gangster nature of U.S. imperialism.

          For quite some time, the United States has been advertising everywhere that it is willing to take the Geneva agreements as the basis for a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam question, that the four points of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam could be discussed, and even that it does not want to retain bases in south Vietnam and Southeast Asia, etc. In short, it has been pretending that it genuinely loves peace. As everyone can see now, the peace avowed by the United States means the dropping of thousands of tons of incendiary and other bombs to raze one village after another in southern Vietnam. It means the mass slaughter of Vietnamese people, chopping off their heads, cutting out their hearts, disembowelling or dismembering them, not even sparing women and children. It means the use of huge quantities of poison gas and toxic chemicals to poison thousands upon thousands of people and destroy millions of acres of crops and vegetation. The United States in no way aims at peace. It is employing this unprecedentedly barbarous fascist means in an attempt to compel the south Vietnamese people to lay down their arms and stop resistance. It is resorting to the blackmail of a “bombing pause” in an attempt to compel the north Vietnamese people to stop aiding their fellow-countrymen in the south. In the face of such shocking facts, no genuine peace-loving and just-minded country and people can help feeling indignant at the towering crimes of the United States and detesting its “peace offensive.”

          China and Vietnam are closely related brotherly neighbours, like lips and teeth. We Chinese people are deeply affected by the sufferings of the Vietnamese people. We had similar experience when the Japanese imperialists invaded China; and the policies of “kill all, burn all and loot all” and of “scorched earth” are still fresh in our memories. We have also learnt from our own experience that the U.S. imperialists are even more barbarous than the Japanese imperialists. We wholeheartedly support the Vietnamese people in their just struggle and consider it our bounden international duty to sternly condemn the atrocious crimes of the United States and thoroughly expose the U.S. plot of peace talks.

          If a socialist country dare not sternly denounce the heinous crimes of the United States or thoroughly expose the U.S. peace talks fraud, it has not only lost its class feelings but forgeited all sense of justice.

          Cowards are the worst brutes. The U.S. imperialists have already embarked on the road of Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki Tojo. Lyndon B. Johnson is at once more brutal and more cowardly than they. Countless facts have demonstrated that, in the face of the heroic Vietnamese people who persevere in struggle, the U.S. aggressors are a mere bunch of cowards mortally afraid of death. The more brutal its aggression, the nearer is U.S. imperialism to its doom. Chairman Mao Tse-tung has said that the imperialists and all reactionaries are paper tigers, while it is the people who are really strong. No matter how truculent and savage U.S. imperialism may be, it can never save itself from its inevitable failure in Vietnam.

          People of the whole world, unite, support the Vietnamese people and overthrow U.S. imperialism! The Vietnamese people are bound to win, U.S. imperialism is bound to be defeated!

    (January 14, 1966.)      





        
          Genocide in South Vietnam
    U.S. Intensifies Atrocities

    [This unsigned article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, pp. 8-11.]

          AT the very time the war-makers in Washington have been trying to delude the world with specious “peace talk” propaganda, they have intensified their atrocities against the people of south Vietnam. Since the end of 1965, U.S. aggressor troops have let loose inhuman “kill all, burn all and destroy all” campaigns, using virtually everything at their disposal—including widespread poison gas warfare.

          After the Johnson Administration published its “14-point” proposition on December 27, “mopping-up” operations were set in motion by the American invaders in south Vietnam on a more frequent and bigger scale than ever. The U.S. First Infantry Division, First Cavalry Division and marines, and south Korean, Australian and puppet south Vietnamese troops have mounted massive attacks on the liberated areas in Cho Lon, Tan An, Binh Dinh, Bien Hoa and other provinces and in areas around Plei Me and Da Nang. The inhuman nature of these operations—a genocide policy of “kill all, burn all and destroy all”—was demonstrated when they were launched against many populated areas.

          According to an Associated Press dispatch from Saigon on January 6, U.S. troops on January 1 began to implement a “broad-based program” which, the dispatch said, “includes the establishment of free-bombing zones in Viet Cong regions, killing rice crops in enemy areas, and burning other crops and homes.” In the “mopping-up” campaigns west of Saigon, it continued, “every house they [U.S. troops) encountered they burned to the ground.” “They round up all the people they could find ... and burn and destroy everything eatable and livable.” Other Western news agencies report that the densely populated plain south of the Vam Co Dong River, where the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade began its “mop-up” on January 1, is a “prime scorched earth target.” The U.S. aggressors have also used poison gas, white phosphorus bombs, napalm and B-52 strategic bombers in this operation.

          A Reuter correspondent reported tht American marines in Da Nang on January 5 mounted a terrorist raid on an area 16 kilometres southwest of Da Nang and reduced the whole village of Vinh Phuong to ashes.

    Widespread Use of Poison Gas

          Since the end of last year, the U.S. aggressors have been using poison gas in south Vietnam on an unprecedented scale. In their eight-day “mopping-up” campaign in Tan An and Cho Lon, poison gas was widely and repeatedly used. Gas-grenades were air-dropped in clusters from low altitudes and were also used by ground forces. Gas bombs have even been used against women, children and old people in the “mop-up” against the “Iron Triangle” region northwest of Saigon, which was started on January 1 by 8,000 U.S. and satellite troops.

          When south Korean puppet troops were turned loose in their “mop-up” against Tuy Hoa in Phu Yen Province on January 4, U.S. aircraft dropped poison gas bombs on the area, and the south Korean puppets used poison gas against tunnels.

          Loud professions by the U.S. war criminals that the gas they are using is non-lethal are pure bunkum. A January 12 Reuter dispatch from Saigon reported that seven Australian soldiers were poisoned while using such gas and had to be rushed to a hospital. One of them, Corporal Robert Bowtell, died.

    Chemical Warfare

          U.S. aircraft have been spraying toxic chemicals on an extensive scale over populated areas in south Vietnam. They were used against the village of Long Hai in Ba Ria Province on December 27. On December 28, U.S. planes sprayed these chemicals over Can Tho Province, resulting in 4,000 people poisoned and more than 10,000 hectares of crops ruined. For three days, beginning on New Year’s Day, toxic chemicals were sprayed by U.S. planes over wide areas in Vinh Long and Sa Dec Provinces. A great number of inhabitants were poisoned and large areas of crops were destroyed.

          Recently, American planes have been flying 300 to 400 sorties a day on wild bombing missions of populated areas in south Vietnam. U.S. news agencies have disclosed that in four days, January 5, 6, 7, and 9, U.S. aircraft damaged or destroyed 2,280 houses and sunk 78 civilian vessels. On January 8, U.S. planes committed the monstrous crime of bombing and rocketing the passenger ship Thuan Phong en route from Thu Dau Mot to Dau Tieng. The ship was sunk and more than 200 passengers were killed.

          Guam-based B-52 strategic bombers have recently carried out “carpet bombing” in Quang Tri, Tay Ninh, Cho Lon and Tan An Provinces. From December 30 to January 6, these planes bombed Tay Ninh Province three times at night.

    Savagery

          By their crimes, the U.S. aggressors in south Vietnam have shown themselves to be more barbarous than Hitler’s Nazis. They have acted like savages in their “mopping-up” campaigns.

          During a “sweep” in Quang Nam Province, American troops accused a youth of being a member of the people’s liberation forces. After tying him to a tree, they slit his throat and laughed and watched as the young man’s blood dripped into a waiting basin.


    “It suits you just fine, Mr. President.”
    Cartoon by An Teh-lu

          The invaders and their puppets have used all kinds of torture. So depraved have they become that they have been known to slowly hack a prisoner to death before pouring gasoline on the body and burning it up. In Quang Ngai Province, American soldiers after beating up a woman prisoner tied her to a post and then, after tying up the bottoms of her trousers, put six venomous snakes into the trousers.

          Up to this moment, the savage beasts who make up the Johnson Administration are still loudly professing that the United States cherishes a “humanitarian desire” towards Vietnam, that the American purpose is “peace and freedom” for Vietnam, and that they intend to help the Vietnamese people “improve opportunities for a better life.” However, the U.S. imperialists are using the most up-to-date lethal weapons in south Vietnam, employing poison gas and toxic chemicals which the German and Japanese fascists never dared to use openly. In south Vietnam the U.S. aggressors and their lackeys have slaughtered, injured or jailed more than 1.4 million people in a territory with a total population of only 14 million. They have reached the heights of savagery.


    G E N O C I D E !

          This is what the U.S. aggressors are doing in south Vietnam while Johnson talks about “peace and freedom” for Vietnam.


    GAS WARFARE: The face of the U.S. invader in south Vietnam.
        

    CHEMICAL WARFARE: Spreading clouds of death.



    U.S. First Infantry Division at work.
        


    Killing in cold blood.



    The Nazi spirit is abroad again.



    Their mother murdered. These children learn what Johnson
    means by “improving opportunities for a better life.”





        
    Bertrand Russell Denounces U.S. War Criminals

    [This unsigned article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, p. 9.]

          IN a statement on January 14, the well-known British philosopher Bertrand Russell denounced U.S. genocide, the use of poison chemicals and gas in its war of aggression in south Vietnam. He said that “the United States has perpetrated every atrocity which will come under the purview of a war crimes tribunal.” “First concentration camps were established and 8 million people [in south Vietnam] were incarcerated under conditions of forced labour. Later poison chemicals and napalm were employed against the civilian population,” and “the latest example of the barbarism of American imperialists in Vietnam is the ... use of cyanide and poison gas.” Russell pointed out that the news that Australian soldiers wearing gas-masks had been poisoned while employing gas was “the final exposure of the dishonesty of the U.S. authorities” who have persistently “lied shamelessly, claiming that these [gases] were ‘untoxic.’” Russell appealed to people everywhere to “call for the indictment of President Johnson, Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara as war criminals” and to “show their unhesitating support for the people of Vietnam in their national struggle.”




        
          Foreign Ministry Statement
    Strongly Denounces Wanton U.S. Bombing of Laos

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, p. 12.]

            *

              Intensified U.S. bombings of Laos constitute an important step in spreading the war from south Vietnam to the whole of Indo-China.
            *

              The Chinese Government and people fully endorse the just stand taken by the Neo Lao Haksat and the Laotian patriotic neutral forces and resolutely support the Laotian people’s struggle against the U.S. aggressors and their lackeys.


          SINCE the Johnson Administration announced the “temporary suspension” of bombing of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, U.S. imperialist bombing raids against Laos have become more frantic than ever. Recently, the Neo Lao Haksat and the Laotian patriotic neutral forces have repeatedly issued statements exposing the round-the-clock wanton bombings by U.S. pirate planes in Khammouane and Savannakhet Provinces in Central and Lower Laos, which caused heavy losses in life and property to the Laotian people. According to an Associated Press dispatch, up to three hundred U.S. planes a day are dropping nearly one thousand tons of bombs and rockets. Moreover, U.S. planes spread toxic chemicals over Luang Prabang Province in Upper Laos to wreak havoc among the Laotian people. These barbarous acts on the part of U.S. imperialism have aroused the great indignation of the Laotian people. The Chinese Government and people strongly condemn U.S. imperialism for its grave crimes against the Laotian people.

          The intensified bombings of Laos constitute an important step taken by U.S. imperialism in spreading its war of aggression against south Vietnam to the whole of Indo-China. The Johnson Administration has long been trying hard to turn Laos into a bridge between south Vietnam and Thailand to support its war of aggression in south Vietnam. To this end, the United States has made a series of preparations. Since last September, many high-ranking U.S. officials have visited Laos in close succession to hatch the conspiracy. The United States has introduced into Laos thousands of tons of weapons, ammunition and other war materiel, accelerated the construction of Highway No. 13 running north and south through Laos, and expanded the military airfields at Vientiane, Savannakhet, Pakse and Saravane. Moreover, U.S. imperialism has instructed the Laotian authorities in Vientiane to step up arms expansion and war preparation, to declare a state of emergency in Kharnmouane and Savannakhet Provinces and to muster more than twenty battalions of Rightist Laotian troops to launch continual armed attacks on the liberated areas of the two provinces. According to information disclosed by various sources, the Johnson Administration is planning to dispatch ground forces of the United States, and its vassals, Thailand and the south Vietnamese puppets, to occupy Central and Lower Laos. All this shows that the wanton bombing of Central and Lower Laos by U.S. imperialism is a prelude to military actions on a still larger scale.

          A mere glance at what U.S. imperialism has been doing in Laos and the whole of Indo-China will reveal the real aims of the Johnson Administration in its current “peace offensive” on the Vietnam question. At the very time it is energetically advertising to the whole world its “sincere desire for peace,” U.S. imperialism is in fact surreptitiously dropping thousands upon thousands of tons of bombs over peaceful towns and villages in Laos to slaughter the innocent Laotian people. It is also under this smokescreen of “peace” that the U.S. aggressors are pushing forward their inhuman policies of “scorched earth” and of “kill all, burn all and destroy all” in southern Vietnam, and the United States and its vassals, Thailand and the south Vietnamese puppets, are becoming more and more unbridled in their war provocations and armed aggression against the Kingdom of Cambodia. The United States glibly says that it is willing to abide by the Geneva agreements, yet in reality, by its own deeds it not only tore up the 1954 Geneva agreements long ago, but has trampled underfoot the 1962 Geneva agreements, to which the U.S. Government is a signatory. The facts are very clear. In engineering the peace talks fraud on the Vietnam question, the Johnson Administration is shamelessly playing on the desire of the people of the world for peace and using honeyed words to camouflage the barbarous war it is carrying on.

          The People’s Republic of China is a close neighbour of Laos and a signatory to the Geneva agreements. The Chinese Government and people fully endorse the just stand taken by the Neo Lao Haksat and the Laotian patriotic neutral forces in their statements and resolutely support the Laotian people in their just and patriotic struggle against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. The Chinese Government calls upon all the peace-loving countries and people of the world to condemn the brutal crimes of U.S. imperialism, to expose the sinister design of its “peace offensive” and to support and aid the just struggle of the Indo-Chinese peoples in order to defeat the U.S. aggressors.

    (January 18, 1966.)      





        
         Renmin Ribao
    Johnson’s Challenge
    Comments on U.S. President’s State of the Union Message

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, pp. 13-15.]

          LYNDON Johnson’s State of the Union Message this year is a message for expanding the aggressive war in Vietnam. It is a message for intensifying the attacks on the American people.

    A War Message

          Although Johnson uttered high-sounding words to try to mislead the people, yet the keynote of this year’s message is a brazen clamour for war and an outright demand on the American people to tighten their belts.

          The message begins and ends with the Vietnam question. Why does the Vietnam question figure so prominently as to be the number one question for the Johnson Administration? Why does the message smell so heavily of gunpowder?

          U.S. imperialism has suffered serious defeats in its war of aggression in Vietnam. Some 200,000 U.S. aggressor troops poured into south Vietnam have still failed to save the United States from these defeats. “Escalation” has proved completely ineffective and Washington’s “peace talks” frauds, one after another, have fallen flat. The defeats suffered by U.S. imperialism in south Vietnam have upset its counter-revolutionary “global strategy.” In his State of the Union Message, Johnson could only admit: “Because of Vietnam we cannot do all we should, or all we would like to do.”

    New Awakening of American People. The intensification of the war of aggression in Vietnam has resulted in the further sharpening of the class contradictions in the United States and in promoting a new political awakening of the American people. The rise of the Negro people’s mass struggle against tyranny and the vigorous development of the American people’s anti-war movement are developing into two time-bombs planted in the heart of U.S. imperialism itself. Within U.S. ruling circles, endless rows are going on over defeats in the war of aggression in Vietnam. This situation in U.S. domestic affairs has furthered the Johnson Administration’s worries and uneasiness.

    Plunging Into the Unknown. As the New York Times put it, “The United States is plunging into the unknown as 1966 begins.” Never before in American history has the United States been so badly beaten in a war of aggression and never before has it received so violent a shock as a result of its defeats.

          However, Johnson does not intend to get out of the morass. He tries in vain to find a way out by persisting in his war of aggression and expanding his military adventure.

          Inevitably, all reactionaries in history commit one mistake after another right up to their doom. As the main pillar of all present-day reaction, U.S. imperialism is of course no exception. The Johnson Administration has not learnt the proper lesson from the series of defeats on the south Vietnam battlefield.

    Further Extending Aggression in Vietnam

          In the message, Johnson repeatedly bellowed that the United States “will stand firm” and “stay” in south Vietnam. What does this mean?

    U.S. Won’t Automatically Withdraw From South Vietnam. It means that U.S. imperialism will not withdraw from south Vietnam of its own accord. The message explicitly said that U.S. troops “will stay until aggression has stopped.” In other words, the U.S. aggressors will not leave so long as the Vietnamese people have not completely given up their struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation, and so long as the whole of south Vietnam has not become a colony of U.S. imperialism.

          It means that U.S. imperialism intends to extend its aggressive war still further. Johnson declared that for the next fiscal year the United States would increase its military spending in the Vietnam war by another U.S. $5,800 million and that he would ask Congress for “additional appropriations” on the basis of the war’s needs. He also emphasized that “whatever the cost or whatever the challenge,” the United States would continue to “battle.”

    U.S. Will Not Give Up Control of Asia. It means that U.S. imperialism is trying hard to turn south Vietnam into a war base in Asia. Johnson minced no words when he declared that the United States wanted to “stay” in south Vietnam because it would not abandon Asia.

          From his State of the Union Message, one can only draw the conclusion that Johnson is determined to switch the U.S. war machine into high gear and speed it along the road of a wider war of aggression.

    “Scorched Earth” Policy in South Vietnam. Actually, the extent of current Washington activities for war expansion goes far beyond what Johnson said in his message. Trying its utmost to round up cannon-fodder, U.S. imperialism has boosted monthly draft calls to 80,000—equivalent to the highest figure during its war of aggression in Korea. While pouring reinforcements into south Vietnam, U.S. imperialism is conducting large-scale expansion of its military bases there with the intent of bringing in still more aggressor troops. In the liberated areas in south Vietnam, it is carrying out the inhuman “scorched earth” policy of “burn all, kill all and destroy all.” It is also bombing the liberated areas in Laos on an increasing scale and directing the Laotian Right-wingers to step up attacks against the patriotic forces. It is making use of its Thai and south Vietnamese puppet troops to invade Cambodian territory with greater frequency. These facts show that, although the U.S. aggressors have been badly battered in south Vietnam, they will go on and on with their aggression regardless of the consequences. They will not be fully satisfied until they are completely destroyed.

    Goal of the “Peace Offensive”

          Johnson did not forget to throw some words about “peace” into his war message. The more U.S. imperialism expands its war of aggression in Vietnam, the more it tries to step up its “peace offensive.” This has become a law.


    Johnson: “We ... will ... stay ...”
    Cartoon by Miao Ti

    Sheer Rubbish. In his message Johnson harped on his stale “14-point” proposition, saying that the United States would “stand by the Geneva agreements,” respect “the principle of self-determination” and stand for the “reunification” of Vietnam. These professions are absolutely worthless! Since be called south Vietnam a “country” in his message, and made it definitely clear that the U.S. aggressors “will stay” there, all talk about “self-determination” and “reunification” is of course sheer rubbish, and the Geneva agreements amount to only a scrap of paper.

          As for Johnson’s remarks that, in the past year, the United States held 300 secret talks and contacted the governments of more than 100 countries for a “Peaceful settlement” of the Vietnam problem, they cannot prove the “good faith” of U.S. imperialism. All these manoeuvres were designed to throw dust into the eyes of the public, confound right with wrong, and spread a smokescreen for the widening of the war of aggression against Vietnam. In the past year the Johnson Administration has sung quite a few “peace” psalms and U.S. brasshats and political bigwigs have rushed all over the world, but it was during this time that the flames of war lit by the U.S. aggressors spread from southern to northern Vietnam and the scale of the aggressive war expanded to a level close to that of the Korean War.

    Counter-Revolutionary Dual Tactics. U.S. imperialism frequently uses counter-revolutionary dual tactics. The “peace” tactics are always used to cover up and help the war tactics. “Peace” is only a means, to be used when applicable, given up when it is not, and taken up again when convenient. Whether it is used or not, the sole purpose is to help achieve the aggressive aims of U.S. imperialism.

    New Brand Name for Old Goods. But a contradiction that U.S. imperialism can never solve is that its war tactics inevitably expose its “peace” tactics. U.S. aircraft and artillery have time and again blown away the peace smokescreen spread by Johnson with his successive “unconditional discussions” offer and his “14-point” proposition. And now he has added something “new” to his “basket of peace”: one is the “scaling-down of fighting,” or both sides “reducing their own military activities,” and the other, “to fight and negotiate at the same time,” or for the fighting and the meeting at the conference table to “go on simultaneously.” But how can these fool anybody? The Johnson Administration is stepping up the expansion of its war of aggression against Vietnam. Its “scaling-down” is in fact a mere cover for “escalation.” As to the “fight and negotiate at the same time,” it means real fighting and sham negotiation. Johnson may employ whatever tactics he likes, but he cannot hoodwink the world.

          In the part on domestic affairs, the message, which contained a list of all-embracing measures, repeated the hackneyed theme of a “great society.” Some measures were put in for window-dressing, to allay the growing dissatisfaction of the American people with the ruling circles of their country, while the substantive ones were designed to meet the needs of a wider war of aggression against Vietnam by clamping down upon the American people and tightening the squeeze on them.

    Attacks on the American People

    American People Told to Tighten Their Belts. The picture of the U.S. economy given by Johnson is one of blooming prosperity: the economy in the course of vigorous development, the people living in “abundance,” the financial deficit for the next fiscal year “one of the lowest in many years,” and so on. And the reality? For a time in the past there has been a lop-sided growth in the U.S. economy, achieved in the main by such means as introducing deficit financing to a great extent, easy credit terms, “tax cuts,” and increased military spending. Such artificial stimulants have already confronted the U.S. economy with an over-production crisis.

          Johnson was telling an even bigger lie when he said that the financial deficit for the next fiscal year would be “only 1.8 billion dollars.” Here, he deliberately left out the additional military expenditures to be allocated for aggression in Vietnam which will amount to thousands of millions of dollars. The war of aggression in Vietnam has greatly increased the American people’s burden. During fiscal 1965, the average tax burden for every American was as high as $850, or 32 per cent of the individual income; this is much higher than that during World War II or in the war of aggression against Korea. The reason Johnson gave so much publicity to “prosperity” in the United States is that he wants the nation to believe that guns and butter can be had at the same time!

    Ever More Savage Fascist Means. To expand the war of aggression abroad, U.S. imperialism must inevitably make the people at home suffer more. As Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out long ago: “To start a war, the U.S. reactionaries must first attack the American people. They are already attacking the American people—oppressing the workers and the democratic circles in the United States politically and economically and preparing to impose fascism there.” The domestic measures which Johnson introduced in his message clearly signal that the U.S. ruling group is prepared to intensify its attack on the American people. Johnson has asked the Congress to consider measures to suppress strikes “which threaten irreparable damage to the national interest.” He has told the working people to “exercise wage restraint” and make “further sacrifices” when the war so “requires.” He has decided to “improve” the tax system and so wrest more money from the pockets of the U.S. taxpayers for the bottomless pit of the war of aggression in Vietnam.

          What Johnson has referred to in his message is just a tiny part of these attacks. Over the last year, the Johnson Administration dispatched a large number of regular troops to cold-bloodedly put down the Negroes’ struggle against tyranny in the Watts area, and, by administrative means, deprived the American workers of their right to strike. In 1966, with the escalation of the war of aggression in Vietnam and the daily sharpening of class contradictions and national contradictions at home, the Johnson Administration is sure to resort to still move cruel and savage fascist means against the American people.
    Five “Lines of Policy”—Concrete Programme of U.S. Global Strategy

    Expansion of Trade With the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Johnson’s message shows that U.S. imperialism is directing its knife at the Vietnamese people, the revolutionary people of the world and the American people. The five “lines of policy” on foreign affairs mentioned in his message are a concrete programme drawn up by U.S. imperialism to push ahead with its counter-revolutionary global strategy on the basis of the present international situation. While threatening and blackmailing the Vietnamese people and slandering and attacking the Chinese people, the Johnson Administration holds out economic bait to the Khrushchov revisionists. Johnson said that the United States “will make it possible to expand trade between the United States and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.” There are quite a number of people who want to be caught on the line cast by the United States. With great appreciation and full endorsement, TASS reported that the U.S. President would ask Congress “to make it possible to expand U.S. trade with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.” And indeed, a feeling of satisfaction is clearly visible in the lines of the TASS report.

    Peaceful Penetration Into Socialist Countries. But what does Johnson mean in saying this? He placed expansion of trade with the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries in the fifth of his five “lines of policy.” This fifth line is what he called “support of national independence.” He wasted no breath in declaring: “We follow this principle by building bridges to Eastern Europe.” Obviously, U.S. imperialism has declared openly that it wants to pursue a policy of peaceful infiltration into the socialist countries. This is the greatest insult to the peoples of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. That the Khrushchov revisionists have gone so far as to be proud of this shows how far they have degenerated!

          Johnson’s message is a challenge to the Vietnamese people, to the American people and to all peace-loving countries and peoples. U.S. imperialism has risen to power through war and it has battened on war. Now, U.S. imperialism has been badly battered on the south Vietnam battlefield, but it still wants to find a way out by expanding the war. There is no doubt that in the face of bruial U.S. imperialist aggression and oppression, the Vietnamese people will resolutely strike back with heavier blows, that the American people’s anti-war movement and their struggle for democracy and for the defence of their right to live will surge forward more vigorously, and that the anti-imperialist, peace-loving, forces of the world will rally still further in support of the embattled Vietnamese people and completely frustrate the U.S. imperialists’ plans of war and aggression. More serious defeats are awaiting the U.S. aggressors.

    (“Renmin Ribao’s” editorial, January 19, 1966.)      



        
          Asia, Africa and Latin America
    The Tide of the People’s Anti-Imperialist
    Revolutionary Struggle is Irresistible

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, pp. 16-18.]

          THE First Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference came to a successful conclusion in Havana on January 15. It adopted a resolution, firmly supporting the Vietnamese people’s struggle to resist U.S. aggression and save their country, a general declaration, a general political resolution, and other resolutions condemning imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism headed by the United States, and expressing solidarity with the national-liberation movements in various countries. These documents give expression to the common desire and will of the hundreds of millions of Asian, African and Latin American people to carry forward their cause of solidarity against imperialism.

    Characteristic of Present Situation

          The conference took place against the setting of the peoples of the three continents and throughout the world locked in a bitter struggle with U.S. imperialism. The anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles on the three continents are growing in intensity and the general situation is excellent. The heroic Vietnamese people are indomitably carrying on their resistance against U.S. aggression to save their country and are winning repeated resounding victories, thereby strongly encouraging and supporting the anti-imperialist struggles of other peoples. The battle against imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism headed by the United States is surging forward in Laos, Cambodia, Japan, south Korea, the Congo (Leopoldville), Southern Rhodesia, the Dominican Republic and many other places on the three continents. A new anti-U.S. revolutionary storm is in the offing in the Afro-Asian-Latin American region and the whole world. The anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples has reached unparalleled heights, while imperialism headed by the United States is at the end of its rope—such is the main current in Asia, Africa and Latin America today; and the tri-continental conference naturally cannot but reflect this characteristic of the present situation.

    U.S. Imperialism—Principal Target

          Strong voices against U.S. imperialism resounded from all corners of the conference hall. U.S. imperialism was the principal target of attack and exposure in delegates’ speeches, in discussions at sub-committee meetings and in the many documents of the conference, which was in fact a conference to denounce U.S. imperialism and mobilize the people of the three continents for a more intense anti-U.S. fight.

          Countless facts show that U.S. imperialism is the biggest international exploiter and the main bulwark of colonialism. It is the prop of all reactionary forces and the main force of aggression and war. It is the most arrogant, most ferocious and most brutal of the aggressors that mankind has ever seen. It is the root of all the evil for the Afro-Asian-Latin American region. To attain or safeguard independence and to seek liberation, it is absolutely necessary for the people of the three continents to rise and combat U.S. imperialism. To realize its overweening ambition for world conquest, U.S. imperialism is frenziedly prosecuting its policy of aggression and war in Asia, Africa and Latin America, committing aggression and intervention everywhere and wilfully infringing upon and menacing the independence of other countries. Thus, the most pressing task facing the people of the three continents is to enhance their militant solidarity, further consolidate and broaden the international united front against U.S. imperialism and its flunkeys to the widest possible extent and isolate U.S. imperialism as much as they can. Consequently, many delegates at the conference roundly condemned U.S. imperialism’s policies of aggression and war. They declared that U.S. imperialism was the common enemy of the people of the three continents, and emphasized the necessity to direct the national-democratic movement in the region at U.S. imperialism. They stated that victory in any revolutionary cause, independence, peace and progress were unthinkable if the struggle against U.S. imperialism were discontinued. The conference said in its general declaration: “The Asian, African and Latin American peoples know from their own experience that the main bastion of colonial oppression and international reaction is U.S. imperialism—the implacable enemy of all the peoples of the world. To overthrow the domination of U.S. imperialism is the decisive question in order to attain a conclusive and complete victory in the anti-imperialist struggle in the three continents. In the pursuance of this objective all their peoples’ efforts must converge.” This is a just verdict on U.S. imperialism and a solemn call to the Asian, African and Latin American peoples.

    Support the Vietnamese People—The Central Task

          The Vietnamese people’s struggle to resist U.S. aggression and save their country is now the focus of the worldwide struggle against imperialism. The Asian, African and Latin American peoples all demanded that the conference make it its central task to support the Vietnamese people’s anti-U.S. national-salvation struggle and to oppose U.S. aggression against Vietnam. At a time when the Johnson Administration was busy, with a big “peace” swindle and expanding its war, the conference voiced strong condemnation of the U.S. imperialist policy of aggression against Vietnam and expressed resolute support for the Vietnamese people persisting in their anti-U.S. struggle for national salvation. Many delegates sharply exposed the Johnson Administration’s “peace talks” fraud. They pointed out that the Vietnam question can be solved only in accordance with the will of the Vietnamese people. They appealed to the people of all countries to resolutely support the Vietnamese people to carry their anti-U.S. national-salvation struggle to the finish, until the U.S. aggressors are completely defeated. The resolution on Vietnam severely condemned U.S. imperialism’s plot to intensify its moves for widening the war under the “peace talks” smokescreen, and indignantly denounced U.S. imperialism as the war criminal. At the same time, the resolution expressed unreserved support for the five-part statement of the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation and the four-point proposition of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. It demanded an immediate withdrawal from south Vietnam of U.S. and satellite troops and the recognition of the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation as the sole legitimate representative of the south Vietnamese people. All this voices the common aspirations of the more than 2,000 million people of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

    Revolutionary Violence vs. Counter-Revolutionary Violence

          As U.S. imperialism and its lackeys are more wildly relying on counter-revolutionary violence to carry out their tyrannical rule and armed suppression of the revolutionary movements of the oppressed nations, the broad masses of the Asian, African and Latin American regions have become increasingly convinced that armed struggle is the correct path for the oppressed nations and the oppressed peoples to win independence and liberation, and they have firm faith in people’s war as the most effective way to deal with U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. Many delegates showed by their own experience that it was necessary to oppose the counter-revolutionary violence of U.S. imperialism and its lackeys with revolutionary violence, that the independence and freedom of all peoples could be won only by armed force, and that only by armed force could their independence and freedom be defended. The general declaration of the conference proclaimed in no uncertain terms that the people of all countries have the right to oppose imperialist violence with revolutionary violence.

    Sharp Struggle Between Two Lines

          The common demand of the overwhelming majority of the delegates was that the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle in Asia, Africa and Latin America be pushed to new heights. But the Khrushchov revisionists and a handful of their followers tried hard to divert the conference and lead it astray. The Khrushchov revisionists tried in vain to impose their capitulationist and divisive line on the conference and to bring the national-democratic movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America into the orbit of U.S.-Soviet collaboration for world domination. Therefore, an intense struggle between the two lines had to be waged throughout the conference.

          The Khrushchov revisionists made it quite clear that they wanted to call the tune for the conference by imposing their erroneous line on it. On the opening day, the Soviet paper Pravda, in an article by its editorial department, asserted that the struggles “for peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems,” “for the prohibition of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery” and “for universal peace” “will be the main subjects of discussion at the Havana conference.” It attempted to divert the attention of the conference with its so-called “universal peace,” “total and complete disarmament,” “peaceful coexistence” and similar stuff. But most delegates were aware that it was U.S. imperialism which was carrying out armed aggression and intervention everywhere in Asia, Africa and Latin America and that, to the people of these areas, the most urgent task was to resolutely combat the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and intensify their revolutionary struggles against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. The Khrushchov revisionists were, in fact, doing a service to U.S. imperialism by hawking their goods at this juncture. Obviously, their wares could find no market among the revolutionary peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Soviet delegates resorted to all kinds of despicable means to smuggle into the conference their contraband “peaceful coexistence” and all that sort of rubbish. This only enabled the broad masses of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America to see more clearly the counter-revolutionary features of the Khrushchov revisionists.

    Khrushchov Revisionists’ Two-Faced Tactics

          At a time when the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America were daiiy becoming more awakened politically and when the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle was reaching unprecedented heights, the Khrushchov revisionists had to resort to increasingly hypocritical and cunning two-faced tactics—sham anti-imperialism but real capitulation, sham support but real betrayal, sham unity but real split—and carefully disguised means to peddle their erroneous line at the conference.

          The two-faced tactics of the Khrushchov revisionists were especially vicious on the Vietnam question. In his address, the Soviet delegate pretended to support the Vietnamese people in their struggle against U.S. aggression. But he did not dare condemn the United States in strong terms for its aggression in Vietnam. Forced by circumstances, he mentioned casually that “the U.S. imperialists hypocritically talk of negotiations.” However, even this sentence, was deleted by TASS when reporting this address. At a time when the Johnson Administration was launching its “peace offensive” in a big way, the Soviet delegate at the conference advocated “the realization of peace in Vietnam.” This was obviously acting in co-ordination with U.S. imperialism. The Soviet leaders actively peddle the “peace talks” swindle for the United States, while U.S. ruling circles hope that the Soviet leaders will help “realize peace” in Vietnam. This is no longer a secret.

          Even more despicable is that the Khrushchov revisionists, exploiting the legitimate aspirations of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America for closer unity against imperialism, have raised a big howl about what they call “solidarity,” “cohesion” and “unity.” There is no doubt that, at the present moment, when a most fierce struggle is being waged between the aggressors and their victims, all forces which truly pit themselves against imperialism should unite and form the broadest possible international united front against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. But what the Khrushchov revisionists are advocating is certainly not such anti-imperialist unity. Since they regard the common enemy of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America as the one with which they should collaborate, since they are bent on taking united action with U.S. imperialism in pursuit of the domination of the world through U.S.-Soviet co-operation, and since they have set themselves against the revolutionary people of all countries, how can the genuine anti-imperialist, revolutionary forces stand in “unity” and take “united action” with them?

    The “Unity” the Khrushchov Revisionists Want

          What kind of “unity” the Khrushchov revisionists want could be clearly seen at the conference. In spite of all their calls for “united action,” the Soviet delegate refused to put up his hand in favour of the proposal tabled at the subcommittee meeting by the Cambodian delegate urging all countries which uphold justice and peace to refuse to have any political, diplomatic, economic and cultural co-operation with the United States, though all the other delegates voted for it. In spite of all the Khrushchov revisionists’ calls for “united action,” the Soviet delegate refused to support, though many other delegates supported, the demand of the delegate of the Dominican Republic to condemn the United Nations as a tool serving the interests of colonialism and neo-colonialism. In spite of all the Khrushchov revisionists’ calls for “united action,” the Soviet delegate opposed, though most of the other delegates supported, the demand of the delegate from the Portuguese colonies to sever all relations with Israel—U.S. imperialism’s instrument of aggression. These hard facts readily show that in calling for “united action,” the Khrushchov revisionists do not intend to unite with the people of the Asian, African and Latin American countries to oppose U.S. imperialism and its lackeys, but that they want the others to join them in giving up the struggle against U.S. imperialism and surrendering to it. Of course this is impossible.

          Throughout the conference, the Soviet delegates tried in every way to form a new tri-continental organization to replace the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization which has a history of eight years of struggle against imperialism. They fondly hoped that in this way they could bring the mass organizations of Asia, Africa and Latin America and their anti-imperialist activity under control. This plot, hatched also for the alleged purpose of “united action,” has made it crystal clear that the Khrushchov revisionists are working for sham unity and real split.

    Great Successes

          The conference achieved great successes, thanks to the unflagging struggle of the great majority of the delegates who upheld truth and justice. The true colours of the Khrushchov revisionists, with their manoeuvres of sham anti-imperialism, sham support and sham unity, were further exposed, and their capitulationist and divisive line met with ignominious failure. From the proceedings of the conference one sees once again that no force on earth can stem the tide of the anti-imperialist, revolutionary struggle in Asia, Africa and Latin America. One sees still more clearly that, in order to combat imperialism, struggles must be waged against revisionism. As the conference has stressed in its general declaration: “The peoples of the three continents, determined as they are to sweep all the obstacles out of their way, and to fight undauntedly towards a new Asia, a new Africa, and a new Latin America, once and for all emancipated from imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, should co-ordinate their efforts in closed ranks until they win a total and conclusive victory. They are inspired with full confidence in their future.”

          Advance, the revolutionary peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America!

    (“Renmin Ribao’s” editorial, January 18, 1966.)      




        
          Report From Havana
    The First Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, pp. 19-25.]

              The conference witnessed a sharp struggle between two lines. It marked a tremendous upsurge and victory for the Afro-Asian and Latin American peoples’ cause of solidarity against U.S. imperialism. It was a damning exposure and heavy defeat for the new Soviet leaders’ capitulationist and divisive schemes.


          THE 13-day First Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference closed on January 15 in Havana. Around 500 delegates from 82 countries and regions with more than 60 observers and over 70 guests attended the conference.

          Strong voices were raised for unity among the people of the three continents in opposition to the policies of aggression and war of imperialism headed by the United States and in support of,the Vietnamese people’s struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation and the popular anti-imperialist struggles in all other countries. These voices combined to form an irresistible force that frustrated the plots the Soviet delegation tried to peddle under the cloak of sham anti-imperialism and sham unity.

          After 13 days of struggle and heated debate, the joint efforts of the great majority of delegates to the tri-continental conference won a major victory for the line of firm unity in opposition to imperialism—a line which reflects the will of the more than 2,000 million people in the three continents. The Khrushchov revisionists’ attempts to manipulate the conference and peddle their spurious “united action” to promote their capitulationist and divisive line were thoroughly exposed and firmly rejected. They failed, too, in their attempt to control the tri-continental anti-imperialist solidarity organization and to liquidate the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization in order to bring the national-democratic movement in the three continents into the orbit of U.S.-U.S.S.R. co-operation for world domination.

          The general declaration adopted at the conference points out in clear-cut terms that the present international situation is favourable to the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggles. It roundly condemns U.S. imperialism as the sworn enemy of the people of the world and an international gendarme. It proclaims in stirring words: it is right to make revolution and combat imperialism. The oppressed nations and peoples have the right to wage popular armed struggles to defeat the aggression and armed suppression by imperialism and its lackeys.

          The resolution on Vietnam adopted at the conference condemns U.S. imperialism’s criminal aggression against the Vietnamese people, exposes the “14-point” hoax of the Johnson Administration, and strongly denounces the U.S. aggressors’ “peace offensive” as a trick to cover up their scheme for a wider war.

          The organizational resolution adopted at the conference defeats the long pre-meditated plan of the Khrushchov revisionists to liquidate the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization which already has a history of eight years’ struggle against imperialism.

          The conference also adopted a general political resolution and a number of other resolutions. These resolutions express firm support for the just struggles of the peoples of the three continents against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism headed by the United States and reflect the firm will of the people of the three continents to make revolution and combat imperialism. Only a few resolutions adopted contained views contrary to the legitimate desires of the people of the three continents.

    THE MAIN CURRENT AND THE ADVERSE CURRENT

          The great majority of delegates came to Havana with a common purpose, namely, the first tri-continental peoples’ solidarity conference should be a conference against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism headed by the United States, and a conference to condemn U.S. imperialism and express solidarity with the struggles of the peoples and particularly with the Vietnamese people’s struggle to resist U.S. aggression and save their country.

          It was decided at the preparatory committee meeting that a new item of the agenda: “Support for the Heroic Struggle of the Vietnamese People Against U.S. Imperialist Aggression, for the Liberation of South Vietnam and the Reunification of the Whole Country” was to be added to the first item: “The Struggle Against Imperialism, Colonialism and Neo-colonialism” and listed as first point of the first item on the agenda.

          The great majority of the 72 delegates who took the floor at the conference expressed support for the Vietnamese people in their struggle and condemned the United States by name for its policies of aggression and war.

          In the light of the situation in their own countries, the delegates condemned U.S. imperialism for its monstrous crimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America:

          It is “escalating” the war of aggression in Vietnam;

          It has intensified the war of aggression against Laos;

          It threatens and violates the territory of Cambodia;

          It has sent troops to occupy Thailand;

          Together with British imperialism, it has created “Malaysia”;

          It works hand in glove with the Right-wingers in Indonesia to suppress the progressive people’s forces;

          It occupies China’s territory of Taiwan;

          In collusion with the Japanese militarists, it has manufactured the “Japan-ROK treaty” which threatens the security of the Asian people;

          It co-operates with the Soviet Union in arming the Indian reactionaries to carry out expansion against India’s neighbours;

          It has turned Israel into a base for aggression against the Arab people;


    One Wave Higher Than the Last
    Cartoon by Miao Ti

          In collusion with old colonialism, it suppresses by force of arms the national-liberation struggle of the Congolese (Leopoldville) people;

          It has encouraged British imperialism to support white colonial rule in Southern Rhodesia;

          Through its partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization it supports the British and Portuguese colonial authorities and strengthens their rule in the southern part of Africa;

          It has been subverting and imposing a blockade against Cuba and occupies the Guantanamo base;

          It has sent 40,000 aggressor troops to suppress the uprising in the Dominican Republic;

          It fosters reactionary puppet governments in Latin America to maintain the rule of U.S. monopoly capital there.

          The accusing voices of the delegates swept across the Gulf of Mexico to shake the North American empire.

          About 30 of the speakers advocated people’s armed struggle to defeat the aggression and armed suppression by imperialism and its lackeys. Many delegates condemned the United Nations as a tool of U.S. imperialism for its aggressions in Asia, Africa and Latin America. They criticized the views of peaceful coexistence with U.S. imperialism and exposed certain people who have recently preached collaboration with U.S. imperialism and “united action” with the reactionaries.

          In sub-committee discussions, many delegates demanded that documents to be adopted at the conference should reflect the situation of the anti-imperilalist struggle of the people of the three continents, especially the situation of their anti-U.S. imperialist struggle. They opposed peaceful coexistence or any form of collaboration with U.S. imperialism and waged tit-for-tat struggle with the Soviet delegation and its handful of followers.

          Under these circumstances, the conference adopted a fairly good general declaration. In the course of its drafting, many erroneous views which failed to reflect the fervent anti-imperialist feelings and fierce anti-imperialist struggles of the people of the three continents were rejected after repeated struggles and consultations. The correct views of the Chinese, Korean, Japannese and other delegates were finally accepted. The general declaration thus reflects the main current of the conference and records its keynote.

          However, there was also an adverse current which clashed fiercely with the main current. Even before the opening of the conference, the Soviet delegates had widely proclaimed their intention to push their capitulationist “peaceful coexistence” line at the conference and energetically engaged in divisive manoeuvres. After its opening, they stepped up their activities, sometimes working behind the scenes, sometimes coming out into the open to peddle their contraband goods. This was the cause of the successive scenes of intensive struggle both inside and outside the conference hall. Like the weather in Havana in those days, dark clouds alternated with bright sunshine over the conference.

    SUPPORT FOR THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE OR SERVICE TO LYNDON JOHNSON

          Speaking at the conference and sub-committee meetings, most of the delegates in strong terms condemned the U.S. aggression against Vietnam, supported the Vietnamese people to the end in their people’s war against U.S. imperialist aggression, exposed the recent U.S. “peace talks” conspiracy, especially Johnson’s 14-point plan and condemned any collaboration with U.S. imperialism on the Vietnam question.

          Many delegates pointed out that the Vietnam question could be settled only in accordance with the five-part statement of the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation and the four-point stand of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam—especially the withdrawal of all U.S. and satellite troops in Vietnam.

          As strong condemnation of U.S. imperialist aggression against Vietnam resounded throughout the conference, the Soviet delegates found it expedient at times to make a few remarks against the United States. But they evidently came to Havana with a purpose of their own at a time when the United States was launching a massive “peace offensive” and the Soviet Union was carrying out intensive activities in many capitals in its support. What the Soviet delegates did at the conference was: minor attack in words but major help in deeds.

          Afraid to speak in strong terms against U.S. aggression in Vietnam and to expose the scheme of U.S. aggressors to hang on in south Vietnam, the Soviet delegates simply called for “the achievement of peace in Vietnam,” which was but an echo of the fraudulent U.S. call for “peace talks.” A Soviet delegate said in an undertone, “the U.S. imperialists hypocritically talk about negotiations,” but that very sentence was deleted by the Soviet news agency TASS when it released his speech. Such tricks only accentuate the Khrushchov revisionists’ service to the Johnson Administration’s “peace talks” hoax.

          Looking upon themselves as benefactors, the Soviet delegates said nothing about the invaluable contributions made by the Vietnamese people’s anti-imperialist patriotic struggle towards the revolutionary struggles of the people of the whole world. Instead, they kept on boasting of the Soviet “aid” of aircraft, rockets and other modern weapons for Vietnam. On the pretext that certain countries were unable to send aid materials to Vietnam, the Soviet delegates proposed the founding of an international aid-Vietnam fund organization. All this had aroused discontent among the delegates.

          Indonesian and other delegates immediately called attention to the fact that the Vietnamese people’s victory in their fight against U.S. aggression was primarily a result of their own struggle, which was supported by other countries. It was not only a matter of the socialist countries supporting Vietnam, but of the Vietnamese people by their courageous struggle supporting all other peoples of the world. He also said that it was not only the rich who were qualified to aid Vietnam.

          The Chinese delegate pointed out that it was the bounden internationalist duty of the socialist countries to support Vietnam. He queried: Why should there be any international fund organization as suggested by the Soviet delegates? Why must the Vietnamese people receive aid from other countries through such an international organization, and be deprived of their right to receive aid directly from other countries? Wasn’t this an obvious attempt to bring the aid of the peoples of the three continents to Vietnam under the control of such an organization?

          The Chinese delegate vehemently pointed out that in seeking to mislead the world, the Soviet delegates had played up the question of transport for Soviet aid supplies to Vietnam. In so doing they were repeating the lie spread by a Soviet journal that China had obstructed the transit of material for Vietnam.

          The Soviet delegates’ fuss over the question of aid to Vietnam failed to achieve their ulterior purpose. Instead, this only made it clear that the Soviet Union wanted to use aid as a means to intervene in Vietnam to obtain capital with which to bargain with the United States, and to stir up anti-China sentiments at the conference and bring about a split in the name of “united action.”

    RESOLUTELY OPPOSE U.S. IMPERIALISM OR
    SEEK “PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE” WITH IT

          The common desire of the great majority of delegates to the conference was to lift the revolutionary struggle against imperialism in the three continents to new heights through the conference. From the very beginning, however, the Khrushchov revisionists did their best to impose their capitulationist line of “peaceful coexistence” at the conference and to bring the liberation movements in the three continents into the orbit of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. collaboration for world domination. The Soviet paper Pravda in an article published on the day the conference opened asserted that the struggle “for peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems,” “for the prohibition of nuclear weapons and means of their delivery” and “for universal peace,” “will be the main subjects of discussion at the Havana conference.” The Soviet delegation then proceeded to present just such contraband at the conference.

          At the political committee meeting, the Soviet delegates insisted on inserting a passage on so-called “peaceful coexistence” into the committee’s draft general resolution. They did not call for opposition to imperialism headed by the United States but urged that “all nations, big or small, should take peaceful co-existence as the foundation of their inter-relations.”

          Delegates from China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaya, the Congo (L), Southwest Africa and other countries and regions firmly opposed the imposition of this erroneous line on the peoples of the three continents. The Chinese delegate said that the tri-continental conference should discuss the question of unity of the peoples of the three continents in the struggle against imperialism and not the question of peaceful coexistence. It is absolutely wrong to refrain from opposing imperialism and instead speak vaguely about so-called peaceful coexistence among big and small countries. Can Vietnam and the Dominican Republic coexist peacefully with the United States? The Congolese (L) delegate asked emotionally: The Congolese people are even denied the right of existence, how can there be any talk of peaceful co-existence? The delegate of Southwest Africa said: The tri-continental conference is not the United Nations or a hotchpotch conference. Peaceful coexistence is out of the question here; it is a choice between struggle or capitulation. We will certainly not capitulate! The Uganda delegate said that the attempt to stress peaceful coexistence at such a conference showed the designs of certain people to bring the struggle for national liberation into the orbit of “peaceful coexistence” and “general and complete disarmament” to hamper the advance in the struggle against imperialism. He asked: “You harp repeatedly on peaceful co-existence. Does this mean that you want everybody to stop supporting Vietnam’s war of resistance against U.S. imperialism and instead compromise with the United States?”

          Strong opposition from a large section of the delegates prevented the Soviet delegate from inserting so-called peaceful coexistence into the general political resolution. The meeting decided to delete this passage from the draft resolution. But the struggle did not end there. As the political committee meeting went on from 9:30 p.m. on January 11 to 6:00 a.m. the next day, a document on so-called peaceful coexistence was put forward suddenly in the form of an extraordinary draft resolution.

          In the ensuing harangue, the followers of Khrushchovism supporting the motion resurrected all the rubbish Khrushchov peddled in his time. One speaker said that in the present nuclear weapons era mankind had to choose either peaceful coexistence or a big nuclear war, and we chose peace. He claimed that “peaceful coexistence” was essential to revolutionary struggle, a new form of struggle for liberation. With the Soviet peace policy, he said, the hands and feet of imperialism could be bound while the liberation struggle in many places could be victorious under the help of the Soviet Union.

          This incensed the delegates of many countries. The Uganda delegate said that the conference should discuss opposition to U.S. imperialism, the common enemy of the peoples of the three continents. Can our extensive talk about peaceful coexistence check the U.S. imperialist aggression against Vietnam? he asked. If the conference passed such a resolution, it would alienate itself from the broad masses of people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Nepalese delegate said that relations between states lay within the sphere of diplomats, and we should discuss the question which concerned us, the struggle against imperialism. The delegate of Bechuanaland said that the people of his country had never known the imperialist powers to respect the sovereignty of small countries. The delegate of Southwest Africa spoke emotionally and loudly: we resolutely oppose the publicizing here of the monstrosity called peaceful coexistence in whatever colour it was painted.

          Amid roars of protest, the chairman put the draft resolution to a vote. China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaya, Thailand, Nepal, Pakistan, Uganda, Southwest Africa, Bechuanaland, and Basutoland voted against it. The Soviet Union, India and other countries voted in favour of it. Many other delegates abstained. According to the rules of procedure, any resolution must be adopted by a two-thirds majority, if no unanimity can be reached through consultation. However, the chairman of the meeting declared the resolution adopted without even giving the number of votes cast in favour of it.

          Another strange circumstance is worth mentioning. As the marathon meeting lasted from 9:30 in the evening till 9:30 the next morning, many people had left the meeting room to go to bed. However, a minute before the vote was to be taken, there was a sudden rush into the room of a large number of “voters” whose sleepy look clearly showed that they had just been roused fxom bed. They raised their hands without even fully opening their eyes. In this way, the chairman declared the “peaceful coexistence” resolution adopted.

          Many delegates expressed discontent at the adoption of such a resolution by the militant tri-continental conference.

          Gabriel Yumbu, leader of the Congolese (L) delegation, angrily declared that to adopt such a resolution was to spoil the fruits of the conference, and implied the recognition of Mobutu. This was not conducive to the cause of the Congo and the whole of Africa. By insisting on imposing this document on the conference, the Soviet delegates have made themselves antagonistic to the people of the three continents who are firmly against imperialism and want to carry out revolution. They have thus once again shown that they are following a line of sham anti-imperialism and real capitulation.

    TO CENSURE THE UNITED NATIONS OR TO EXTOL IT

          At the meeting, many delegates strongly charged that the United Nations is an instrument of U.S. imperialism for committing aggression against the people of the three continents.

          An Indonesian delegate said: We must further unmask the nefarious imperialists who are using the United Nations as a tool for dominating the whole world and deceiving the people.

          A Pakistan delegate said: The United Nations is still being dominated and utilized by the imperialist powers. It continues to deprive the Chinese people of their legitimate seat in that organization. Its intervention in Korea, Pakistan, Kashmir and the Congo (L) has complicated matters in these places and this is only beneficial to the imperialists and colonialists.

          However, the Soviet delegates and their followers did not miss a single opportunity at the meeting to justify the United Nations in order to meet their need to use that organization as a market place between the United States and the Soviet Union for concluding transactions to dominate the world. They took up the cudgels whenever anybody attacked the United Nations.

          At the committee meeting for discussing urgent problems the Dominican delegate called for a denunciation of the United Nations because it failed to defend the people’s right to self-determination and to put a stop to the military interventions in Africa, Asia and Latin America. This had in fact reduced the organization into an instrument of colonialism and neo-colonialism, he said.

          The Soviet delegate at the meeting said nothing. The delegate of the African National Congress (South Africa), who often spoke in support of the Soviet delegate, came forward to defend the United Nations. He said that nobody should denounce the United Nations because many Asian and African countries were represented on it.

          The Chinese, Korean, Congolese (L) and other delegates made scathing attacks on the United Nations. The Chinese delegate expressed unreserved endorsement of the Dominican draft resolution and pointed out that by adopting the resolution for a “cease-fire” in the Dominican Republic under joint U.S.-Soviet sponsorship, the United Nations had legalized U.S. armed aggression against that country. The Korean delegate condemned the United States for using the United Nations as a signboard in its aggression against his country. The Congolese (L) delegate indignantly charged: “The United Nations has come to our country, but what has become of our Lumumba? What has become of our Republic of the Congo? I know all these things. I know how the U.N. representative was overjoyed when Lumumba was murdered. We all know what sort of organization the United Nations is.”

          Before the vote was taken, the delegate of the Dominican Republic demanded that the Soviet delegate clarify his stand. The Soviet delegate hurriedly replied that he agreed with the view of another delegate who suggested a certain “modification” in the wording so as to avoid calling the United Nations an “instrument of colonialism and neocolonialism.” When at last the draft resolution of the Dominican delegate was put to a vote, the Soviet delegate voted against it.

          At another meeting of the urgent problems committee, the delegate of the African National Congress (South Africa) tabled a draft resolution on South Africa. It called on the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America to “carry out all resolutions of the United Nations.” This further enraged the delegates. The Chinese delegate asked: Does this mean that the Chinese people should carry out the U.N. resolution which branded China as an “aggressor”? The Congolese (L) delegate demanded to know whether the Congolese people should betray their own motherland. Under the pressure of the delegates for a clarification, the delegate of the African National Congress at the next day’s session had to agree to delete that paragraph.

          At that time, the Soviet delegate suddenly became bold and insisted that the African National Congress was the sole organization engaged in underground struggle in South Africa. “So please adopt the resolution as they demand,” he said. This added fuel to the anger of the Venezuelan, Brazilian and other delegates. Under the accusing fingers of the majority of the delegates, the delegate of the African National Congress had to declare once again that the said paragraph should he deleted. Only then was the debate closed.

          While the political committee was drafting the general political resolution, the Chinese delegation pointed out emphatically that the resolution should, in compliance with the demand of many delegates, expose and denounce the United Nations as an instrument for aggression. The Indian delegate put forward an amendment in an effort to defend the United Nations. But he failed to advance any convincing arguments. Finally, the following passage was included in the general political resolution: “The conference accuses the United Nations of having allowed itself to be used more than once by U.S. imperialism as an instrument of its policy of aggression against the national-liberation movements and against other countries such as the Congo, Korea, and Santo Domingo. It also condemns the United Nations manipulated by the United States for having deprived the People’s Republic of China of its legitimate seat in this organization.”

    CAPITULATIONIST AND DIVISIVE NATURE OF “UNITED ACTION”

          The overwhelming majority of the delegates voiced the desire of the people of the three continents to unite against their common enemy, imperialism headed by the United States. Wu Hsueh-chien, leader of the Chinese delegation, said: “At a time when a fierce struggle is going on between the aggressive forces and the forces against aggression we should unite all genuinely anti-imperialist forces to fight against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism headed by the United States.”

          However, the “united action” demanded by the Soviet delegation at the meeting is quite another matter. Its aim is to take advantage of the legitimate desire for unity of the people of the three continents to impose on the conference the Soviet line of collaboration with the United States for world domination, under the hypocritical slogans of “united action” and “a common fight against the enemy.”

          In the course of the conference, many things had happened which clearly showed that all the endless talk of the Soviet delegation about “unity,” and “co-ordination” was designed to cover up their own capitulationism and splittism. But they failed dismally. The ugly nature of their so-called “united action” was utterly exposed.

          The Chinese, Indonesian, Japapese and other delegates all demanded to know with whom the Soviet delegation wanted to take united action and against whom this united action was to be directed. The leader of the Chinese delegation Wu Hsueh-chien raised ten “why’s” in his speech to the conference. But the Soviet delegation did not dare to utter a single word in reply to the ten questions.

          Nevertheless, they answered them with their actions. The Dominican and Cambodian delegates, for instance, resolutely opposed at the conference any sort of co-operation with U.S. imperialism. The Cambodian delegate tabled a draft resolution at the committee for discussing urgent problems, calling on all countries which love justice and peace to refuse to co-operate, in political, diplomatic, economic and cultural fields, with the U.S. Government and all governments which energetically support its policy of aggression against Indo-China. When the resolution was put to a vote, the Soviet attitude was an adamant no.

          Where does the Soviet delegation stand, people ask, on the sharp issue of opposing co-operation with imperialism?

          Also at the committee for discussing urgent problems, the Indonesian delegate put forward a draft resolution for condemning the Indonesian reactionary army leaders’ suppression of the progressive forces. Far from endorsing this resolution, the Soviet delegate went so far as to oppose the inclusion of this draft resolution in the agenda of the committee. Doesn’t this sufficiently prove that the Soviet delegate was standing on the side of the Indonesian Rightists?

          In discussing a draft resolution advanced by the Palestinian delegate, delegates of the Portuguese colonies suggested the addition of a call for “breaking off all relations” with Israel. This suggestion had the support of most of the delegates. But the Soviet delegate was opposed to the severance of “all relations.”

          Similar instances are too numerous to be cited one by one. No wonder that after the committee discussions, an African delegate said: What the Soviet delegates have in mind is now clear to all. An Asian delegate said: Whenever anybody attacks the United States, the Soviet delegates would come forward to defend it. Isn’t it amply clear whom the Soviet delegates want to unite with and whom they are against?

    PLAN TO CONTROL TRI-CONTINENTAL SOLIDARITY ORGANIZATION GOES BANKRUPT

          The Khrushchov revisionists’ slogan of “united action” also finds its expression organizationally in the demand for the establishment of a new Afro-Asian-Latin American organization to be controlled by these revisionists themselves and affiliated with organizations under their thumb, such as the World Council of Peace. Their aim is to abolish the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization and undermine the Afro-Asian people’s cause for unity against imperialism. To this end, the Khrushchov revisionists raised a hue and cry for “enlargement” of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization into a tri-continental organization.

          For quite a number of years, the anti-imperialist organizations in Asia, Africa and Latin America had exchanged views on the question of convening a solidarity conference of the peoples in the three continents. The Executive Committee of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization meeting in Gaza in December, 1961, recommended that representatives of the Afro-Asian-Latin American anti-imperialist organizations make preparations for the convening of a tri-continental conference. The Third Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Conference held in Moshi, Tanzania, in February 1963, decided to convene a tri-continental conference in Havana and to set up an 18-nation preparation committee. The Fourth Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Conference held in Winneba, Ghana, in May 1965, approved the holding of the First Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference in Havana in January 1966.

          For quite a long time, the Khrushchov revisionists had tried to prevent the convening of the tri-continental conference, for reasons best known to themselves. But in the past year they suddenly changed their attitude and shifted to the tactics of energetically participating in, manipulating and controlling the preparatory work in an attempt to erase the anti-imperialist character of the projected conference. They tried hard to bar the representatives of the genuine anti-imperialist forces in the three continents from attending this conference. They even kept outside the conference hall some representatives of genuine anti-imperialist organizations who had already arrived in Havana after overcoming diverse difficulties.

          On the eve of the opening of the tri-continental conference, the Soviet and Indian delegates rushed up and down the hotel Havana Libre and tried to collect signatures demanding a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization in Havana. It was said that they intended to propose at the committee meeting the “enlargement” of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization into a tri-continental organization. In other words, they wanted to “bury” the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization in Havana. But the signature drive quickly proved abortive.

          The Chinese delegation in a letter to the member countries of the Executive Committee of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization resolutely opposed any illegal convention of a meeting of the committee during the tri-continental conference, thus crushing the Soviet and Indian delegates’ plot.

          After the opening of the conference, the head of the Soviet delegation took the floor and put forward an official proposal on the establishment of a tri-continental organization. In sub-committees, they advocated “permanent co-operation” and “close relations” between the various mass organizations of the three continents on the one hand and the World Council of Peace and other Soviet-controlled international organizations on the other.

          Many other delegates, out of a desire to strengthen the solidarity of the peoples in the three continents in their anti-imperialist struggle, also looked forward to the establishment of a tri-continental organization. But the overwhelming majority of them were against the abolition of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization.

          The Soviet, Indian, and a small number of other delegates insisted that the conference adopt a resolution on “enlargement” of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization into a tri-continental organization. The Indian delegate said: “After the water of small rivers has flown into a big one, the existence of these small rivers is no longer necessary!” His argument was repudiated by many other delegates. The Indonesian delegate said: If after the establishment of a bigger regional organization the smaller ones must be abolished, didn’t it mean, that the Arab League must be abolished since the African people’s organization has already been established? Should the Pan-African Union of Journalists be abolished after the establishment of the Afro-Asian Journalists’ Association?

          The Chinese delegate pointed out that in recent years the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization had contributed a great deal to the national-liberation struggle in Asia and Africa. To abolish the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization would split the Afro-Asian solidarity movement and seriously threaten the tri-continental solidarity movement.

          The conference’s organizational committee after discussions turned down all proposals for the abolition of the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization. Thus the Soviet delegates suffered another defeat.

          The Soviet delegates’ sabotage activities against Afro-Asian-Latin American solidarity reached a new height on the eve (January 14) of the closing of the conference. In disregard of the resolution already adopted, they insisted on forcing their way into the Executive Secretariat of the tri-continental organization. Before this, delegations from various countries had already met separately, consulted with each other and decided on the composition of the Executive Secretariat of the Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Organization, the establishment of which had earlier been approved by the tri-continental conference. The members from four Asian countries were to be Korea, southern part of Vietnam, Pakistan and Syria. At the meeting of the heads of the Asian delegations held on January 14, the Soviet delegation suddenly moved to annul the list of names of Asian secretaries already agreed upon through consultation. It even unabashedly recommended itself to be a member, saying: “Whatever responsibilities the Asian people want the Soviet Union to shoulder, it is always willing to do so.” This action of the Soviet delegation enraged the delegations of Asian countries. The head of the Laotian delegation Vongvichit repeatedly asked: Was the list of names passed on January 13 valid or not? He insisted that the list already approved should be taken as a decision of the conference. The Japanese delegate pointed out that international conferences had never witnessed such a precedent: A resolution was to be reversed right after its adoption. From five in the afternoon till past midnight, the Soviet delegate made one difficulty after another on that issue. He was compelled to withdraw his demand only when he found himself unanimously condemned by the delegates of China, Japan, Indonesia, Nepal, Cambodia, Laos, Korea and south Vietnam.

    CONCLUDING WORDS

          The tri-continental conference was the scene of a serious struggle: the struggle between two lines. Should one resolutely combat imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism headed by the United States or practise peaceful coexistence with them? Should one firmly support the Vietnamese people in carrying through their people’s war against U.S. imperialist aggression to the very end or lend a hand to U.S. imperialism’s “peace talks” plot? Should one severely condemn and expose the United Nations as an instrument of U.S. imperialism for aggression or gloss over the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union are using the United Nations as a market place for bargaining at the expense of the people of the three continents? Should the people of the three continents form the broadest possible united front against imperialism headed by the United States or should one take the so-called “united action,” and put the continuously rising national-liberation struggles in the three continents into the orbit of U.S.-Soviet collaboration for world domination? Should one abolish the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization with an eight-year-old anti-imperialist tradition in favour of a new organization to be controlled by the Khrushchov revisionist clique for pushing their erroneous line, or should one promote the Asian, African and Latin American peoples’ solidarity movement on the basis of safeguarding the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organization and its anti-imperialist tradition?

          The outcome of the struggle shows that thanks to the joint effort of the delegates from the three continents, the Khrushchov revisionists have suffered a crushing defeat in their attempt to put across their erroneous line at the conference and their intrigues to sabotage the Afro-Asian solidarity movement and to control the tri-continental solidarity movement. Their true features of sham anti-imperialism and real capitulation, sham support and real betrayal, sham unity and a real split were once again completely unmasked and this has taught the people of the three continents a new lesson by negative example.

          The tri-continental people’s solidarity movement ran into various difficulties at its very outset. But in accordance with the will of the people of the three continents, the movement is sweeping forward with irresistible momentum, overcoming one difficulty after another, and is triumphantly carrying forward its task of opposing imperialism headed by the United States and striving for national liberation.

    — HSINHUA CORRESPONDENT      





        
    U.S.S.R. Refuses to Clear Up Anti-China Rumours

    [This unsigned article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, pp. 26-27.]

          IT has been learnt from competent sources that Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister Wang Ping-nan received Soviet Ambassador S.G. Lapin, in Peking on January 4. He handed the Ambassador a Chinese Government memorandum to the Soviet Government concerning the fact that the Soviet side has time and again spread rumours that China hindered the transport of Soviet military aid supplies in transit to Vietnam.

          The memorandum pointed out that the Chinese Government had always met the reasonable requests of the Soviet Government and had provided all possible facilities and assistance in the transport of arms in transit which were required by the Vietnamese side and which the Soviet side agreed to supply. Nevertheless, the Soviet side fabricated all sorts of rumours alleging that China obstructed the transport of Soviet military aid supplies to Vietnam and even asserting that China demanded from the Soviet Union payments in U.S. dollars for the transit of these supplies. Despite repeated advice from the Chinese side, the Soviet side indulged in such rumour-mongering with still greater zeal. Now, such rumours were spread far and wide not only in private, but were openly published in the Soviet press. This can only arouse the greatest indignation on the part of the Chinese Government and the Chinese people.

          The Chinese Government demanded in all seriousness that the Soviet Government take on itself the responsibility to clear up the rumours publicly, guarantee that similar incidents will not occur in the future, and give a reply at the earliest possible date.

          (The Soviet weekly Za Rubezhom, in its 50th issue in 1965, by reprinting a New York Times report, slandered China as demanding from the Soviet Union payments in U.S. dollars for the transport of aid supplies in transit to Vietnam. For details, see Peking Review, No. 1, 1966.)

          The competent Chinese sources pointed out that since February 25, 1965, when the Soviet side made its first request to China, the Chinese Government has met all the requests made by the Soviet Government and confirmed by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam for the transport of military aid supplies and technical personnel in transit to Vietnam. The Chinese railways without exception transported these supplies and personnel by special express military consignments. Every time Soviet supplies and personnel were brought to the Chinese border station, the Chinese side had at once assigned waggons for their transport from the Sino-Soviet frontier to the Sino-Vietnamese frontier, generally not exceeding 10 days. The Chinese railways did this free of charge, receiving not a single kopeck, let alone one U.S. cent from the Soviet side. Soviet personnel concerned have more than once expressed satisfaction with this. For instance, Colonel A.A. Shaitan, acting representative in China of the Soviet State Committee for Foreign Economic Relations, who was responsible for the shipments in transit, said on October 21, 1965: “We positively appreciate the efforts made by the competent Chinese organs in the matter of transporting goods in transit sent by the Soviet Union to the D.R.V.”

          Recently, D.R.V. Premier Pham Van Dong also said: “Aid supplies from the Soviet Union and other fraternal socialist countries have been transported to Vietnam according to plan.”

          The facts are plain and the Soviet side is well aware of them. Yet rumours about so-called Chinese obstruction to the transport of Soviet military aid supplies in transit to Vietnam came again and again from the Soviet side. Under the circumstances, it is quite reasonable and justified for the Chinese Government to demand that the Soviet Government take on itself the responsibility to clear up the rumours publicly and guarantee that similar incidents will not occur in the future.

          What was astonishing was that although the Soviet weekly had undeniably printed these rumours in black and white, Ambassador Lapin made a categorical denial in his conversation with Vice-Foreign Minister Wang Ping-nan and even said that the Soviet weekly, Za Rubezhom, had “printed by mistake” the New York Times story and that the Soviet Government could not be held responsible for reports in the Soviet press.

          In addition to rejecting the Chinese Government’s reasonable demand that the Soviet Government publicly clear up these rumours and guarantee not to manufacture them any more, Ambassador Lapin went so far as to unjustifiably refuse to accept the memorandum of the Chinese Government. On January 9, 1966, the Chinese Foreign Ministry delivered the Chinese Government’s memorandum to the Soviet Embassy in China. On the following day, the Soviet Embassy in China returned the Chinese Government’s memorandum to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. On January 11, the Chinese Government dispatched the memorandum to the Soviet Foreign Ministry through the Chinese Embassy in the Soviet Union. On the same day, the Soviet Foreign Ministry returned the memorandum to the Chinese Embassy in the Soviet Union. This practice on the part of the Soviet side cannot but he regarded as a new step along the road of worsening state relations between China and the Soviet Union.

          Competent Chinese sources pointed out that it was already crystal clear that the Soviet side had spread the rumours about the alleged hindrance by China to the transit of Soviet military aid supplies to Vietnam. Obviously, it has its ulterior motives in endlessly doing this. To put it bluntly, its purpose is to vilify China, sow discord in the relations between China and Vietnam and serve U.S. imperialism. No matter how obstinately the Soviet Government may refuse to accept the Chinese Government’s memorandum and refuse to clear up these rumours publicly, the result can only be that the more it tries to cover up, the more it reveals itself.

    (Hsinhua News Agency, January 15.)      




        
    A.A.J.A. Upholds Anti-Imperialist Banner

    [This unsigned article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, p. 27.]

          THE Secretariat of the Afro-Asian Journalists’ Association, which withdrew from Djakarta in late December, gave a press conference on January 15 in Peking where its secretaries were gathered. It told the hundred and more Chinese and foreign correspondents present why it had temporarily withdrawn from Djakarta and what it planned to do in the future. The Secretariat declared that “whatever the new leadership of the Indonesian Journalists’ Association does to interfere in the affairs of the A.A.J.A. will be illegal and null and void.” It said that journalists of Asian and African countries were determined to hold aloft the anti-imperialist banner and carry the anti-imperialist struggle through to the end.

          A.A.J.A. Secretary L. Morrison (South Africa) told the gathering his association’s work in the past 32 months. He said: “The A.A.J.A. has never stood aloof from the anti-imperialist struggle of the people all over the world. ... While fighting against imperialism, we also oppose those false revolutionaries who pretend to be friends of the A.A.J.A. We know who are our friends and who are our enemies.”

          Referring to the struggles of the progressive Indonesian journalists, he said: “The skies over Indonesia are overcast with dark clouds. A big storm is rising, after which the sun will shine again throughout Indonesia.”

    Account of A.A.J.A.’s Withdrawal. I. Sugiyama, Japanese secretary to the A.A.J.A. Secretariat, said that while the A.A.J.A.’s headquarters was in Djakarta for more than two years, the A.A.J.A. Secretariat, with the enthusiastic and friendly help of the Indonesian people and progressive journalists, had contributed much to the common struggle against imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism. But, he said, since the drastic change in the Indonesian political situation last October, it had often met with undue interference in its work.

          Sugiyama recalled the obstacles put in the way of the A.A.J.A. Secretariat’s work when it was in Djakarta. Cables and lettaers were often delayed or not delivered at all, office telephones were disconnected, and Indonesians working for the Secretariat were arrested. The Indonesian newspaper Angkatan Bersendjata (Armed Forces) published on November 4 an editorial, slandering that the “GESTAPU” (the September 30 Movement) journalists had seized the leadership of the A.A.J.A. On November 30, the new leadership of the Indonesian Journalists’ Association sent a letter to the Secretariat unilaterally announcing the removal of Joesoef from his post of acting secretary-general of the A.A.J.A. and the appointment of a person by the name of Arifin Bey, once an announcer on the “Voice of America,” to replace Joesoef. Sugiyama expressed the A.A.J.A. Secretariat’s firm opposition to such gross interference in its internal affairs.

          “The Indonesian armed forces insulted and harassed the Secretariat,” Sugiyama continued, “the Right-wing papers viciously attacked it and the new leaders of the Indonesian Journalists’ Association interfered with increasing intensity in the internal affairs of the A.A.J.A., thus making it impossible for the Secretariat to carry on its work according to the principles to which it has been resolutely dedicated.” It was in these circumstances, Sugiyama added, that the Secretariat was compelled to withdraw temporarily from Djakarta. He said that the Secretariat had its temporary office in the Peking Hotel and that the convocation of the fourth plenary session of the Secretariat was planned to discuss the question of its provisional seat and its future work.

    Protest Against Arrest of Joesoef. At the press conference, a message of protest by the A.A.J.A. Secretariat to the Indonesian Foreign Ministry against the arrest of Joesoef, acting secretary-general of the A.A.J.A., by the Indonesian armed forces was read by L. Morrison. The message demanded the immediate release of Joesoef and other Indonesian journalists who were subjected to unreasonable persecution.

          The same evening, A.A.J.A. secretaries A.R. Aboukoss (Arab Republic of Syria), Chen Chuan-pi (China), L. Morrison (South Africa) and I. Sugiyama (Japan) were warmly welcomed at a reception given by the All-China Journalists’ Association. Liao Cheng-chih, Chairman of the Chinese Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity, also attended.

          In his speech, Wu Leng-hsi, Chairman of the host organization, paid tribute to the A.A.J.A. secretaries for their consistent efforts to oppose imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism and to strengthen Afro-Asian solidarity. He said that the temporary withdrawal of the A.A.J.A. Secretariat was caused by the Indonesian Right-wing forces. He pledged the Chinese journalists’ support and hoped that the A.A.J.A. Secretariat would develop its militant tradition.




        




        






        










        



















        
        Peking Review: Contents Page
        Jan. 28, 1966       Vol. 9, #5

        [The articles below with active links have been scanned in and posted on this site.
        Comments in brackets added by the MASSLINE.ORG editor.]

        The Week

            * Spring Festival
            * Indonesian Rightists’ Anti-Chinese Activities Protested
            * Indian Persecution of Chinese Nationals Condemned
            * Sino-Japanese Freindship and Trade

        Articles and Documents

            “Johnson Administration’s Self-Exposure”, Renmin Ribao editorial (Jan. 24, 1966)

            “Be a Conscious Revolutionary — More on ‘All Our Work is for the Revolution’”
            [Sidebar:] Discussion on “All Our Work is for the Revolution”

            In the Cultural Revolution
            “Art Goes to the Villages”, by Chou Kai

            “The Interrelation of Political and Economic Independence”, by Hsu Nai-chiung

            Latin America
            “The People Fight Ahead”, by Fen Hsi. [About Latin American struggles against U.S. imperialism.]

            Facts on File
            “U.S. Economic Penetration of Latin America in 1965”

            World Trends
            “Franco-American Antagonism Deepens”, by Hsin Wen.

        Round the World

            * In S. Vietnam: Power of a People’s War
            * In the Congo (L): Resolved to Wage a People’s War
            * The Passing Show: Happy Lunar New Year
            * Humphrey-Kosygin Talks: Khrushchov Revisionists’ Main Concern
            * Soviet-Japanese Collaboration: Conspiracy Against China
            * News Notes

        [Across the Land]

            * Circus Arts: New Aerobatic Favourites
            * Short Notes




        
          Renmin Ribao
    Johnson Administration’s Self-Exposure

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #5, Jan. 28, 1966, pp. 5-6.]

          IN the past month, the Johnson Administration has staged a most shameless farce over the Vietnam question. While nearly every day singing “peace,” “peace,” “peace” in a high key, its actions have been for war, war, war. Just look at the facts.

    Deeds Belie Words

          On December 28, the United States sent 4,000 more troops to south Vietnam.

          On January 18, it dispatched another 9,000 aggressor troops to south Vietnam.

          On January 19, Johnson formally asked for an extra 12,300 million U.S. dollars to finance the war of aggression in Vietnam.

          On January 20, McNamara announced that the United States planned to increase its armed forces by over 450,000 men.

          Facts have again irrefutably proved that the louder the U.S. aggressors sing the tune of “peace,” the more feverish are their efforts to fan the flames of their aggressive war in Vietnam.

          It is now exactly a month since the United States on December 24 began its “pause in the bombing” of north Vietnam and launched with much fanfare its so-called “peace offensive.” During this period, the Johnson Administration has on different occasions played the same tunes of “peace” which are long, wordy and malodorous. But what have the U.S. aggressors really done?

          Have they stopped their aggressive war in south Vietnam? Just the contrary. They have been applying on an even bigger-scale the “scorched earth” policy of “kill all, burn all and destroy all.”

          Have they withdrawn a single soldier from south Vietnam? Just the contrary. They have shipped in another 13,000 aggressor troops to the south Vietnam battlefield.

          Or have they perhaps shown some small bit of “consideration” for the south Vietnamese people? Just the contrary. They have been using poison gas with still greater frenzy, and displaying still greater savagery in their killing.


    L.B.J.’s “Peace” Dance
    Cartoon by Lan Chien-an

          Anyone who respects facts will see that the Johnson Administration has not the least desire to solve the Vietnam question peacefully in accordance with the aspirations of the Vietnamese people. What it is interested in is throwing in more troops, more ammunition and more dollars for bellicose activities against Vietnam.

          From what the U.S. aggressors did yesterday and what they are doing today, it is not difficult to predict what they will do tomorrow. In the past, every time they chanted a “peace” psalm, they added a faggot to the flames of their aggressive war. They are now busy with their “peace talks” hoax and at the same time stepping up efforts for war escalation. They are resorting to political deception because they realize that they can no longer hold back the victory of the liberation struggle of the south Vietnamese people by military means alone. However, once their political deception becomes totally discredited, they will revert to new adventures and seek in vain for a way out by expanding the war.

          In his State of the Union Message on January 12, Johnson made it quite plain when he indicated that if his “peace talks” trick failed, the United States “will give our fighting men what they must have: every gun, every dollar and every decision—whatever the cost or whatever the challenge.” Neither did McNamara mince his words when he said on January 20 that “[the United States will] provide whatever military forces are necessary to defeat the communists and to guarantee south Vietnam’s freedom.” Facts show that the U.S. aggressors are sliding down the slope of war expansion and they are bent on imposing a still more cruel and barbarous aggressive war on the people of Vietnam and all Indo-China.

          A life-and-death trial of strength is now bding carried out on Vietnamese territory. Either the aggressors are driven out according to the will of the Vietnamese people, and so the cause of Vietnam’s independence, sovereignty, unification and territorial integrity is accomplished, or Vietnam is divided and south Vietnam is occupied according to the will of the aggressors and thus the Vietnamese people are plunged into the abyss of enslavement and dismemberment. This is a life-and-death struggle. The enemy is most ferocious and cruel. But the outcome of this struggle will inevitably run counter to the wishes of U.S. imperialism and it will end in the defeat of the aggressors.

    Indomitable Will

          A spokesman of the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, in a statement issued on January 21, strongly condemned the United States for sending reinforcements to south Vietnam behind a “peace” smokescreen and reiterated the warning of the Vietnamese people. He said that no troops of the U.S. aggressors could retrieve their critical situation in south Vietnam. In its New Year commentary, the South Vietnam Liberation Press Agency pointed out that the Vietnamese people harboured no illusions whatsoever on the “peace” ballyhoo from the war-like Washington bigwigs, and that they must concentrate all their power to strike still harder blows at U.S. imperialism. All these forceful words once more express the indomitable will of the 31 million Vietnamese people to safeguard the country’s independence and national dignity and resist imperialist aggression.

          The Chinese Government and people resolutely support the Vietnamese people’s firm stand of carrying through the struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation to the end. The Chinese people are convinced that the Vietnamese people who have been tempered in the raging flames of anti-imperialist struggle in the last 20 years will redouble their efforts to smash the Johnson Administration’s plan for war expansion and destroy the U.S. invaders.

    (Slightly abridged translation of “Renmin      
    Ribao’s” editorial, January 24, 1966.)      



        
    Be a Conscious Revolutionary
    — More on “All Our Work is for the Revolution” —

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #5, Jan. 28, 1966, pp. 6-8.]

          SINCE we published the editorial, “All Our Work Is for the Revolution,”1 on October 11 last year, a great number a people and cadres all over the country have written to us. They tell how they studied and discussed this editorial, raised their level of revolutionary consciousness, realized more fully the link between their ordinary day-to-day work and the great goals of the Chinese revolution and world revolution, gained a broader and longer-sighted view, and understood more clearly the aim of their efforts and work. As a result, they have become keener on their work.

          Such a warm response to the idea of all our work being for the revolution reflects the unprecedentedly high level of political consciousness of the Chinese masses and cadres displayed in the current upsurge of studying Mao Tse-tung’s thinking. This is a basic reason why the high tide of Chinese revolution and construction is mounting so rapidly today.

          In our country and under the leadership of the Communist Party, every kind of work—including work in the political, economic, military and cultural fields—is a part of the overall cause of socialist revolution and construction and is revolutionary work. The labour and work of the masses and cadres on all fronts are directly or indirectly linked with the cause of the Chinese revolution and world revolution.

    For the Chinese and World Revolutions

          When we say “all our work is for the revolution,” this means for the Chinese and world revolutions, and for the class struggle in the domestic and international spheres. The slogan itself proceeds from a class standpoint. In our country classes have not yet been eliminated; the class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is still going on. In the international sphere we are also waging serious class struggles against imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, and modern revisionism. The aim of our revolution is to carry the socialist revolution to final victory in our country, carry the proletarian world revolution to final victory, and build a new world without imperialism, without capitalism and without exploitation of man by man. To bring about this great goal calls for the concerted efforts of the revolutionary peoples of the world, and in China it requires all the people to work hard and do a good job at their specific tasks. Everyone’s day-to-day labour and work is linked with that great goal of the Chinese and world revolutions and with the domestic and international class struggle.

        Discussion on “All Our Work Is for the Revolution”

              A WIDE response throughout the country followed publication of the editorial “All Our Work Is for the Revolution” in Renmin Ribao last October. It has been studied and discussed by workers, peasants, soldiers, cadres, shop assistants, storemen, postmen, technicians engineers, theatrical directors, doctors, professors, scientists. ... And they lost no time in sending in letters and articles to Renmin Ribao and other leading papers expressing their views on this important topic. Many from their own personal experience confirmed that a lofty goal inspires one with boundless strength, that it is only when one links his own work with the cause of building a great socialist motherland and promoting the world revolution that one can find inexhaustible energy to do one’s work and go on creating and advancing.

              Quite a number seized the opportunity to review their own day-to-day behaviour in the light of the spirit described in the editorial and with the example of those two great revolutionary fighters, Lei Feng and Wang Chieh, as the criterion. That helped them to pinpoint their own shortcomings, and also determined them to intensify their efforts in remoulding their ideology and raising their level of Revolutionary consciousness on the model of the outstanding personalities of our time so as to serve the people wholeheartedly and make a greater contribution to the revolution. Many endorsed the opinion that if one wants to realize in one’s life the idea that all our work is for the revolution, then one must make a constant study of Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s works and employ them as a powerful weapon to remould one’s ideology and improve one’s work.


          Revolution is a cause of all the people, not of a few persons. It is something that not only concerns the cadres and the People’s Liberation Army, but also all the worker and peasant masses and other working people. In our country, joining the army, taking part in political movements, farming, working in the factories, nursing, child care or working in the service trades all have a bearing in the revolution. Different occupations and posts are necessitated by the division of labour in revolutionary work as well as by the social division of labour. When everyone understands the relations between ones labour and work on the one hand and revolution on the other, and works diligently to contribute one’s abilities and wisdom to the revolution, the revolutionary cause will forge ahead.

    Mobilizing Revolutionary Initiative

          “All our work is for the revolution” is a slogan that mobilizes the revolutionary initiative of the broad masses of the people. This slogan helps people to a clearer understanding of the great significance and far-reaching prospects of their labour and work.

          What we ask from a genuine, conscious revolutionary is that he should understand that all his efforts and work are for the revolution, does his best with a revolutionary spirit in his labour and work and makes his maximum contribution to the revolution.

          Only when the broad masses and cadres have such a revolutionary consciousness, can they put the revolutionary interests above all else, completely comply with the needs of the revolution, and always consider problems and act in the light of revolutionary needs. Then they will go to any place the revolution calls for. No matter how far away it may be or how hard life there may be, they will gladly go to where they are assigned. They will take any place as their home; they will strive to adapt themselves to local working and living conditions wherever they may be, integrate themselves with the masses there and there make their contribution to the work of revolution and construction. They will do any work that is called for by the revolution. No matter how dirty, fatiguing, ordinary and unnoticed it may be, they will go all out and do it conscientiously. Like Lei Feng and Wang Chieh,2 they love their profession and try hard to master it so that remarkable achievements can be made at ordinary posts. People may differ in their abilities, but if they work diligently, they will all benefit the revolution and the people, they will be able to give help to and learn from each other in the course of labour and work and advance shoulder to shoulder. This is what the revolution demands of us.

          To sum up, the idea that all our work is for the revolution has two meanings. First, it means that under our Communist Party’s leadership and in our socialist country all work is revolutionary work. Second, it means that people working in various fields should carry on their labour and work with revolutionary spirit and become conscious revolutionaries.

    Studying Chairman Mao’s Works

          To make the transition from a state of not being politically conscious to one of being conscious, everyone who works has to go through a process of ideological remoulding. Thousands upon thousands of workers, peasants and soldiers have become politically conscious step by step through diligent study of Chairman Mao’s works. Three of Chairman Mao’s articles—In Memory of Norman Bethune, Serve the People and The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains—have played a significant part in enhancing the revolutionary consciousness of the broad masses of workers, peasants and soldiers as well as cadres. A conscientious study of these three articles will enable us to foster an outlook of working wholly for the emancipation of the people and for their interests. It also helps us to understand the need of cultivating a communist and internationalist spirit of complete devotion to others without any thought of self, and why in struggling with the class enemy and with Nature we should show a revolutionary perseverance similar to that of the Foolish Old Man. To consciously remould ourselves by comparing our own thinking with such revolutionary thoughts and spirit as are here described will help us to embrace the proletarian world outlook in the course of practice and to place the interests of the revolution beyond everything else. In the class struggle, both domestic and international, we shall be able to follow the examples of Lei Feng and Wang Chieh, making wholehearted devotion to the revolution, fearing neither hardship nor death and dedicating ourselves to the revolution.

          In studying Chairman Mao’s works, our aim is to remould our ideology and guide our work, devoting our best efforts to applying Mao Tse-tung’s thinking in practice. In tackling any problem, we must conscientiously find out how to deal with it in the light of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking and take actions accordingly. Only by a repeated and prolonged course of study and application, can we arm ourselves ideologically with Mao Tse-tung’s thinking step by step and become genuine, conscious revolutionaries.

          The idea that all our work is for the revolution enjoys an ever-increasing influence today. The broad masses of the people and cadres on all fronts are engaged in selfless labour and work with soaring revolutionary enthusiasm, high spirits and robust morale. This revolutionary fervour of the masses must be highly valued. In these circumstances, Party organizations and leading personnel of all departments in every field must maintain a sober head at all times, treasure the masses’ enthusiasm and initiative, be keenly concerned with their well-being and pay attention to the proper alternation of labour and rest as well as to safety in production.

          The socialist revolution and socialist construction in China are entering a new period of development. We have started the Third Five-Year Plan. Great and bright prospects are unfolded before us. We must raise high the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, link our labour and work with the great goals of the revolution, undertake all labour and work with revolutionary spirit, and become conscious revolutionaries. With everybody working and striving in this way, we will assuredly succeed in making greater contributions to China’s revolution and construction and to supporting the revolutionary struggles of the peoples of the world.

    (“Renmin Ribao’s” editorial, January 8.)      

    _______________

    1   Peking Review, No. 43, October 22, 1965.

    2   Peking Review, No. 14, April 5, 1963, and No. 46, November 12, 1965.




        
    Be a Conscious Revolutionary
    — More on “All Our Work is for the Revolution” —

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #5, Jan. 28, 1966, pp. 6-8.]

          SINCE we published the editorial, “All Our Work Is for the Revolution,”1 on October 11 last year, a great number a people and cadres all over the country have written to us. They tell how they studied and discussed this editorial, raised their level of revolutionary consciousness, realized more fully the link between their ordinary day-to-day work and the great goals of the Chinese revolution and world revolution, gained a broader and longer-sighted view, and understood more clearly the aim of their efforts and work. As a result, they have become keener on their work.

          Such a warm response to the idea of all our work being for the revolution reflects the unprecedentedly high level of political consciousness of the Chinese masses and cadres displayed in the current upsurge of studying Mao Tse-tung’s thinking. This is a basic reason why the high tide of Chinese revolution and construction is mounting so rapidly today.

          In our country and under the leadership of the Communist Party, every kind of work—including work in the political, economic, military and cultural fields—is a part of the overall cause of socialist revolution and construction and is revolutionary work. The labour and work of the masses and cadres on all fronts are directly or indirectly linked with the cause of the Chinese revolution and world revolution.

    For the Chinese and World Revolutions

          When we say “all our work is for the revolution,” this means for the Chinese and world revolutions, and for the class struggle in the domestic and international spheres. The slogan itself proceeds from a class standpoint. In our country classes have not yet been eliminated; the class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is still going on. In the international sphere we are also waging serious class struggles against imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, and modern revisionism. The aim of our revolution is to carry the socialist revolution to final victory in our country, carry the proletarian world revolution to final victory, and build a new world without imperialism, without capitalism and without exploitation of man by man. To bring about this great goal calls for the concerted efforts of the revolutionary peoples of the world, and in China it requires all the people to work hard and do a good job at their specific tasks. Everyone’s day-to-day labour and work is linked with that great goal of the Chinese and world revolutions and with the domestic and international class struggle.

        Discussion on “All Our Work Is for the Revolution”

              A WIDE response throughout the country followed publication of the editorial “All Our Work Is for the Revolution” in Renmin Ribao last October. It has been studied and discussed by workers, peasants, soldiers, cadres, shop assistants, storemen, postmen, technicians engineers, theatrical directors, doctors, professors, scientists. ... And they lost no time in sending in letters and articles to Renmin Ribao and other leading papers expressing their views on this important topic. Many from their own personal experience confirmed that a lofty goal inspires one with boundless strength, that it is only when one links his own work with the cause of building a great socialist motherland and promoting the world revolution that one can find inexhaustible energy to do one’s work and go on creating and advancing.

              Quite a number seized the opportunity to review their own day-to-day behaviour in the light of the spirit described in the editorial and with the example of those two great revolutionary fighters, Lei Feng and Wang Chieh, as the criterion. That helped them to pinpoint their own shortcomings, and also determined them to intensify their efforts in remoulding their ideology and raising their level of Revolutionary consciousness on the model of the outstanding personalities of our time so as to serve the people wholeheartedly and make a greater contribution to the revolution. Many endorsed the opinion that if one wants to realize in one’s life the idea that all our work is for the revolution, then one must make a constant study of Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s works and employ them as a powerful weapon to remould one’s ideology and improve one’s work.


          Revolution is a cause of all the people, not of a few persons. It is something that not only concerns the cadres and the People’s Liberation Army, but also all the worker and peasant masses and other working people. In our country, joining the army, taking part in political movements, farming, working in the factories, nursing, child care or working in the service trades all have a bearing in the revolution. Different occupations and posts are necessitated by the division of labour in revolutionary work as well as by the social division of labour. When everyone understands the relations between ones labour and work on the one hand and revolution on the other, and works diligently to contribute one’s abilities and wisdom to the revolution, the revolutionary cause will forge ahead.

    Mobilizing Revolutionary Initiative

          “All our work is for the revolution” is a slogan that mobilizes the revolutionary initiative of the broad masses of the people. This slogan helps people to a clearer understanding of the great significance and far-reaching prospects of their labour and work.

          What we ask from a genuine, conscious revolutionary is that he should understand that all his efforts and work are for the revolution, does his best with a revolutionary spirit in his labour and work and makes his maximum contribution to the revolution.

          Only when the broad masses and cadres have such a revolutionary consciousness, can they put the revolutionary interests above all else, completely comply with the needs of the revolution, and always consider problems and act in the light of revolutionary needs. Then they will go to any place the revolution calls for. No matter how far away it may be or how hard life there may be, they will gladly go to where they are assigned. They will take any place as their home; they will strive to adapt themselves to local working and living conditions wherever they may be, integrate themselves with the masses there and there make their contribution to the work of revolution and construction. They will do any work that is called for by the revolution. No matter how dirty, fatiguing, ordinary and unnoticed it may be, they will go all out and do it conscientiously. Like Lei Feng and Wang Chieh,2 they love their profession and try hard to master it so that remarkable achievements can be made at ordinary posts. People may differ in their abilities, but if they work diligently, they will all benefit the revolution and the people, they will be able to give help to and learn from each other in the course of labour and work and advance shoulder to shoulder. This is what the revolution demands of us.

          To sum up, the idea that all our work is for the revolution has two meanings. First, it means that under our Communist Party’s leadership and in our socialist country all work is revolutionary work. Second, it means that people working in various fields should carry on their labour and work with revolutionary spirit and become conscious revolutionaries.

    Studying Chairman Mao’s Works

          To make the transition from a state of not being politically conscious to one of being conscious, everyone who works has to go through a process of ideological remoulding. Thousands upon thousands of workers, peasants and soldiers have become politically conscious step by step through diligent study of Chairman Mao’s works. Three of Chairman Mao’s articles—In Memory of Norman Bethune, Serve the People and The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains—have played a significant part in enhancing the revolutionary consciousness of the broad masses of workers, peasants and soldiers as well as cadres. A conscientious study of these three articles will enable us to foster an outlook of working wholly for the emancipation of the people and for their interests. It also helps us to understand the need of cultivating a communist and internationalist spirit of complete devotion to others without any thought of self, and why in struggling with the class enemy and with Nature we should show a revolutionary perseverance similar to that of the Foolish Old Man. To consciously remould ourselves by comparing our own thinking with such revolutionary thoughts and spirit as are here described will help us to embrace the proletarian world outlook in the course of practice and to place the interests of the revolution beyond everything else. In the class struggle, both domestic and international, we shall be able to follow the examples of Lei Feng and Wang Chieh, making wholehearted devotion to the revolution, fearing neither hardship nor death and dedicating ourselves to the revolution.

          In studying Chairman Mao’s works, our aim is to remould our ideology and guide our work, devoting our best efforts to applying Mao Tse-tung’s thinking in practice. In tackling any problem, we must conscientiously find out how to deal with it in the light of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking and take actions accordingly. Only by a repeated and prolonged course of study and application, can we arm ourselves ideologically with Mao Tse-tung’s thinking step by step and become genuine, conscious revolutionaries.

          The idea that all our work is for the revolution enjoys an ever-increasing influence today. The broad masses of the people and cadres on all fronts are engaged in selfless labour and work with soaring revolutionary enthusiasm, high spirits and robust morale. This revolutionary fervour of the masses must be highly valued. In these circumstances, Party organizations and leading personnel of all departments in every field must maintain a sober head at all times, treasure the masses’ enthusiasm and initiative, be keenly concerned with their well-being and pay attention to the proper alternation of labour and rest as well as to safety in production.

          The socialist revolution and socialist construction in China are entering a new period of development. We have started the Third Five-Year Plan. Great and bright prospects are unfolded before us. We must raise high the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, link our labour and work with the great goals of the revolution, undertake all labour and work with revolutionary spirit, and become conscious revolutionaries. With everybody working and striving in this way, we will assuredly succeed in making greater contributions to China’s revolution and construction and to supporting the revolutionary struggles of the peoples of the world.

    (“Renmin Ribao’s” editorial, January 8.)      

    _______________

    1   Peking Review, No. 43, October 22, 1965.

    2   Peking Review, No. 14, April 5, 1963, and No. 46, November 12, 1965.



        
          In the Cultural Revolution
    Art Goes to the Villages
    by Chou Kai

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #5, Jan. 28, 1966, pp. 8-11.]

          WHEN a music lover in Peking asked some time ago where his favourite singer was, he got the seemingly unlikely reply: “In the Langya Mountains.” Far from being disappointed, he commented: “That’s fine!” That comment reflects the general understanding and approval of Party and Government policy in the matter of art serving the people. It also reflects the public appreciation of the conduct of the professional artists who have answered the call to go out and serve the masses, particularly in the countryside.

          The troupe that went to the Langya Mountain area of Yihsien County, Hopei Province, was the Central Nationalities Music Ensemble. This talented group of musicians and singers is one of China’s finest. It specializes in the music and songs of China’s many nationalities, and is well known and loved in the capital and many other big cities. It has enjoyed an equal success in the countryside. In four months around Langya it visited 16 production brigades of eight communes in six districts and, besides helping with the farm work, gave musical and operatic performances at 44 evening performances to audiences totalling over 210,000 people. Small groups of performers have also arranged 69 concerts in the fields and in the homes of peasants. Working, eating and living with the commune members gave them many opportunities to coach the amateur artists of the farms. They popularized a selection of twenty revolutionary songs, put on lantern slide shows, told revolutionary stories and gave lectures on Chairman Mao’s works. They held regular newspaper readings and led talks and discussions on current events and policies; they gave haircuts and helped repair farm tools for the peasants. They composed over a score of songs and ballads eulogizing the outstanding personalities of the area and learnt new songs from the peasants.

          One of the first things that artists learn on such tours is how eager the peasants are for their art and how deep is their need for it.

          On one occasion members of the troupe went to give a show in Chiyu village, deep in the mountains. It was a 20-kilometre hike through a steady drizzle over rough country and across rivers. They had planned to rest and put on their show the day after they arrived, but when they reached their destination they found that commune members from a distance of ten kilometres around had hurried over to Chiyu despite the rain and the slippery mountain paths to see them perform. It was impossible that they should make that journey for nothing. That same evening the troupe held a courtyard concert and the delighted applause of the commune members banished their fatigue.

          Such experiences are common to all the troupes which are going out to serve the working people.

    In a Fine Revolutionary Tradition

          The present mass flow of artists to the villages follows the fine tradition created by the cultural troupes of the people’s army during the revolutionary civil wars and the war against the Japanese invaders. In the face of great hardships, the travelling propaganda troupes of those days made a big contribution to the struggle by spreading the revolutionary message and heartening the people’s fighters.

          It was as early as in 1942 that Chairman Mao laid it down as a policy that revolutionary artists and writers should serve and integrate themselves with the workers, peasants and people’s fighters who form the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people. Therefore following this policy and tradition, from the very early days of liberation, the various art troupes of the urban areas made it a regular practice to take their performances out on tour to other cities, the smaller towns, factories, and army units. But the present movement in scale and content is a new development of that policy and tradition under new conditions. It is a manifestation of the deepening socialist revolution on the cultural front.


    A troupe of the Central Opera and Dance Drama Theatre
    presenting the ballet The White-Haired Girl in a village
    north of the Great Wall, by the Kuanting Reservoir

          The great historical advance of the Chinese socialist revolution has placed new demands on the arts and artists. In the factories, farms and army units, the masses are fighting in the front lines of the socialist revolution and construction. There they want and need a socialist culture that stimulates their enthusiasm in revolution and production, that is closely integrated with their life, their urgent problems and desires. They demand a socialist art placed wholly at the disposal of the working people. This means that if our artists are to meet these needs they must create art with a new contemporary socialist content and find new forms designed to make maximum use of our cultural forces.

          To produce that art based on close knowledge of the life of the people in various spheres of activity, our artists must closely identify themselves with the people and remould their outlook and ideology in tune with the people. They have had considerable success in this. They are now staging plays and operas on modern revolutionary themes; they portray the new heroes of the working people in socialist revolution and construction; they combat the hostile influences of feudalism and capitalism in the ideological field. By routing out-of-date ideas and ways of doing things they help to clear the ground for the growth of new socialist thinking.

          But that is still not enough. Their art must not only come from the heart of the life of the people; it must be brought to the doorsteps of the people where it can engender living force to propel society forward. Our artists are duty bound to answer these historic, revolutionary demands. Thus, under the impact of socialist construction and the socialist cultural revolution comes this mounting upsurge in the movement to bring socialist art to the factories, army units and villages, even the most remote.

    Ulanmuchi — New Organizational Form

          Such activities of our singers and dancers, musicians and actors and other stage artists take a variety of forms. All troupes maintained by the administrative regions or counties orientate their work mainly towards the countryside. Those maintained by the Central Government, provincial or municipal governments are in general required to devote at least three months every year to performances in rural areas, factories or army units. Members of troupes go out in groups in rotation and the trend today is to do things “the Ulanmuchi way.”

          This is a term that much has been heard about in the last year or so. Meaning “red cultural team” in Mongolian, it is a form of team created by artists and writers of Inner Mongolia as part of their effort to put their arts at the service of the herdsmen. Such a team usually consists of a dozen performers each of whom is a specialist in one field—music or singing, acting or dancing—but all of whom are versatile all-rounders or at least with several strings to their bow. These teams travel the year round by horse or cart with light stage props to serve the herdsmen on the vast grasslands of Inner Mongolia. They not only produce new works and give performances but coach local amateur cultural groups and join the people in their everyday work. They are thoroughly at home with the people at work or play.

          Today this revolutionary Ulanmuchi spirit in serving the masses has become a model for all China’s art troupes. In the first half of 1965, six art troupes under the Ministry of Culture including orchestral, song and dance and opera troupes, organized six long-term and nearly a dozen short-term cultural work teams which toured the factories, mines and rural areas of Hopei Province. Kwangtung Province, among other areas, is organizing socialist “cultural caravans” of the compact, versatile, mobile Ulanmuchi type for work in the countryside of each county.

    To Serve Means to Learn

          In going out to the people with the sincere desire to serve them, artists soon find that the prerequisite is to learn from them. There can be no question of being able to reflect the people’s life and struggles, of inspiring them and enabling art to play its educational role unless the artist knows the people’s life, and knows it intimately.

          The Langya Mountain area where the Central Nationalities Music Ensemble worked for four months last year is the site of the monument to the Five Heroes of Langya. Twenty-four years ago during the war against the Japanese invaders these five took the brunt of the attack of a Japanese force in order to give the local inhabitants a chance to escape. They fought to the last and when their ammunition gave out they leapt off a precipice rather than surrender to the enemy. There are few remaining vestiges of war here now. But there are many revolutionary veterans who told members of the work team moving stories of the battles of old. Old Mother Liu Yu-lou, for one, told them how she had suffered savage tortures when the enemy tried to get from her information about the wounded revolutionary fighters and the people’s grain she had hidden.

          Stories like these made the young artists realize how hard won was the people’s power. They got a truer appreciation of the fine qualities of the workers and peasants who formed the main forces in the revolutionary wars. A marked change took place in their whole outlook on life.

          No less compelling is the education that intelectuals and artists have got from the enthusiasm and spirit of self-reliance and enterprise of the masses in the socialist revolution and construction.

          Working and living in the Nangunlunggou Production Brigade of the Zaibei Commune, in Pingshan County of Hopei Province, members of the Central Song and Dance Ensemble saw how the people there under the leadership of the Party fought against conditions of endemic floods and poor soil. That production brigade has a labour force equivalent to only 92 able-bodied members, yet through their own efforts they have built more than 550 check dams to block the sweep of water down their valleys, terraced field plots out of the rocky hillside and cut a 45-kilometre canal around the mountain to bring water to their arid areas.

    Changing the Face of the Land

          It was once said of this mountain district that “in a good year it yields barely enough grain for half a year’s food.” But its farmers’ efforts have brought about a radical change. Brigade members now live in brand new houses overlooking picturesque terraced fields and orchards. They have a marketable surplus of 30,000 to 40,000 jin of food which they sell to the state.

          Working alongside the peasants of Nangunlunggou, the comrades of the Central Song and Dance Ensemble realized, in a way that no amount of reading could teach them, how hard is the struggle to change the face of the land. As one of them wrote: “Without the resolute support of the millions upon millions of poor and lower-middle peasants, the victory of the Chinese revolution would have been impossible. I realize better now what immense sacrifices they made for the revolution; and how hard and selflessly they work for socialist construction.” Willy-nilly they compared their outlook with that of the peasant labour heroes and saw how tawdry, how completely incompatible with the spirit of socialism were individualistic sentiments bound up with the idea of seeking individual fame and fortune. Discussing these questions, they agreed that serving the workers, peasants and soldiers wholeheartedly called for a radical change of outlook and also closer links with the masses in life and work, thought and sentiment.

          It is such lessons learnt from the peasants that imbue our artists with a new concept of their social function, a new moral imperative. On one occasion the members of the ensemble learnt that an old man living up in the mountains could not get down to see their show because of his crippled leg. Ten of them promptly took their instruments and went up the mountain to give him a performance in his own courtyard. He was moved to tears by this thoughtful act. Such incidents are now by no means isolated.

    On the Themes of the People

          The cultural work teams have learnt that the peasants take a specially keen interest in performances if their themes concern local events or personalities. A political point becomes ten times more convincing if linked with the personal experience of an audience. And thanks to their experience in working in the villages they are well able now to “localize” their compositions. While the Central Song and Dance Ensemble was working in Pingshan County, they staged The Tomb of the Wild Dog, a song and dance opera which they composed about a poor peasant who was forced by a landlord to arrange a ruinously elaborate funeral for a dead dog. They based this on an actual local incident. Afterwards Mother Chao Hsiu-ching, chairman of the local women’s organization, told the comrades of the ensemble: “When you were performing that play up on the stage, I was weeping down in the audience. In the old society, we poor peasants were treated worse than the landlord’s dogs. I turned the flour mill for the landlord. Driven by hunger, I stole chaff to eat while the landlord’s dog ate rice and meat!”

          Tung Hsiung, an old peasant and veteran guerrilla fighter of the anti-Japanese war, heartily approved of the items put on by the troupe reflecting the past. He said: “The young people of today have no experience of our hardships in the old society. You should put on more performances like this so as to give them a good education on the meaning of the class struggle.”

          When the people started a campaign to collect more manure in the area where the cultural team of the Central Opera and Dance-Drama Theatre was working, they immediately composed and performed a set of ballads, skits and operettas on this theme. These had an effect that could be measured concretely in weight! People took heart from the plays. They saw the significance of the drive more fully and saw better their own role in it. The leading cadres were enthusiastic. “These performances are a mobilizing force. They have made everyone keener!” they said.

          Such results from their performances on a wide range of modern themes are a further education for our artists. They enable them to see more clearly the role which art and literature performs and how important it is to carry their socialist message out among the masses. They understand better the relation between politics and the arts and between popularization of the arts and elevation of their artistic level.

          It is in such ways that the activities of our art troupes are spreading and developing in the countryside throughout the country. These activities are becoming an increasingly important part of the surging socialist cultural revolution.





        The Interrelation of Political and Economic Independence
        by Hsu Nai-chiung

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #5, Jan. 28, 1966, pp. 12-14.]

              AS a result of the protracted and arduous struggle of the people of Asia and Africa, scores of countries on the two continents have become independent in the 20 years since the end of World War II. The fact that so many in so short a time gained political independence—though in different degrees in different countries—is an indication of the momentous force of the postwar, particularly post-Bandung, national-liberation movement. This victory of the people’s revolution has markedly undermined the imperialist colonial system and laid the groundwork for the development of independent national economies in Asia and Africa. This is an event of historic significance.

              The national-liberation movement has now entered a new stage in Asia and Africa. The people’s political consciousness has risen to new heights and revolutionary movements are surging forward as never before so that today the demand for complete elimination of imperialist domination and influence (including that exercised through local placemen) and realization of full independence, both political and economic, has become the ardent aspiration of the people of Asia and Africa. At such a time, it is all the more necessary to analyse the interrelation between political and economic independence. The present article is an attempt to do this.

        I

              The basic question in any revolution—and the national revolution is no exception—is one of state power. The primary task of all oppressed peoples and nations who seek liberation, therefore, is to overthrow imperialist colonial rule and to strive for political independence, However, it is far from sufficient merely to win political independence, which is only “the first step in a Long March.” After winning political independence, the Asian and African countries need to make full use of their political power to go on to win economic independence. Only thus will they be able to thoroughly rid themselves of imperialist control and colonialist and neo-colonialist exploitation and approach full independence. If, on the other hand, the Asian and African countries after their independence do not continue to carry forward the national-democratic revolution, do not take effective revolutionary measures and actively strive for economic independence, then they will not be able to win final, secure and full independence, and the danger exists that they will lose their hard-won political independence.

              The political independence won by many Asian and African countries is far from secure and has to be consolidated. In the new conditions of the postwar period, the imperialist countries headed by the United States have adopted neo-colonialist tactics and are trying to maintain their colonial rule through hand-picked and specially trained agents. By forming military blocs, establishing military bases, setting up “federations” and “communities,” making use of “aid” and carrying out aggression and intervention under the aegis of the United Nations, these imperialist countries have sought to keep, and in some cases have succeeded in keeping, a number of newly independent countries under their control. Thus, while these Asian and African countries are allowed to have formal political independence, they are in fact still dependent on the imperialist countries economically or even politically. Apropos this situation, Lenin’s warning more than 40 years ago is still relevant. In his Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions written in 1920, Lenin pointed to the need “constantly to explain and expose among the broadest masses of the toilers of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practised by the imperialist powers in creating, under the guise of politically independent states, states which are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily....” Today, when neocolonialism—a type of colonialism far more vicious, cunning and ferocious than old colonialism—is seriously threatening the newly won political independence of the Asian and African countries, this warning has a special practical significance.

              It is true that since winning political independence many Asian and African countries have made great efforts to develop their national economies and scored many successes in this respect. However, in a number of countries, their economic lifelines and economic sovereignty are still in the hands of foreign monopoly capital. In some countries, the situation is aptly described by the saying: “While the wolf has been driven out through the front door, the tiger has sneaked in at the back.” In many Asian and African countries, the imperialists, colonialists and neo-colonialists still retain, in varying forms and to varying extent, various economic privileges (e.g., the right to lease land, guarantees for the security of their investments and tax reduction or exemption for their enterprises, and the right to survey and extract mineral resources), and, by means of “aid,” impose on the recipient countries many unequal treaties which directly encroach upon their sovereign rights.

              Even today, the monopoly capitalists of the imperialist countries still control a great many of the mineral resources and extracting industries of the Asian and African countries, as well as the production of a substantial share of their agricultural exports. The foreign monopolies have also grabbed vast expanses of Asian and African land. The big oil companies of the imperialist countries have leased some 729 million hectares of oil-bearing land from the Asian and African countries—an area which is about 72 per event of the combined home territory of the United States, Britain and France. Also under foreign monopoly control in some Asian and African countries are the main branches of industry, key branches of communications and transport, postal services, banking, the issuing of currency, customs, foreign trade and even internal wholesale or retail trade. Using their monopolistic positions in these fields, the imperialist countries have not hesitated to apply overt and covert pressure to force these Asian and African countries to comply with their will. This includes intervention, control and subversion to achieve their political ends. In these circumstances, how can these countries keep intact and consolidate their political independence?

              The Asian and African countries’ economic backwardness and poverty are a legacy of prolonged imperialist colonial rule. An overwhelming number of these countries still retain a mono-crop economy or a lopsided economy which is distinguished by an over-development of the extracting industries. After World War II, this abnormal state has become still more aggravated in a number of countries because of intensified activities by old and new colonialists. In these countries, the output—in terms of money—of a few agricultural products and/or minerals often accounts for some 60 to 70 per cent of the total national output and 50 to over 90 per cent of all exports. Also, as many as 50 to 80 per cent of the labouring population in these countries are engaged in producing primary products. What is more, about three-fourths of the mono-products exported by these countries depend on some individual imperialist country as the buyer. At the same time these countries rely on the imperialist countries to supply them with most of the industrial goods needed for economic construction and to sustain the people’s livelihood. Still worse, they have to rely on the imperialist countries, primarily the United States, for such a vital commodity as food grain, which is a prime necessity for the people. Statistics reveal that in recent years Asian and African countries have been importing some 20 million tons of food grain annually.

              Such a colonial economic structure—marked by mono-product economy and mono-market outlet—actually constitutes the economic basis for imperialist colonial control and exploitation. Unless this abnormal structure is demolished, it is impossible for the Asian and African countries (and also the Latin American countries) to get rid of their economic dependence on the imperialist countries. In the long run, economic dependence will inevitably lead to political dependence. This is because, on the one. hand, the economic dependence of the Asian and African countries on the imperialist countries makes it possible for the latter to use, whenever they please, their monopoly positions and economic privileges as a lever to influence the domestic and foreign policies of these countries and carry out political intervention and control; on the other hand, the imperialist countries, in order to perpetuate the basis for their exploitation, will always try their utmost to keep intact and, if possible to strengthen, their political control of the newly independent Asian and African countries.

              In the postwar years, because of increasingly ruthless exploitation by the imperialist countries, many newly independent Asian and African countries have suffered growing financial and economic difficulties. Taking advantage of these troubles, the imperialist countries have exported huge amounts of capital and granted many high-interest bearing loans to these countries so that they can extract fabulous profits from the debtor countries and bind them hand and foot. According to incomplete statistics of the “World Bank,” the debts incurred by Asian and African countries amounted to U.S. $5,000 million by the end of 1955; by the end of 1964, this figure had risen to an estimated total of U.S $20,000 million. There was a fourfold increase in nine years, the average annual rate of increase being 16.5 per cent. In some countries, the rise in foreign debt is still more striking. India, for example, witnessed an average annual 38 per cent increase in its foreign debts between 1955 and 1962. In recent years, Asian and African countries have paid out a total of about U.S. $2,500 million annually in servicing debts. Without doubt, the imperialist countries do not hesitate to turn this financial dependence to their own advantage to interfere in the internal affairs of the Asian and African countries.

              Such a state of affairs shows that so long as the newly independent Asian and African countries fail to attain genuine and secure economic independence, imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism will always try by every means to use their monopoly positions to carry out intervention, control and even subversion. Only when genuine economic independence has been achieved, particularly when an independent national economy has been established by self-reliance, is it possible to smash the pressure, obstruction and sabotage of the imperialists, colonialists and neo-colonialists and establish secure and full political independence.

        II

              Upon winning political independence, the Asian and African countries face the following major and urgent tasks: to adopt appropriate and effective measures to eliminate the economic influences of the imperialists and to abolish all their political, military, economic and cultural privileges, to nationalize imperialist-owned industries, mines, plantations and other enterprises, and to put the nation’s economic lifelines and economic sovereignty in the hands of the people. These measures, however, will inevitably affect the interests of imperialist monopoly capital and the latter will inevitably rely on their own state machine and resort to every means, including counter-revolutionary violence, to make a last-ditch struggle. Hence, it can be affirmed that the process of recovering economic sovereignty from the imperialists and eliminating their influence in the economic sphere is inevitably a process of repeated tests of strength with imperialism, and the struggle will inevitably be accompanied by political struggle.

              The imperialists, colonialists and neo-colonialists share a common abhorrence for the development of independent national economies in the Asian and African countries. The reason for this is simple: they understand that once independent national economies are established and developed, the economic basis for their colonial rule will be undermined, their control over the Asian and African countries will be broken and they will be deprived of the means to carry on their colonial plunder and reap their superprofits. Can Standard Oil (New Jersey) survive without the petroleum resources of the Middle East, and Venezuela? And where will Dunlop be if Malaya is no longer under the sway of British monopoly capital?

              The imperialists have always treated their colonies and semi-colonies as sources of raw materials, markets for their commodities and profitable places for investments. By means of capital export and non-equivalent exchange, they have always ruthlessly exploited the Asian and African countries. It is estimated that in recent years the imperialists have annually taken out from these countries some U.S. $10,000 million in profits and interest and by means of non-equivalent exchange. This is why imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism are always trying to obstruct, sabotage and meddle with the development of independent economies by the Asian and African countries.

              The development of an independent national economy and winning of full economic independence concerns the vital national interests of the newly independent Asian and African countries. It is at the same time opposed to the basic interests of the imperialists, colonialists and neo-colonialists who want to retain their colonial rule. Hence, the struggle for the development of an independent national economy necessarily reflects itself in political struggle, in serious political struggle against the imperialists, first of all against U.S. imperialism. Revolution is the locomotive of history. Only by continuously pushing forward the national revolution against U.S.-led imperialism can the productive forces of the newly independent Asian and African countries be liberated and their independent national economies be gradually established and developed. Thus, continued and intensified struggle against U.S.-led imperialism and its lackeys remain’s the primary, and most urgent, task confronting the Asian and African countries today.

        III

              For the newly independent Asian and African countries, the struggle for political independence and the struggle for economic independence are interrelated. Without secure and full political independence, genuine economic independence is impossible; without genuine economic independence, secure and full political independence cannot last. In other words, political independence is the precedent for economic independence, while economic independence is the basis for political independence. Whether before or after independence, the winning, maintaining and consolidating of political independence is always the primary task for all Asian and African countries. Political independence takes precedence over economic independence. At the same time, the two are interdependent and complementary. Before independence, all efforts must be directed first of all at winning political independence so as to prepare the conditions for economic independence. After independence, Asian and African countries, while continuing to consolidate their political independence, need to make full use of their political power to obliterate the influences of the imperialists and their lackeys, carry out agrarian and other social reforms, establish and develop independent national economies and thus consolidate the political independence already secured. In the process of striving for economic independence, it is necessary to combine economic struggle with political struggle so that they complement and promote each other. The end purpose of both is to achieve full independence. To win full political independence and genuine economic independence will require a long and arduous struggle, the whole process being marked by zigzags—with quantitative changes leading to qualitative changes—and by sharp and complex struggles with imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism and all other reactionary forces at home and abroad.





              Latin America
        The People Fight Ahead
        by Fen Hsi

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. IX, #5, Jan. 28, 1966, pp. 15-17.]

                  As in the rest of the world, a process of great upheaval, great division and great reorganization is taking place in Latin America. And like revolutions everywhere, the national-democratic revolution there advances in zigzags, with inescapable ups and downs. However, as 1966 gets under way, the tide is definitely more favourable to the oppressed people of the continent and less favourable to the hated Yankee imperialists.


              NINETEEN sixty-five was a year of sharp struggle between the 200 million Latin American people and Yankee imperialism and its underlings. As the national-democratic revolution on the continent deepened, the Washington-created and -backed dictatorial regimes became less and less stable and challenge to U.S. hegemony came from all sides.

        The Dominican Armed Struggle

              The April uprising in the Dominican Republic was an explosion of the people’s pent-up hatred for the military rulers and their Washington masters. It showed that the irreconcilable contradiction between the Latin American people and Yankee imperialism inevitably led to armed struggle. Thus, despite the more than 30,000 troops, 300 aircraft and 40 warships the Johnson Administration brought in to put down the patriotic forces—approximately 10,000 of the 3 million Dominicans were killed—and despite various kinds of trickery to get the Dominicans to lay down their arms, the fight against U.S. military intervention and occupation has continued.

              The Dominican people’s armed struggle has encouraged the continent’s revolutionary people and punched a hole in the arrogance of Yankee imperialism. The storm of protests which swept the continent against U.S. armed intervention attested to Latin American solidarity and to the fact that revolution in one country is closely linked with that of the others.

              It is necessary to resist counter-revolutionary violence with revolutionary violence. This is the valuable lesson the Latin American people have learnt at the price of much suffering and bloodshed. One of the salient features of the Latin American national-democratic revolution in 1965 was that the idea that salvation lies in armed struggle was taking root in the hearts of an increasing number of people.

              Anti-U.S., anti-dictatorial armed struggle was going on in about half of the Latin American countries. Despite U.S.-directed suppressive campaigns, armed struggle continued in Colombia, Venezuela, Guatemala and other countries. In still other countries, new armed struggle broke out.

              In Peru, a new people’s revolutionary armed force was established last June, shortly after U.S. troops invaded the Dominican Republic. All Washington’s efforts to strangle the armed revolution in the cradle have not been able to prevent the guerrillas from remaining active in the Andes.


        Reptile from the north       Cartoon by Jack Chen

              In Colombia, Washington’s “special war” testing ground in Latin America, the guerrillas have weathered repeated “mopping-up” operations directed by U.S. military advisers. Although conditions are harsh, they have opened up a new guerrilla front and morale is high.

              In Venezuela, too, the guerrillas are persisting in struggle in the western, central and eastern parts of the country despite stepped-up government suppressive campaigns which were also directed by U.S. advisers.

              In Brazil, a group of patriotic soldiers took up arms last March in the south against the U.S.-backed Branco regime. Although they failed, their bold initiative is bound to have wide repercussions.

        Fight Against Pro-U.S. Dictatorships

              The year also witnessed the continued advance of popular struggles against pro-U.S. dictatorships and U.S. economic pillage and for improved working and living conditions. This was another cogent feature of the Latin American political situation in 1965.

              In Bolivia, where a U.S.-reared dictatorial government was in power, more than 30,000 tin miners in 17 mines staged general strikes and mammoth anti-U.S. and anti-government demonstrations last May. They openly opposed the U.S.-inspired scheme to denationalize Bolivia’s tin mines. They took up arms to resist repression by several thousand government troops and occupied Catavi and other chief mining districts, and fighting lasted more than 10 days.

              The Panamanians have continued their fight to uphold national sovereignty. January 1965 saw another huge demonstration—by 75,000 students and workers—to recover the Panama Canal Zone from U.S. occupation (for latest development see P.R., issue No. 4). In Peru, the people launched a campaign last February against continued seizure of the country’s oilfields by the U.S. International Petroleum Company. The struggle raged over several provinces for more than three months. In Chile, the miners marched to Santiago to demonstrate their opposition to plunder and exploitation by the U.S. copper trusts. In Ecuador, despite bans by the military regime, tens of thousands of workers, students and city people marched, demonstrated and struck in February, May and July to protest U.S. interference in the country’s internal affairs and called for an end to dictatorial rule. Even in Brazil, the fascist tyranny of the pro-U.S. ultra-Right-wing military officers failed to stem the anti-U.S. demonstrations. Patriots came out against the dictatorial regime when the special inter-American foreign ministers’ conference took place in Rio de Janerio in November.

              Waves of strikes swept the continent. Participants included workers, farm labourers, teachers, public employees and doctors. In Uruguay, for example, about 650 strikes took place between January and October 1965. These were directly or indirectly related to the struggle against the predatory policy of the U.S. monopolies.

        Reorganization and Division

              Another prominent feature of the continent’s political situation was the profound reorganization and division of the political forces in face of the surging national-democratic revolution. As the revolutionary forces grew in both strength and scope, a broad united front against Yankee imperialism was being formed throughout the continent.

              Last year saw the emergence of a number of political parties and organizations adhering to revolutionary principles and persisting in revolutionary practice. In a number of countries, old parties split and many new parties and groups came into existence, evidence that more and more people have seen through the reactionary nature of the traditional parties. As the collusion between the Johnson Administration and the Right-wing forces became still more obvious, a growing number of middle-of-the-roaders have to varying degrees taken an open anti-U.S. stand. Consequently, the pro-U.S. Right-wing forces have become more and more isolated from the people. The Branco regime in Brazil, for example, received a severe shock when it tried to make political capital by staging elections for governors in 11 states last October. Contrary to its expectations, a large number of the official nominees lost. This has brought on open doubt over the stability of the Branco rule in the U.S. bourgeois press.

              Against the background of a growing united front of the Latin American people, Washington’s rule ran into an unprecedentedly acute crisis. Its policy of military threat and political control became increasingly ineffective. Opposition to Yankee imperialism came not only from the Latin American people, but also from sections of the ruling circles in a number of countries. This was another significant characteristic of the 1965 political situation.

        Ineffective Big Stick

              U.S. armed aggression against the Dominican Republic was openly denounced by the heads of state of six countries and the parliaments of seven countries of Latin America. With the exception of the Branco regime in Brazil, not a single influential Latin American government was ready to provide troops for the so-called “inter-American force”—a euphemism for the U.S. occupation army—in the Dominican Republic. In September, when the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution calling for “the use of force if necessary by any American country to prevent a communist take-over in any nation of the Hemisphere,” a storm of protest swept the continent. Government spokesmen and congresses in many countries officially opposed and condemned this brazen interventionist principle. At the special inter-American foreign ministers’ conference last November, Washington’s plan to set up a permanent “inter-American force” in the Western Hemisphere was shelved as a result of opposition by Chile, Mexico, Uruguay and others. According to Western press reports, this conference showed that “the vitality of the Organization of American States is now at its lowest ebb.”

              Also, at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly, when the draft resolution on the restoration to the People’s Republic of China of its legitimate seat was put to the vote, three Latin American countries did not follow the U.S. line and abstained. Two Latin American countries acted in the same way when the draft resolution on the “Tibet question,” used by the Johnson Administration to whip up anti-China feelings, was put to the vote. The American press described this as an “unprecedented step.” Such action was an open challenge by Latin American countries to U.S. hegemony.

              In the economic field, hatred for the U.S. monopolies gave rise to collective protest actions unprecedented in scale. In the latter part of 1965, 16 sugar-producing countries and 11 cotton-producing countries in Latin America successively lodged joint protests against U.S. legislation on increased taxes for sugar imports and on U.S. cotton dumping. At the end of the year, the Mexican Congress approved a government bill prohibiting the penetration of foreign capital into Mexican banks. This measure was a blow to Washington.

              What happened last year proved that the “Johnson Doctrine,” Washington’s current hard line after the “Alliance for Progress” became more and more discredited, has not helped stem the anti-U.S. tide on this continent. On the contrary, it has greatly accelerated the revolutionary process there. The situation in Latin America is volcanic. Even the U.S. press has had to admit that “in countries from one end of Latin America to the other, tensions are building up,” that “the danger is building up on our doorstep” and that no “effective answer” can be found.





              Facts on File
        U.S. Economic Penetration of Latin America in 1965

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #5, Jan. 28, 1966, pp. 17-18.]

              U.S. ECONOMIC penetration of Latin America U.S. reached new heights in 1965. A new round of intensified plunder of the continent’s strategic and other materials was entered, and Yankee monopolies grabbed off greater superprofits.

              Direct investments by private U.S. capital shot up during the year. According to figures released by the U.S. Department of Commerce, new direct investments in Latin America rose from $76 million in the first quarter of 1965 to $111 million in the second. In the first half of 1965, they surpassed the total in 1964.

              Other data from the same source listed total direct private U.S. investments in Latin America in 1964 as $8,932 million, and Time magazine reported (March 26, 1965) that by the spring of 1965 the overall total of such investments “stands at a record $9 billion.”

              Johnson’s Big Stick Serves U.S. Finance Capital. Wielding the big stick even more furiously, the Johnson Administration did all it could in 1965 to clear the path for private U.S. investments on the continent. According to another item in Time last spring, “The [U.S.] State Department has negotiated detailed agreements with 15 Latin American countries guaranteeing investors against losses from expropriation, currency inconvertibility, war, revolution or insurrection.” The Brazilian paper Tribuna da Imprensa reported on April 4, 1965, that under an agreement signed between the Branco regime and Washington, U.S. enterprises in Brazil now enjoyed the same diplomatic privileges as those of U.S. consulates, and disputes between the former and the Brazilian authorities were handled by the U.S. State Department.

              Washington has exerted harsh political and economic pressure on those Latin American countries which have resisted private U.S. investments because of their exorbitant terms. The Washington Post on November 14, 1965, divulged that U.S. “aid has been reduced as a means of pressuring the Peruvian Government into agreeing to an investment contract with the International Petroleum Co., owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey, that the Peruvians are reluctant to accept.”

              Bludgeoning such as this by Washington has whetted U.S. financial magnates’ appetites for still more investments. Early last February, a “Council of Latin America,” embracing 175 corporations belonging to three major U.S. business groups with financial magnate David Rockefeller as its head, was formed. The organization’s function is to plan and co-ordinate further economic penetration by private U.S. capital in Latin America.

              Vietnam War and Stepped-Up U.S. Plunder of Strategic Materials. Washington’s escalation of its aggressive war in Indo-China has been accompanied by stepped-up U.S. plunder of the continent’s strategic materials. The New York Vision Letter pointed out last August 4: “Continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam will have a major effect on Latin American exports of metals and other strategic goods.... Today, about 30 of the 77 items on the strategic materials list were imported in varying quantities from Latin America.”

              Many American businessmen visited Latin America last year. From agreements signed with Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Chile and British Guiana, they obtained for U.S. monopolies the right to explore, exploit and refine on a large scale such strategic materials as petroleum, copper and bauxite. The Aluminium Company of America signed an agreement with Brazil on jointly setting up an “aluminium complex” with an investment of $51 million and a projected yearly output of 25,000 tons. This would almost double Brazil’s present annual aluminium output. In 1965, the U.S.-owned Colombian Oil Company, International Petroleum Company and Texaco Corporation explored and exploited oil in Colombia in an area of more than 2,650,000 hectares; a 66 per cent increase in size over 1963. The American-owned Braden and Anaconda copper companies also signed an agreement with Chile last year to double the country’s copper exports within six years.

        The Facade of “Economic Integration,” “Development” and “Joint Enterprise.” Up against growing anti-U.S. sentiment in Latin America, Yankee monopolies are trying to hide their pillage behind a facade of “economic integration,” “public-owned enterprises” and “joint enterprises.” In Central America, the development of the “Central American economic integration” plan has brought on a flood of private U.S. capital which has set up subsidiaries or annexed local enterprises by virtue of “joint management.”

              Joint management of “development corporations” or “financial corporations” with Latin American private- or government-owned capital is another method by which U.S. finance capital tears off huge chunks of the continent’s economy and exercises political control. For example, the Inter-American Bank for Development and other U.S.-controlled financial organizations have sent personnel to the Amazon River area, which constitutes 42 per cent of Brazil’s territory, and to the Tachira River area in Venezuela and Colombia to map out “developmient” projects. The U.S. press disclosed that a “Tachira Valley Authority” was being planned and this would lead to substantial U.S. control over the oil, steel and manufacturing industries in that area.

        Forty Per Cent Profit Pate. Joint enterprise, whether with government- or private-owned companies, is thus a form of covering up and a means of stepping up ruthless U,S. plunder of Latin American wealth and exploitation of the Latin American people. The Braden and Anaconda copper companies, when they are in joint operation with Chilean firms, will have their profit tax slashed from the present 86 per cent to 44 per cent. As Chilean Congressman Aniceto Rodriguez pointed out, in 25 years these two companies will make almost as much profits as they earned in the last 50 years, which was $4,400 million. And from Wall Street itself comes the admission from a leading member of one of the top U.S. capitalist clans, David Rockefeller, that U.S. enterprises in Latin America are now operating there at an extremely high profit rate, sometimes as high as 40 per cent.




              World Trends
        Franco-American Antagonism Deepens
        by Hsin Wen

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #5, Jan. 28, 1966, pp. 18-19.]

            Franco-American conflict has become the principal contradiction within the disintegrating imperialist camp. The two-nation battle is not only going on inside the Western bloc, with Washington fighting a losing battle to retain domination and Paris resisting. The confrontation has become worldwide, covering a whole range of important political, economic and military problems.

        THE struggle often finds France acting on the offensive, challenging U.S. hegemony in the West. French attacks have shaken the aggressive military blocs under the American thumb, thus compounding the confusion in the imperialist camp.

              Rebuffed on all sides, Washington has always tried to defend its position and rebound from its reverses by doing everything possible to isolate and weaken Paris.

              Key points in Franco-American antagonism in the past year were:

              1) French President de Gaulle spoke out clearly against joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. domination of the world;

              2) France frowned upon the U.S. war in Vietnam and U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic and opposed the Johnson Administration’s attempt to drag its allies into its military adventures;

              3) Seeing that the position of the United States had been weakened in both cases, France challenged the United States in the United Nations and also rejected the dollar as a world currency.

              4) Taking advantage of the U.S. predicament in south Vietnam and other difficulties, France demanded a thorough shake-up of NATO, bringing the organization to the brink of collapse. It opposed the United States on the question of nuclear armament, a key NATO question.

              Soon after New Year, 1965, de Gaulle launched his offensive against the dollar—one of Washington’s weapons to maintain economic domination overseas and pursue neo-colonialist designs. At a press conference, the French President attacked the gold exchange standard—under which the dollar and pound sterling are accepted by the other Western countries to balance international accounts and as reserve holdings—and called for a return to the gold standard to end the privileged status of the dollar.

              Later, France quit the gold exchange standard bloc and turned in its large dollar holdings to the United States for gold. Other West European countries soon followed suit, which resulted in the outflow of a large amount of American gold and endangered the dollar’s stability and dominant position in the capitalist world.

              Another front opened by France in 1965 was to attack the U.S. tool for aggression—the United Nations. In 1964, France refused to share the expenses of the “U.N. force” which had served U.S. aggression in the Congo (L). In 1965, de Gaulle attacked the United Nations politically. At a press conference, he pointed out that the real cause for the U.N. crisis lay in its manipulation by a few big powers to interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Specifically, he accused the United States of manipulating the United Nations to adopt the resolutions sanctioning armed aggression against Korea and to interfere in the internal affairs of the Congo (L).

              At the U.N. Security Council discussion on the Dominican situation, France openly denounced the United States for sending marines to intervene in the Dominican Republic. During the U.N. General Assembly debate on the restoration of China’s legitimate seat, France also took issue with the United States.

              In order to internationalize its war of aggression in Vietnam, and in accordance with the shift in strategic stress to the Far East, the United States attempted to use SEATO and NATO to force its allies to serve its policy of aggression in Asia, first of all, to support its expansion of the war of aggression in Vietnam and opposition to China. On this question, France and other U.S. partners refused, in their own interest, to pull Washington’s chestnuts out of the fire.

              For various reasons, France has shown “disapproval” of the Johnson Administration’s war escalation in Vietnam and called for the “neutralization of Southeast Asia.” De Gaulle emphasized again in a recent electioneering speech that France did not wish to be dragged, under the pretext of “Atlantic integration,” into a war which it wanted no part of.

              Last year also saw France stepping up its offensive against the United States within the North Atlantic bloc—the traditional battlefield of the two countries—and even threatening a showdown. For years, Washington has assumed command over its allies’ armed forces in the name of military “integration.” Furthermore, it has tried to “dissolve” these forces in an “Atlantic community” in which the United States would safely rule the roost.

              De Gaulle, however, challenged the United States under the slogan of “national independence” and “Europe for the Europeans.” He openly announced that, in 1969 at the latest when the NATO pact is due to expire, France “will end, so far as we are concerned, the subordination described as integration ... which places our destiny in the hands of foreigners.”

              For the same motives, France has bitterly opposed Washington’s scheme to use nuclear weapons to control other NATO member nations. It has emphasized over and over that it must have its own nuclear power. It has resolutely opposed the U.S. attempt to let West Germany share nuclear weapons in any form—an American device to woo Bonn and turn West Germany against France. Paris is also strongly against the American designs to swallow up its independent nuclear power through Washington’s “multilateral nuclear force” plan. After this plan ran into difficulties, France again boycotted the new American proposal for the establishment of a NATO “special nuclear committee,” a proposal aimed at in part satisfying the West German ambition to possess nuclear weapons.

              Relations between Paris and Bonn also reflected French antagonism to the United States. Paris is not only against Bonn’s plan to acquire nuclear weapons through the United States, but also against its scheme to turn Western Europe, with American support, into a politically and economically integrated “federation” in which West Germany would get the upper hand by dint of its superior strength.

              Thus, when the Erhard government showed increased signs of depending mainly on the United States, France turned down West Germany’s pet plan to hold a meeting of the Common Market Six to discuss the question of political co-operation. Since the end of June 1965, France has boycotted all activities of the Common Market and thus inactivated the bloc for the last six months. The French boycott also killed the “Kennedy Round” talks on tariff and trade between the United States and the Common Market. This was a blow not only at West Germany but also at the United States.

              Greatly nettled by these French moves in the past year, Washington has tried, by both tough and soft means, to make Paris change its line; but all these attempts failed. Consequently, the Johnson Administration resorted to interference in France’s internal affairs. A month before the recent French presidential elections, the U.S. State Department launched a propaganda campaign with the obvious intention of disparaging de Gaulle. During the elections, the United States gave energetic support to the pro-U.S. presidential candidate. Nevertheless, to Washington’s regret, de Gaulle was re-elected despite U.S. meddling.

              France’s fight against U.S. domination will go on. France under de Gaulle cannot be expected to bow to Washington’s dictate and play second fiddle to the United States in tackling the problems of Europe. With the U.S. global position in general and its position in Europe in particular growing worse and worse, the tug of war between Washington and Paris is likely to become more fierce.
      
      
      

     
     
    顶端 Posted: 2007-12-18 01:48 | 1 楼
    weihong2
    级别: 论坛版主


    精华: 0
    发帖: 1693
    威望: 1694 点
    红花: 16930 朵
    贡献值: 0 点
    在线时间:406(小时)
    注册时间:2007-05-31
    最后登录:2009-08-25

     

    Peking Review: Contents Page
        Vol. 9, #6      February 4, 1966

        [The articles below with active links have been scanned in and posted on this site.
        Comments in brackets added by the MASSLINE.ORG editor.]

        The Week

            * U.S. Persecution of Negro Leader Protested   [About the sentencing of William Epton to prison.]
            * Afro-Asian Solidarity Unbreakable
            * Chinese Leaders Greet India’s National Day
            * Indian Intrusions Undeniable

        Articles and Documents

            “Strong Protest to British Government”. [About the British authorities allowing their Hong Kong colony to be used by the U.S. Navy as a base of operations in its war of aggression against Vietnam.]

            “China Resolutely Supports D.R.V.’s Just Stand
            — Chairman Liu Shao-chi Replies to President Ho Chi Minh”, January 30, 1966.

            “President Ho Chi Minh Writes to Chairman Liu Shao-chi”, January 24, 1966.
                  “Appendix: The Four-Point Stand of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam”

            “Johnson Resumes Bombing of North Vietnam:
            “The Biggest Hypocrite and Butcher of Our Times”

            “U.N. Has No Right Whatsoever to Discuss Vietnam Question”

            “Whom Is the Soviet Leadership Taking United Action With?”, by Observer.

            “The Soviet Government Once Again Exposes Itself”. [How the Soviets were working toward deals with the U.S. on the “non-proliferation of nuclear weapons” and other measures to “promote the easing of international tensions” at the same time the U.S. was greatly intensifying its war of aggression against Vietnam. Among other things this was allowing the U.S. to shift more troops from Europe to Vietnam.]

            “Further Remarks on the Sino-Cuban Trade Question”, by a responsible official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade

            “Britain’s Shaky Labour Government”, by Tung Fang-hsiang
            [Sidebar:] Britain Through Washington’s Eyes

            “On the Ideological Front:
            “Workers, Peasants and Soldiers Study Marxist Philosophy”

            “Applying Mao Tse-tung’s Thinking:
            “A Revolutionary Outlook in Treating Burns”

            “Publishing:
            “Workers’ and Peasants’ Philosophical Writings”

        Round the World

            * India: Pangs of Hunger
            * Ecuador: National Dignity March
            * Disarmament Conference: U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Deal
            * The Passing Show: LBJ’s Dumb Friends
            * News Notes: Taking Words from Nehru ... Living on Paint ... Who Is the Boss?




        Strong Protest to British Government

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, p. 4.]

              China has again lodged a strong protest with the British Government for offering Hongkong as a base of operations to the United States for expanding its war of aggression against Vietnam and for making war threats against the People’s Republic of China. The protest was contained in a note handed to the British Charge d’Affaires in Peking on February 4.

              The note says that two nuclear-powered U.S. naval vessels—the aircraft carrier Enterprise and the warship Bainbridge—taking part in the war of aggression against Vietnam, arrived in Hongkong on January 26. By January 31, there were assembled in Hongkong nine U.S. warships which will again proceed to the seas off Vietnam to join in operations. The note drew attention to the fact that the frequent visits to Hongkong by U.S. naval ships took place at a time when the United States is steadily expanding its war of aggression against Vietnam, brazenly declaring on January 31 the resumption of its bombing of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and wildly clamouring for an attack on China. Henry L. Miller, commander of U.S. Carrier Division 3, who is stationed on the Enterprise, met correspondents in Hongkong and shouted about war and made nuclear threats. “All the facts show,” says the note, “that the United States is more unscrupulously using Hongkong as a base of operation in its war of aggression against Vietnam and attempting further to use Hongkong as a spring-board for its future attack on China’s mainland.”

              The note recalls that on September 1, 1965, the Chinese Government lodged a stern protest with the British Government against the latter’s allowing the United States to use Hongkong as a base for aggression. The British Government equivocated in its reply note, but the fact is that, instead of taking effective measures to check various U.S. war preparations in Hongkong, it has since gone further to allow the United States to use Hongkong as a base for expanding its aggressive war and for threatening China’s security. According to reports, in 1965 U.S. aggressor warships entered Hongkong more than 300 vessel/times, and in the period between November 1965 and January 1966 the number was more than 100 vessel/times.

              The Chinese note stresses: “U.S. activities of war preparation in Hongkong involve grave consequences for Hongkong. In the circumstances in which China’s security is being increasingly menaced, the Chinese Government wishes once again to advise the British Government to weigh carefully the advantages and disadvantages, the gains and losses. The British Government must immediately take effective measures to stop all U.S. activities of war preparation in Hongkong and prevent Hongkong from serving as a base for U.S. aggressive activities any more. If the British Government refuses to come to its senses, but willingly acts as an accomplice of the U.S. aggressors and insists on being hostile to the peoples of Vietnam, China and the Southeast Asian countries, it will certainly eat the bitter fruits of its own making.”

              Renmin Ribao published an article by Commentator on January 31 warning the British Government for putting Hongkong at the disposal of the U.S. aggressors and for becoming more deeply involved than ever in the U.S. war of aggression in Vietnam.





        China Resolutely Supports D.R.V.’s Just Stand
        — Chairman Liu Shao-chi Replies to President Ho Chi Minh —

        [This letter is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6,
        Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 5-6, and is in response to a letter from
        Ho Chi Minh which is printed in the same issue.]

                *

                  U.S. aim is to turn southern Vietnam into its colony and military base and perpetuate the partition of Vietnam. So long as the United States does not give up its aim of occupying southern Vietnam, it will only be playing tricks to hoodwink people, no matter how many points it may put forward for a “peaceful settlement” of the Vietnam question.
                *

                  If the Vietnam question is to be settled, the United States must act in accordance with the four-point stand of the Government of the D.R.V., stop its aggression against the whole of Vietnam, withdraw its own forces and those of its vassal countries from southern Vietnam, recognize the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation as the only genuine representative of the south Vietnamese people and let the Vietnamese people settle their own problems by themselves.
                *

                  To whatever extent U.S. imperialism may expand its war and whatever may be the price we have to pay, the 650 million Chinese people will stand by the fraternal Vietnamese people in a joint struggle to thoroughly defeat the U.S. aggressors.


        Peking, January 30, 1966      

        Comrade Ho Chi Minh,
        President of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam,
        Hanoi.

        Respected and Dear Comrade President,

              I have received your letter of January 24 in which you strongly condemn the barbarous war of aggression waged by U.S. imperialism in Vietnam, thoroughly expose the peace plot of the Johnson Administration, reiterate the four-point stand of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam for a settlement of the Vietnam question and express the Vietnamese people’s determination to fight resolutely to the finish and never to submit to the U.S. imperialists’ threats. The Chinese Government and people firmly support the just stand of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam set forth in your letter.

              U.S. imperialist aggression is the root cause of the present grave situation in Vietnam. It is clear to all that, according to the 1954 Geneva agreements, the Vietnam question should have already been settled. But the United States has thoroughly trampled underfoot the Geneva agreements under which it has assumed obligations. It has fostered its puppet regimes in southern Vietnam, obstructed the peaceful reunification of Vietnam, slaughtered or imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese patriots, and launched an inhuman “special war” against, the south Vietnamese people. As it failed to win the “special war,” it has sent over huge forces for direct aggression in southern Vietnam and employed its air force units to bomb the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Obviously, the aim of the United States is to turn southern Vietnam into its colony and military base and perpetuate the partition of Vietnam.

              Recently, while escalating and intensifying its aggression against southern Vietnam, U.S. imperialism has suddenly assumed a posture of loving peace, “temporarily” stopped its bombing of northern Vietnam, put forward its 14 points for the “peaceful settlement” of the Vietnam question and sent a large number of officials to advertise everywhere the U.S. “sincere desire for peace.” However, empty talk about peace can in no way conceal the facts of aggression. The Johnson Administration has on many occasions proclaimed that the United States will never abandon its policy of aggression against Vietnam, and that it “will stay” in southern Vietnam. It is clear that so long as the United States does not give up its aim of seizing southern Vietnam for itself, it will only be playing tricks to hoodwink people and using different means to achieve this aim, no matter how many points it may put forward and what stuff it may put into its “basket of peace.”

              If the Vietnam question is to be settled, the United States must truly abide by the Geneva agreements. The four-point stand for a settlement of the Vietnam question set forth by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam is a concentrated expression of the essence of the Geneva agreements. If the U.S. Government really has any sincere desire for a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam question, it should act in accordance with this four-point stand, stop its aggression against the whole of Vietnam, withdraw all its own forces and those of its vassal countries from southern Vietnam, recognize the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation as the only genuine representative of the south Vietnamese people and let the Vietnamese people settle their own problems by themselves. But so far there has been no indication that the United States is ready to do so. On the contrary, it is continuing to send aggressive reinforcements to southern Vietnam, pursuing there the still more barbarous “scorched earth” policy of “burn all, destroy all, kill all,” and extending the flames of its war of aggression against Vietnam to Laos and Cambodia step by step. This shows that the United States does not really want a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam question but is using these “peace offensives” to cover up its designs of intensified expansion of its war of aggression.

              Respected and Dear Comrade President! The great struggle of the Vietnamese people against U.S. aggression and for national salvation is perfectly just. Your heroic deeds have inspired all revolutionary peoples, and your struggle has won the extensive sympathy and support of the peace-loving countries and people of the whole world. It is certainly not the Vietnamese people fighting for independence and freedom, but the U.S. imperialists persisting in policies of aggression and war, who are really isolated. The facts will prove that the farther U.S. imperialism goes along its path of war expansion, the nearer it will approach the day of its thorough defeat. China and Vietnam are neighbours closely related like the lips and the teeth; our two peoples are brothers sharing weal and woe. The Chinese people always unswervingly stand together with the Vietnamese people and wholeheartedly support and assist them in their just struggle. To whatever extent U.S. imperialism may expand its war and whatever may be the price we have to pay, we 650 million Chinese people will stand by the fraternal Vietnamese people in a joint struggle to thoroughly defeat the U.S. aggressors.

              Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration.

        (Signed) Liu Shao-chi                      
        Chairman of the People’s Republic of China      




        President Ho Chi Minh Writes to Chairman Liu Shao-chi

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4,
        1966, pp. 6-8. Liu Shao-chi’s reply is also available in this issue.]

            President Ho reaffirms the stand of the D.R.V. Government: so long as the U.S. army of aggression still remains on Vietnamese soil, the Vietnamese people will resolutely fight against it. He exposes Washington’s “search for peace” as a manoeuvre to cover up its schemes for intensified war of aggression. Washington’s 14 points mean nothing more than that the United States intends to hang on in south Vietnam. He strongly protests against the Johnson Administration’s extremely barbarous methods of warfare and calls on all peace-loving governments and peoples to stay the hand of the U.S. war criminals. He firmly believes that the fraternal Chinese people and Government will give increased support and assistance to the Vietnamese people’s just struggle and resolutely condemn the U.S. Government’s peace tricks.


        Hanoi, January 24, 1966      

        Comrade Liu Shao-chi,
        Chairman of the People’s Republic of China,
        Peking.

        Dear Comrade Chairman,

              I have the honour to call your attention to the war of aggression waged by the U.S. imperialists in our country, Vietnam.

              As is known to you, over the past 11 years and more, the U.S. imperialists have been seriously sabotaging the 1954 Geneva agreements and preventing the peaceful reunification of Vietnam in an attempt to turn south Vietnam into a U.S. new-type colony and military base. They are now waging a war of aggression and barbarously repressing the patriotic struggle of our fellow-countrymen in the south. At the same time, they try to draw experiences from this war to repress the national-liberation movement in other countries.

              In an endeavour to get out of the quagmire in south Vietnam, the U.S. imperialists have massively increased the strength of the U.S. expeditionary corps and sent in troops from a number of their satellites to wage direct aggression in south Vietnam. They have also launched air attacks on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, an independent and sovereign country and a member of the socialist camp.

              While intensifying and extending the war of aggression in Vietnam, the U.S. imperialists are clainouring about their “desire for peace” and their “readiness to engage in unconditional discussions,” in the hope of fooling world public opinion and the American people. Recently, the Johnson Administration has initiated a so-called “search for peace,” and put forward a 14-point proposal. As an excuse for its war of aggression in south Vietnam, it claims that it is “keeping its commitments” to the Saigon puppet administration. It slanders the patriotic struggle of the people of south Vietnam, calling it “an aggression by north Vietnam.” This deceitful contention can in no way rub out the solemn declaration made by the United States in Geneva in 1954 that “it will refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb them (i.e., the Geneva agreements).” Still less can President Johnson’s hypocritical allegations conceal the U.S. crimes in Vietnam.

              The United States talks about respecting the Geneva agreements. But one of the main provisions of the said agreements bans the introduction of foreign troops into Vietnam. If the United States really respects the agreements, it must withdraw all U.S. and satellite troops from south Vietnam.

              It is crystal clear that the United States is the aggressor who is trampling underfoot Vietnamese soil. The people of south Vietnam are the victims of aggression and are fighting in self-defence. If the United States really wants peace, it must recognize the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation as the sole genuine representative of the people of south Vietnam, and engage in negotiations with it. In accordance with the aspirations of the people of south Vietnam and the spirit of the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam, the National Front for Liberation is fighting to achieve independence, democracy, peace, and neutrality in south Vietnam, and to advance towards the peaceful reunification of the fatherland. If the United States really respects the right to self-determination of the people of south Vietnam, it cannot but approve this correct programme of the National Front for Liberation.

              The 14 points of the United States boil down in essence to this: the United States is trying hard to cling to south Vietnam, to maintain there the puppet administration rigged up by it, and to perpetuate the partition of Vietnam.

              In his January 12, 1966 message read before the U.S. Congress, President Johnson affirmed that it was the policy of the United States not to pull out of south Vietnam, and he forced the Vietnamese people to choose between “peace and the ravages of a conflict.” That is an impudent threat, an attempt to impose on the Vietnamese people the conditions of the so-called U.S. “unconditional discussions.”

              The Vietnamese people will never submit to the U.S. imperialists’ threats.

              At the very moment when the U.S. Government puts forward the so-called new “peace efforts,” it is frantically increasing the U.S. strength in south Vietnam. It is stepping up the terrorist raids, resorting to the “scorched earth” policy, burning all, destroying all, killing all, using napalm bombs, poison gases and toxic chemicals to burn down villages and massacre the civilian population in vast areas of south Vietnam.

              I strongly protest against such extremely barbarous methods of warfare. I earnestly call on all peace-loving governments and peoples the world over to resolutely stay the hands of the U.S. war criminals.

              The United States keeps sending its planes on espionage flights in preparation for new air attacks on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

              On the other hand, it is launching air attacks on many areas in the Kingdom of Laos, and multiplying armed provocations against the Kingdom of Cambodia, thus posing an even more serious menace to peace in Indo-China.

              Obviously, the U.S. “search for peace” is only designed to conceal its schemes for intensified war of aggression. The Johnson Administration’s stand remains: aggression and expansion of the war.

              To settle the Vietnam question, the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has put forward the four-point stand which is an expression of the essential provisions of the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam. This is a stand of peace.

              Having gone through over 20 years of war, the Vietnamese people desire peace more eagerly than anyone else to build their life. But real peace can by no means be dissociated from genuine independence. So long as the U.S. army of aggression still remains on our soil, our people will resolutely fight against it. If the U.S. Government really wants a peaceful settlement, it must accept the four-point stand of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and prove this by actual deeds: it must end unconditionally and for good all bombing raids and other war acts against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Only in this way can a political solution to the Vietnam problem be envisaged.

              Dear Comrade Chairman,

              So far, in the spirit of international solidarity, the people and Government of the fraternal People’s Republic of China have been giving wholehearted support and assistance to the Vietnamese people in their struggle against the U.S. imperialist aggressors, for the defence of their independence and freedom. On behalf of the Vietnamese people and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, I wish to express our deep gratitude to the people and Government of the fraternal People’s Republic of China.

              In face of the extremely serious situation brought about by the United States in Vietnam, I firmly believe that the people and Government of the fraternal People’s Republic of China will extend increased support and assistance to our people’s just struggle, resolutely condemn the U.S. Government’s sham peace tricks, and check in time all new perfidious manoeuvres of the United States in Vietnam and Indo-China.

              I take this opportunity to renew to you, Comrade Chairman, the assurances of my highest consideration.

        (Signed) Ho Chi Minh                          
        President of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam      

              Appendix:
        The Four-Point Stand of the Government
        of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

        IT is the unswerving policy of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam to strictly respect the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam, and to correctly implement their basic provisions as embodied in the following points:

              1. Reaffirmation of the basic national rights of the Vietnamese people: peace, independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity. In accordance with the Geneva agreements, the U.S. Government must withdraw all U.S. troops, military personnel and weapons of all kinds from south Vietnam, dismantle all U.S. military bases there, cancel its “military alliance” with south Vietnam. The U.S. Government must end its policy of intervention and aggression in south Vietnam. In accordance with the Geneva agreements, the U.S. Government must stop its acts of war against north Vietnam, cease all encroachments on the territory and sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

              2. Pending the peaceful reunification of Vietnam, while Vietnam is still temporarily divided into two zones, the military provisions of the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam must be strictly respected: the two zones must refrain from joining any military alliance with foreign countries, and there must be no foreign military bases, troops and military personnel on their respective territory.

              3. The internal affairs of south Vietnam must be settled by the people of south Vietnam themselves, in accordance with the programme of the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation without any foreign interference.

              4. The peaceful reunification of Vietnam is to be settled by the Vietnamese people in both zones, without any foreign interference.

              This stand unquestionably enjoys the approval and support of all peace- and justice-loving governments and peoples in the world.

              The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam is of the view that the above-expounded stand is the basis for the soundest political settlement of the Vietnam problem. If this basis is recognized, favourable conditions will be created for the peaceful settlement of the Vietnam problem and it will be possible to consider the reconvening of an international conference along the pattern of the 1954 Geneva Conference on Vietnam.

              The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam declares that any approach contrary to the above-mentioned stand ia inappropriate; any approach tending to secure a U.N. intervention in the Vietnam situation is also inappropriate because such approaches are basically at variance with the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam.

              (From the Report of Premier Pham Van Dong at the session of the National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on April 8, 1965.)





        President Ho Chi Minh Writes to Chairman Liu Shao-chi

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4,
        1966, pp. 6-8. Liu Shao-chi’s reply is also available in this issue.]

            President Ho reaffirms the stand of the D.R.V. Government: so long as the U.S. army of aggression still remains on Vietnamese soil, the Vietnamese people will resolutely fight against it. He exposes Washington’s “search for peace” as a manoeuvre to cover up its schemes for intensified war of aggression. Washington’s 14 points mean nothing more than that the United States intends to hang on in south Vietnam. He strongly protests against the Johnson Administration’s extremely barbarous methods of warfare and calls on all peace-loving governments and peoples to stay the hand of the U.S. war criminals. He firmly believes that the fraternal Chinese people and Government will give increased support and assistance to the Vietnamese people’s just struggle and resolutely condemn the U.S. Government’s peace tricks.


        Hanoi, January 24, 1966      

        Comrade Liu Shao-chi,
        Chairman of the People’s Republic of China,
        Peking.

        Dear Comrade Chairman,

              I have the honour to call your attention to the war of aggression waged by the U.S. imperialists in our country, Vietnam.

              As is known to you, over the past 11 years and more, the U.S. imperialists have been seriously sabotaging the 1954 Geneva agreements and preventing the peaceful reunification of Vietnam in an attempt to turn south Vietnam into a U.S. new-type colony and military base. They are now waging a war of aggression and barbarously repressing the patriotic struggle of our fellow-countrymen in the south. At the same time, they try to draw experiences from this war to repress the national-liberation movement in other countries.

              In an endeavour to get out of the quagmire in south Vietnam, the U.S. imperialists have massively increased the strength of the U.S. expeditionary corps and sent in troops from a number of their satellites to wage direct aggression in south Vietnam. They have also launched air attacks on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, an independent and sovereign country and a member of the socialist camp.

              While intensifying and extending the war of aggression in Vietnam, the U.S. imperialists are clainouring about their “desire for peace” and their “readiness to engage in unconditional discussions,” in the hope of fooling world public opinion and the American people. Recently, the Johnson Administration has initiated a so-called “search for peace,” and put forward a 14-point proposal. As an excuse for its war of aggression in south Vietnam, it claims that it is “keeping its commitments” to the Saigon puppet administration. It slanders the patriotic struggle of the people of south Vietnam, calling it “an aggression by north Vietnam.” This deceitful contention can in no way rub out the solemn declaration made by the United States in Geneva in 1954 that “it will refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb them (i.e., the Geneva agreements).” Still less can President Johnson’s hypocritical allegations conceal the U.S. crimes in Vietnam.

              The United States talks about respecting the Geneva agreements. But one of the main provisions of the said agreements bans the introduction of foreign troops into Vietnam. If the United States really respects the agreements, it must withdraw all U.S. and satellite troops from south Vietnam.

              It is crystal clear that the United States is the aggressor who is trampling underfoot Vietnamese soil. The people of south Vietnam are the victims of aggression and are fighting in self-defence. If the United States really wants peace, it must recognize the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation as the sole genuine representative of the people of south Vietnam, and engage in negotiations with it. In accordance with the aspirations of the people of south Vietnam and the spirit of the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam, the National Front for Liberation is fighting to achieve independence, democracy, peace, and neutrality in south Vietnam, and to advance towards the peaceful reunification of the fatherland. If the United States really respects the right to self-determination of the people of south Vietnam, it cannot but approve this correct programme of the National Front for Liberation.

              The 14 points of the United States boil down in essence to this: the United States is trying hard to cling to south Vietnam, to maintain there the puppet administration rigged up by it, and to perpetuate the partition of Vietnam.

              In his January 12, 1966 message read before the U.S. Congress, President Johnson affirmed that it was the policy of the United States not to pull out of south Vietnam, and he forced the Vietnamese people to choose between “peace and the ravages of a conflict.” That is an impudent threat, an attempt to impose on the Vietnamese people the conditions of the so-called U.S. “unconditional discussions.”

              The Vietnamese people will never submit to the U.S. imperialists’ threats.

              At the very moment when the U.S. Government puts forward the so-called new “peace efforts,” it is frantically increasing the U.S. strength in south Vietnam. It is stepping up the terrorist raids, resorting to the “scorched earth” policy, burning all, destroying all, killing all, using napalm bombs, poison gases and toxic chemicals to burn down villages and massacre the civilian population in vast areas of south Vietnam.

              I strongly protest against such extremely barbarous methods of warfare. I earnestly call on all peace-loving governments and peoples the world over to resolutely stay the hands of the U.S. war criminals.

              The United States keeps sending its planes on espionage flights in preparation for new air attacks on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

              On the other hand, it is launching air attacks on many areas in the Kingdom of Laos, and multiplying armed provocations against the Kingdom of Cambodia, thus posing an even more serious menace to peace in Indo-China.

              Obviously, the U.S. “search for peace” is only designed to conceal its schemes for intensified war of aggression. The Johnson Administration’s stand remains: aggression and expansion of the war.

              To settle the Vietnam question, the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has put forward the four-point stand which is an expression of the essential provisions of the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam. This is a stand of peace.

              Having gone through over 20 years of war, the Vietnamese people desire peace more eagerly than anyone else to build their life. But real peace can by no means be dissociated from genuine independence. So long as the U.S. army of aggression still remains on our soil, our people will resolutely fight against it. If the U.S. Government really wants a peaceful settlement, it must accept the four-point stand of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and prove this by actual deeds: it must end unconditionally and for good all bombing raids and other war acts against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Only in this way can a political solution to the Vietnam problem be envisaged.

              Dear Comrade Chairman,

              So far, in the spirit of international solidarity, the people and Government of the fraternal People’s Republic of China have been giving wholehearted support and assistance to the Vietnamese people in their struggle against the U.S. imperialist aggressors, for the defence of their independence and freedom. On behalf of the Vietnamese people and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, I wish to express our deep gratitude to the people and Government of the fraternal People’s Republic of China.

              In face of the extremely serious situation brought about by the United States in Vietnam, I firmly believe that the people and Government of the fraternal People’s Republic of China will extend increased support and assistance to our people’s just struggle, resolutely condemn the U.S. Government’s sham peace tricks, and check in time all new perfidious manoeuvres of the United States in Vietnam and Indo-China.

              I take this opportunity to renew to you, Comrade Chairman, the assurances of my highest consideration.

        (Signed) Ho Chi Minh                          
        President of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam      

              Appendix:
        The Four-Point Stand of the Government
        of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

        IT is the unswerving policy of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam to strictly respect the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam, and to correctly implement their basic provisions as embodied in the following points:

              1. Reaffirmation of the basic national rights of the Vietnamese people: peace, independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity. In accordance with the Geneva agreements, the U.S. Government must withdraw all U.S. troops, military personnel and weapons of all kinds from south Vietnam, dismantle all U.S. military bases there, cancel its “military alliance” with south Vietnam. The U.S. Government must end its policy of intervention and aggression in south Vietnam. In accordance with the Geneva agreements, the U.S. Government must stop its acts of war against north Vietnam, cease all encroachments on the territory and sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

              2. Pending the peaceful reunification of Vietnam, while Vietnam is still temporarily divided into two zones, the military provisions of the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam must be strictly respected: the two zones must refrain from joining any military alliance with foreign countries, and there must be no foreign military bases, troops and military personnel on their respective territory.

              3. The internal affairs of south Vietnam must be settled by the people of south Vietnam themselves, in accordance with the programme of the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation without any foreign interference.

              4. The peaceful reunification of Vietnam is to be settled by the Vietnamese people in both zones, without any foreign interference.

              This stand unquestionably enjoys the approval and support of all peace- and justice-loving governments and peoples in the world.

              The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam is of the view that the above-expounded stand is the basis for the soundest political settlement of the Vietnam problem. If this basis is recognized, favourable conditions will be created for the peaceful settlement of the Vietnam problem and it will be possible to consider the reconvening of an international conference along the pattern of the 1954 Geneva Conference on Vietnam.

              The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam declares that any approach contrary to the above-mentioned stand ia inappropriate; any approach tending to secure a U.N. intervention in the Vietnam situation is also inappropriate because such approaches are basically at variance with the 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam.

              (From the Report of Premier Pham Van Dong at the session of the National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on April 8, 1965.)




      
              Johnson Resumes Bombing of North Vietnam
        The Biggest Hypocrite and Butcher of Our Times

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 8-9.]

              THE Johnson Administration has resumed its savage bombing of north Vietnam after completing its war expansion deployment.

              Nobody was surprised at this action by U.S. imperialism. Clear-sighted people saw through Washington’s “peace offensive” long ago as nothing but a smokescreen to cover up the further expansion of its war of aggression in Vietnam. it was only a matter of time before the whole scheme was revealed. Now, by its own action, the Johnson Administration has completely exposed its “peace talks” fraud which it tried so hard to sell.

              Long ago Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out: “When we say ‘imperialism is ferocious,’ we mean that its nature will never change, that the imperialists will never lay down their butcher knives, that they will never become Buddhas, till their doom.” Today, the developments in the Vietnam situation once again prove this truth.

              Simultaneous with the resumption of its bombing of north Vietnam, the Johnson Administration has launched “five major operations” in south Vietnam to expand its war of aggression in Vietnam still further. The hideous features of the aggressors have once again been fully brought to light. U.S. imperialism is the biggest hypocrite and butcher of our times.



              The heroic Vietnamese people have been well tempered and steeled in their long years of struggle against imperialist aggression. They are neither frightened by the U.S. imperialist colossus, nor are they taken in by the honeyed words of the Johnson Administration. As soon as Washington’s “peace talks” fraud was trotted out, the Vietnamese people sternly exposed it for what it was and stood waiting in full battle array, ready to give the aggressors a firm rebuff. The first day the Johnson Administration resumed its bombing, the people of north Vietnam shot down five enemy planes. This fresh victory of the Vietnamese people is a forceful punishment for the U.S. aggressors.

              The resumption of bombing shows that U.S. imperialism is at the end of a blind alley on the question of Vietnam and that it is vainly hoping that it can get out of its difficulties by expanding the war. However, this can only bring about a bigger defeat for the U.S. aggressors. No matter how the Johnson Administration may struggle, it cannot change the situation that the Vietnamese people will win and U.S. imperialism will be defeated.

              Since U.S. imperialism is determined to fight a large-scale war in Vietnam, what should the peoples of the world do? There can be only one answer from them: Resolutely support the Vietnamese people and completely defeat the U.S. aggressors! The Chinese people have always stood together with the Vietnamese people. To whatever extent U.S. imperialism may expand the war and whatever may be the price we have to pay, we will resolutely support the Vietnamese people in their struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation to the end, until this struggle wins final victory.

        (“Renmin Ribao” editorial, February 1.)      




      
        U.N. Has No Right Whatsoever to Discuss Vietnam Question

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 9-10.]

              WHILE U.S. aircraft are raining bombs on north Vietnam, U.S. aggressor troops have gone on a rampage in the south. At this time, the U.S. delegate to the United Nations has again shamelessly dished up the “unconditional discussions” proposal which smells to high heaven and presented it as a “draft resolution” to the U.N. Security Council.

              Whom can U.S. imperialism deceive by asking the United Nations to discuss the Vietnam question at this moment, putting up a front of “upholding international peace”? No amount of sophistry can cover up its crime of quickening the pace for a widening war of aggression against Vietnam.

              The Vietnam question has nothing to do with the United Nations. No country in the world has the right to ask the United Nations to discuss this question, still less U.S. imperialism whose place as the chief culprit in aggression against Vietnam should be in the dock.

              The spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has pointed out that “on the international plane, consideration of the U.S. war acts in Vietnam falls within the competence of the 1954 Geneva conference on Indo-China, and not of the U.N. Security Council. Any resolution by the U.N. Security Council intervening in the Vietnam question will be null and void.” The Chinese people resolutely support this unshakable stand of Vietnam. Should anyone, disregarding this solemn affirmation of the Vietnamese people, continue to make eyes at U.S. imperialism or even join up with it, he will only succeed in revealing even more clearly his evil nature.

              The Vietnam question can only be solved in accordance with the principles and spirit of the Geneva agreements. Under present conditions, these principles and spirit find their concentrated expression in the four-point stand of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and in the five-part statement of the South Vietnam National Front for Liberation. All U.S. aggressors must quit S. Vietnam without exception; Vietnam’s affairs must be settled by the Vietnamese themselves. The United States will never succeed in its attempt to use the United Nations to help it in its war of aggression against Vietnam!

        (“Renmin Ribao” editorial, February 2, 1966.)      




        Whom Is the Soviet Leadership
        Taking United Action With?
        by OBSERVER

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 10-13.]

              WHAT sort of ware is the Soviet leaders’ much-advertised “united action”? This time the answer was provided by U.S. Vice-President Hubert Humphrey in his television talk on January 16.

              Accompanied by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Humphrey recently conferred in New Delhi with Alexei Kosygin, Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers. This was one of the most important contacts between leaders of the Soviet and U.S. Governments since the fall of Khrushchov. Humphrey disclosed that his meeting with Kosygin was “frank and candid. It was polite, reasonable.” Such talks were “always helpful to the common cause of peace,” he said. “Looking ahead for the next several years,” he added, U.S.-Soviet relations “can and should be improved.”

        Capitulationist Line

        “Responsible Citizen of the World Community.” If Humphrey’s remarks are a bit guarded about the true state of U.S.-Soviet collusion and the capitulationist line of the Soviet leaders, statements by other high-ranking U.S. officials are much more outspoken. Back on December 7, 1965, Rusk said: “We can take seriously the discussion of peaceful coexistence by the Soviet Union.” On December 9, Averell Harriman said that the United States and the Soviet Union had been brought “closer together” and they would “work in parallel together.” Earlier, on October 21, 1965, U.S. chief delegate to NATO Harlan Cleveland went even further. He praised “the Soviet Union’s conversion from ambitious outlaw to responsible citizen of the world community.”

              Indisputable facts prove that the new Soviet leadership has gone further than Khrushchov along the road of U.S.-Soviet collaboration. U.S. imperialism’s counter-revolutionary global strategy has the active support of the Soviet leaders.

        “Parallel” Actions. The United States and the Soviet Union have lately taken a series of steps in Asia which the Western press has described as “parallel” actions. The new items in the collusion between the Soviet leaders and U.S. imperialists in Asia include the vigorous peddling of Johnson’s “unconditional discussions,” the much-vaunted Tashkent talks, and the fast-developing “Japanese-Soviet amity.”

        The Soviet Leaders’ Stand on the Vietnam Question

              On the Vietnam question, the Soviet leaders have been steadily going hand in glove with the U.S. imperialists, busily running errands on behalf of Johnson’s “peace talks” intrigues.

        Background to Shelepin’s Visit to Vietnam. The Soviet delegation to Vietnam headed by A.N. Shelepin arrived in Hanoi amid the fanfare of “peace offensive” trumpets blown loudly by the Johnson Administration. What was Shelepin’s attitude to this gigantic fraud, this monstrous conspiracy of U.S. imperialism? He did not expose it, still less did he condemn it. But on the other hand the Soviet press, for obvious ulterior purposes, went out of its way during this period to extol the so-called “Tashkent spirit,” advocating “the settlement of questions through negotiations.” The “Tashkent spirit,” it proclaimed, “far exceeds the confines of the Indian subcontinent”; it even said that it was also “of great importance” to the whole of Southeast Asia. This kind of propaganda in the Soviet papers had the clear implication that the Vietnamese people ought to sit down at the conference table with the U.S. aggressors while allowing the latter to continue their occupation of south Vietnam.

        “Events in Vietnam Constitute a Menace to Peace”? If Shelepin felt it inconvenient to echo the Johnson Administration’s “peace offensive” openly in Hanoi, the Soviet leaders felt no such restraint in the Soviet-Japanese talks in Moscow. The joint Soviet-Japanese communique said not a single word about U.S. imperialism’s agression against Vietnam; instead, it declared in general terms that the two sides “stressed that the events in Vietnam constitute a menace to peace.” There is nothing surprising in the Japanese reactionaries saying this. The surprising thing is that the Soviet leaders should join the Japanese reactionaries in saying it. People may well ask: Since it is clearly U.S. aggression that constitutes the “menace to peace” on the Vietnam question, how can the Vietnamese people’s anti-U.S. struggle for national salvation in any way “menace” peace? Without distinguishing between the aggressor and its victim, between the just and the unjust, the Soviet leaders have joined with the Japanese reactionaries in charging that “the events in Vietnam constitute a menace to peace.” This provides fresh proof of their effort to extinguish the Vietnamese people’s raging, fiery struggle by putting up a pretence of “defending peace,” and thereby to bring the Vietnam question within the orbit of U.S.-Soviet collaboration.

              The U.S. imperialists, to say the least, understand and appreciate the Soviet leaders’ intentions. Following the Kosygin-Humphrey talks, McGeorge Bundy, special assistant to the U.S. President, was frank when he said on January 16: “It has been made clear to us over a long period of time that the Soviet Government hopes there can be a peaceful settlement [in Vietnam].” Humphrey also openly expressed the desire that the Soviet Union would exert “a moderating influence” on the Vietnam question. The nature of the shady deal the Soviet leaders are trying to make with the U.S. imperialists is as clear as daylight.

        The So-Called “Tashkent Spirit”

        Tashkent Talks—Product of Joint U.S.-Soviet Plotting. The Tashkent talks, which were initiated by the Soviet leaders, were also a product of joint U.S.-Soviet plotting. As soon as Moscow put forward the proposal for such a conference, Washington voiced approval. And the Johnson Administration lost no time in acclaiming the “Tashkent Declaration” when it was signed. Humphrey said without any reservation over television: “That was well done ... I expressed the commendation of our Government to Mr. Kosygin.”

        Attempt to Weaken the United Struggle Against Imperialism in Asia and Africa. During the India-Pakistan conflict, both the United States and the Soviet Union instigated and encouraged the Indian aggressors, and crudely pressured Pakistan which was acting in self-defence to safeguard its sovereignty. Why did they work hard in close co-ordination afterwards to bring the Indian and Pakistan leaders together to “make peace”? The truth is the Soviet leaders went to all that trouble to conjure up a “Tashkent spirit” for the simple reason that they wanted to continue backing up the Indian reactionaries and to use that “spirit” to publicize their general line of “peaceful coexistence,” in order to weaken the united struggle against imperialism in Asia and Africa. As far as U.S. imperialism was concerned, its purpose was to make common cause against China and push ahead with its global strategy, utilizing the Soviet leaders’ intervention in Asian affairs. The New York Times has pointed out that the interests of the United States and the Soviet Union “seem to coincide” on the India-Pakistan question. This remark pinpoints the reason for their united action.

        “Japanese-Soviet Amity”

        An Important Step in Pursuit of the Policy of U.S.-Soviet Collaboration for World Domination. The Soviet leaders’ stepped-up collusion with the Japanese reactionaries is an important step in pursuit of their policy of U.S.-Soviet collaboration for world domination.

              In the past year, the Soviet leaders have shown a special eagerness to express “friendship” towards the Sato government. The recent Soviet-Japanese talks were a great demonstration of the Soviet leaders’ eagerness for “Japanese-Soviet amity.” Ignoring the rapid revival of Japanese militarism under U.S. sponsorship, ignoring the fact that the “Japan-South Korea Treaty” is an instrument of aggression directed against the Korean Democratic People’s Republic and China, the Soviet leaders went so far as to praise the Japanese reactionaries as “a stabilizing force in Asia” and as occupying “a leading position in Asia.” They even expressed the hope that the Japanese reactionaries would “act in close co-ordination [with the Soviet Union] in the international community.” As a result of the Soviet-Japanese talks in Moscow, a number of agreements have been signed. One American paper wrote: “A warm zephyr is wafting between Moscow and Tokyo.”

        U.S.-Soviet-Japanese Triangle. The Soviet leaders’ burning desire to co-operate with the Japanese reactionaries is closely related to the U.S. imperialist policy of accelerating the revival of Japanese militarism. Gromyko admitted this in so many words when he said that “to work for the amicable development of Soviet-Japanese relations will do no harm to [Japan’s] relations with third countries.” He went further and made it clear that “by third countries is meant the Western powers.” In other words, the collaboration between the Soviet leaders and Japanese reactionaries will be carried out in the context of recognizing the “U.S.-Japan security set-up.” This makes it clear that Soviet-Japanese collaboration is in fact an extension of Soviet-U.S. collaboration.

        Serving U.S. Imperialist Policy of Encircling China

              The course taken by the Soviet leaders on the Vietnam, India-Pakistan and Japan questions completely conforms with the requirements of U.S. imperialism, and especially with the latter’s policy of encircling China.

        U.S. “Cordon” and Soviet “Containment Wall.” For a long time, U.S. imperialism has been unsparing in its efforts to build an arc as a “cordon” around China, stretching from India in the west to Japan in the east. The occupation of China’s Taiwan, the formation of the SEATO bloc, the revival of the Japanese militarist forces, the signing of the “Japan-South Korea Treaty,” the efforts to rig up a Northeast Asia military alliance, the fostering of the Indian reactionaries, the dispatch of massive forces to occupy south Vietnam and the armed intrusions into the various countries of Indo-China—all these are directed towards this same end. However, China’s steadily growing strength and international prestige and the vigorous development of the national-independence movements in Asia have been causing cracks and breaches in this U.S. imperialist “cordon.” Therefore the Khrushchov revisionists have come forward to help patch it up. Hence Humphrey’s remark that “the Soviets are trying to build a containment wall around communist China.”

              The loving care lavished by the Soviet leaders on the Indian reactionaries is intended to make India an instrument of joint U.S.-Soviet opposition to China, and a flank in the encirclement of China.

              Their exertions in hawking the “peace talks” swindle of the Johnson Administration are aimed at compelling the Vietnamese people to cease their struggle to resist U.S. aggression and save their country and turning Indo-China into a sector of the joint U.S.-Soviet effort to “contain” China.

              Likewise, the “amity” the Soviet leaders are showing the Japanese reactionaries stems from the requirements of opposition to China. The Japanese reactionaries understand this perfectly. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed the opinion that the special goodwill recently shown by the Soviet Union to Japan was a “link in the strategy to isolate communist China.” It is no accident that Japan has now shifted the emphasis of its military deployment from the north to the west, which is nearer to China, and has stepped up the establishment of missile bases in Kyushu.

              To help U.S. imperialism consolidate its positions for encircling China, the Soviet leaders have gone to the lengths of sending delegates to sit side by side at the conference table with its lackeys, the Chiang Kai-shek gang, and the south Vietnamese and south Korean puppet groups, and to discuss what they call the “cause” of “Asian development.”

              L.I. Brezhnev, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, recently led a large delegation to Mongolia. It is not hard to see what they were up to.

              In a word, the Khrushchov revisionists are ready to do anything in order to co-ordinate with U.S. imperialism in its opposition to China.

        Policy of Appeasement in Europe

              Simultaneously with their stepped-up collusion with U.S. imperialism in Asia, the Soviet leaders are pressing further ahead with their policy of appeasement in Europe.

        One Retreat After Another on European Question. On the European question, Khrushchov on several occasions fired blank shots about “the conclusion of a German peace treaty” and he made some empty gestures on the West Berlin question. But since taking office the new Soviet leaders have hauled down the flag and muffled the drums in an effort to “freeze” the European status quo. After visiting the Soviet Union in July last year Averell Harriman said confidently: “The status quo, at least for the foreseeable future, is what the Russians want in Europe. I don’t believe Moscow will be interested in discussing a German settlement in the next five or six years.” At the beginning of November last year, the headquarters of the U.S. Army in Europe officially declared: “The Berlin crisis has ended and no new Eastern threat is expected soon.” In fact, the U.S. policy of fostering West German revanchist forces remains unchanged. There is no real relaxation in the situation in Europe. The temporary shelving by the United States of the multilateral nuclear force plan, the central aim of which is to arm West Germany with nuclear weapons, is only a gesture. Yet the Soviet leaders have made one retreat after another on the European question. This is of great service to U.S. imperialism in its global strategy. It is under these conditions that U.S. troops in Western Europe are being constantly transferred eastward to south Vietnam.

        Accomplices of U.S. Imperialism. Whatever flag the Soviet leaders may wave, whatever signboard they may put up, they cannot, in the face of this weight of evidence, hide the fact that they have long degenerated into accomplices of U.S. imperialism in its opposition to the revolutionary people of Asia, Africa and Latin America, and to the revolutionary people, all over the world.

              Is the United States completely satisfied with the Soviet leaders who are so hard at work serving its global strategy? No, not quite. At present, what U.S. imperialism feels particularly dissatisfied with is that the Soviet leaders have not accomplished their mission on the Vietnam question. They resorted to both pressure and deception but failed to make the Vietnamese people lay down their arms and agree to Johnson’s “unconditional discussions.” Therefore while praising the Soviet leaders, U.S. imperialism also complains about them. In this respect, Hubert Humphrey’s remarks are typical. He said that the Soviet leadership “still is not exactly a loving partner of the United States of America.”

        Capitulationist Line Meets a Host of Difficulties

              The Soviet leaders have failed to give the United States complete satisfaction not because they are unwilling, but because they are unable to do so. Their line of capitulation to U.S. imperialism violates the interests of the people throughout the world, including the Soviet people, and they cannot but therefore come up against a host of difficulties.

        Vietnamese People Not to be Taken in by “Peace Talks” Fraud. How can the Soviet leaders compel the Vietnamese people to surrender and give up the struggle against U.S. aggression and for national salvation? The Vietnamese people refuse to be slaves in a subjugated nation, they are determined not to be taken in by Johnson’s “peace talks” fraud. In his recent letter to heads of state, President Ho Chi Minh declared: “So long as the U.S. army of aggression still remains on our soil, our people will resolutely fight against it.” In the face of the persevering struggle of the heroic Vietnamese people, the Munich scheme of the Soviet leaders will inevitably be seen through by increasing numbers of people.

        Revolutionary Struggles Cannot Be Stamped Out. How can the Soviet leaders possibly stamp out the revolutionary struggles of the peoples of the world? So long as imperialism and the reactionaries exist in the world, the oppressed peoples and nations are bound to rise up in revolution. This is the mighty current of world historical development which cannot be stemmed by U.S. imperialism or the Soviet leaders, or by the two acting together.

        China Perseveres in Marxism-Leninism. How can the Soviet leaders succeed in helping U.S. imperialism to encircle and “contain” China? China today is no longer the old China of pre-liberation days, nor is it the China of the immediate post-liberation period; it is an increasingly powerful socialist country which is persevering in Marxism-Leninism. China has a growing number of friends, its international prestige is rising higher and higher, and it is playing an ever greater role in international affairs. China is the greatest obstacle to the U.S. imperialists’ counter-revolutionary strategy for world domination, as well as to the Soviet leaders’ general line of U.S.-Soviet collaboration to dominate the world.

        The Soviet People Won’t Approve. It is difficult for the Soviet leaders to get their line of U.S.-Soviet collaboration approved by the great Soviet people. It is inconceivable that the Soviet people, who have a glorious revolutionary tradition and who for a long time had Lenin and Stalin as their teachers, will permit the Soviet leaders to unscrupulously push through to the end a line of capitulation to U.S. imperialism detrimental to the interests of the world’s people and the Soviet people themselves.

        Two-Faced Tactics

              Because of the reasons mentioned above, the Soviet leaders, in the course of pushing ahead with their line of capitulation to U.S. imperialism, are forced by circumstances to make increasing use of two-faced tactics and offer some anti-imperialist gestures to deceive the people of the world. This shows the cunning of the Soviet leaders, and also their weaknesses.

        Praise and the Lash. U.S. imperialism has seen through the weaknesses of the Soviet leaders. The U.S. imperialists express understanding towards the two-faced tactics of the Soviet leaders, but at the same time feel somewhat uncertain about them. At times, they lavish a few words of praise on the Soviet leaders and at times they use the lash a bit. The whole purpose is to make the Soviet leaders serve them better and co-ordinate with them better.

              Past and recent events show that cunning as the Soviet leaders are, they have to dance to the tune of the U.S. imperialists. They do not scruple to betray the interests of the people of the Soviet Union and of the other socialist countries, and the interests of the people of the whole world; they do not scruple to sell out Vietnam, to unite with the United States to oppose China; and they have gone further and further down the road of betrayal.

        Humphrey Reveals Soviet Leaders’ True Colours. Hubert Humphrey’s television remarks once again unmask the Soviet leaders. They have been prattling about “united action” but with whom, after all, do they unite? They are not uniting with the Marxist-Leninists or with the revolutionary people of the world but with U.S. imperialism, the greatest aggressor of the present era. In so doing the Soviet leaders are simply revealing themselves still further in their true colours as renegades. The people of the world will never forgive them, and the Soviet people will never forgive them. They cannot escape the punishment of history.

        (“Renmin Ribao,” February 2, 1966.)      





        The Soviet Government Once Again Exposes Itself

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, p. 14.]

              JUST when the Johnson Administration is speeding up the pace towards a wider war of aggression against Vietnam, the Soviet Government is ready to make a new deal with U.S. imperialism.

              In his “7-point programme” to the 17-nation disarmament conference which resumed its meeting on January 27 in Geneva, Johnson called for agreement on “non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.” The representative of the Soviet Government, Semyon Tsarapkin, openly told reporters that “non-proliferation of nuclear weapons” was one of the issues “that are ripe for solution” and that there was a possibility of agreement. The Soviet Union, he said, was “prepared ta sign a non-proliferation agreement as soon as possible.”

              The U.S. Administration declared that the “differences among the members of the conference on Vietnam ... make our common interest in preventing nuclear spread and curbing the nuclear arms race all the more important to pursue.” And the Soviet government delegate said: “I do not want to make our discussions dependent on Vietnam.”

              The United States and the Soviet Union join in a duet - all very harmonious and chummy!

              U.S. imperialism is right now running up increased military expenses, calling for more draftees and stepping up its armament supplies. It is transferring troops from Western Europe and the Atlantic to Asia and the Pacific. It is continuing to “escalate” its war of aggression against Vietnam and trying to expand it to the whole of Indo-China and even to China. Obviously the Johnson Administration thinks that its plan for a wider war in Vietnam and Asia in general makes its “common interest” with the Soviet leaders “all the more important to pursue.”

              The Soviet leaders, it would seem, are no less eager than Johnson to pursue their “common interest” with U.S. imperialism. This is putting things mildly. Indeed, it is shocking to find the leaders of what is said to be the most powerful socialist country deserting another socialist country which is being subjected to ruthless aggression, and seeking agreement with U.S. imperialism, even declaring that, in doing so, the Vietnam question can be set aside. But it is a fact. This clearly shows to what depths the Soviet leaders have sunk in their quest for American-Soviet co-operation.

              The speech by the Soviet government delegate in Geneva is another self-exposure. It shows that the high-sounding utterances made in the past by the Soviet leaders are not worth a brass kopeck. It may be recalled that the Soviet Government had issued a statement telling the United States that it could not expect to improve American-Soviet relations when it was making armed attacks on Vietnam. And yet the delegate of the same government said in Geneva that the Vietnam question could be set aside and agreement could be reached with the United States on what he called “measures facilitating the easing of international tensions.” What can this volte-face be if it is not deliberate betrayal?

              It cannot be that the Soviet leaders have forgotten what they said. The fact is they never suit their actions to their words. Once action is to be taken, whatever fine words they have uttered are of no consequence.

              The struggle now being waged by the great Vietnamese people to resist U.S. aggression and save their country is the focus of all the struggles of the peoples of the world against U.S. imperialism. How to treat the Vietnam question is the touchstone by which to test whether one is truly against U.S. imperialism or only pretending, and whether one wants genuine peace or sham peace. It is inconceivable that one can speak of “the easing of international tensions” at a time when U.S. imperialism is further expanding its war of aggression against Vietnam and wildly slaughtering the Vietnamese people. What Johnson wants to achieve at the Geneva disarmament conference is merely to benumb the people of the world and gloss over the sinister designs of the United States to expand its aggressive war. In their eagerness to reach agreement with the United States for the sake of “common interest,” the Soviet leaders are, in reality, helping U.S. imperialism to deceive the peoples and conniving with it in its attempt to widen the war and slaughter still more people in Vietnam.

              Aren’t the Soviet leaders crying for “united action” day in and day out? It should be noted with whom they are taking united action! They must be told frankly that so long as they take united action with U.S. imperialism, no Marxist-Leninist, no revolutionary people in the world will take united action with them.

        (“Renmin Ribao” editorial, January 30, 1966.)      




        Further Remarks on the Sino-Cuban Trade Question
        by a responsible official of the
        Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 15-16.]


                *

                  The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade failed to answer the crucial question: Why did Prime Minister Castro, suddenly on the eve of the Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference, unilaterally and untruthfully make public the contents of the preliminary Sino-Cuban trade negotiations for 1966 which were still going on?
                *

                  Cuba began rice rationing in 1962 but there has been no increase in the ration for the Cuban population even when China increased exports to Cuba. It is true China’s export of rice to Cuba in 1966 will be less than in 1965 but it will exceed 1962 and equal 1963 and 1964. This being the case, how can the Cuban side arbitrarily connect the cut in the Cuban rice ration with the question of Sino-Cuban trade?


              On January 12, “Granma,” organ of the Communist Party of Cuba, published the reply of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade to the remarks made by a responsible official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade in an interview with a Hsinhua News Agency correspondent on January 9 (see “Peking Review,” No. 3, 1966). In its reply the Cuban Ministry of Poreign Trade tried in many ways to defend Prime Minister Fidel Castro’s statement on trade between China and Cuba in his January 2 speech and declared that the remarks of the responsible official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade were “incomprehensible.”

              In this connection, a Hsinhua correspondent has again interviewed the responsible official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade, who made the following remarks (“Renmin Ribao,” while publishing these remarks on January 31, also reprinted the full text of the reply by the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade as released by “Granma” on January 12): —Ed.

              WE have carefully studied the reply of the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade and we think that it has failed to answer the crucial question raised in my remarks on January 9, namely, why did Prime Minister Castro unilaterally and untruthfully make public the contents of the preliminary Sino-Cuban trade negotiations for 1966 suddenly on the eve of the Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference when the negotiations were going on and when the Cuban Government could very well raise its differing views and demands, if any, to the Chinese Government? Instead of answering this key question, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade expatiated on minor details, but even on these its arguments are unreasonable and completely untenable.

              For instance, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade asserted that according to the volume of trade for 1966 discussed in the preliminary negotiations by the delegations of the Ministries of Foreign Trade of the two countries, the value of China’s exports to Cuba would be below that of any of the years since 1961. This is completely groundless. It is clear that the volume of trade for 1966 discussed by the two delegations in the preliminary negotiations can only be rationally compared with the annual volume of trade decided upon by the two Governments for the previous years, if any comparison is to be made; comparison on any other basis will be irrational. According to the imports and exports listed in the annexes to the trade protocols signed by the two Governments each year, the annual volume of trade (in million pesos) between China and Cuba as from 1961 are as follows:
        Year     China’s Exports
        to Cuba     Cuba’s Exports
        to China     Total Volume
        of Trade
        1961     108.00         98.00         206.00    
        1962     62.00         80.00         142.00    
        1963     77.61         70.77         148.38    
        1964     95.11         81.11         176.22    
        1965     127.00         97.00         224.00    
        1966     (84.50)        (84.00)        (168.50)  

        (The 1966 figures are those discussed in the preliminary negotiations.)

              It can be seen from the above figures that even according to the volume of trade discussed by the two delegations in the preliminary negotiations, the value of China’s exports to Cuba in 1966 will be above that of 1962 or 1963, although it will be below that of 1965; it will in no way be below that of any of the years since 1961. This is well backed by facts, and the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade could have got the same figures just by referring to the annexes to the trade protocols signed by the representatives of both Governments in the past years. But it compiled a table of statistics with figures of three different categories. Those for 1961-64 are the actual annual values of Cuba’s imports and exports vis-a-vis China, that for 1965 is the figure in the annex to the trade protocol of the same year, while that for 1966 is the volume of trade discussed in the preliminary negotiations by the delegations of the Ministries of Foreign Trade of the two countries. How can one present a correct concept of the increase or decrease in the volume of trade between the two countries by comparing figures of three categories, each calculated on a different basis?

              Secondly, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade spent much effort in compiling some nondescript figures to prove that what Prime Minister Castro affirmed about the exchange of two tons of Cuban sugar for one ton of Chinese rice was “absolutely true.” This attempt at justification is quite absurd. As a matter of fact, in the trade between China and Cuba there has never been any exchange of two kinds of commodities in direct ratio with each other. The more than a thousand kinds of commodities traded between the two sides every year, including sugar and rice, have each been priced on its own. The question of exchange between one individual kind of commodity and another simply does not exist. It was only after Prime Minister Castro proposed on October 1, 1964, to exchange sugar for rice that there appeared the term “rate of exchange between sugar and rice.” At that time Prime Minister Castro expressed the hope of Cuba to exchange one and a half kilogrammes of sugar for one kilogramme of Chinese rice, but China did not accept the proposal. This is a matter of record. No matter how the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade may argue, it cannot change the fact that the Cuban side has never proposed to the Chinese side to exchange two tons of sugar for one ton of rice.

              Thirdly, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade said that it was not necessary for the Cuban side to “try to secure a credit” since the delegation of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign trade had indicated that the Chinese-proposed volume of trade for 1966 was the maximum and that there should be a balance between the two sides in the volume of trade. This assertion is spurious. The negotiations between the delegations of the Ministries of Foreign Trade of our two countries are of a preliminary nature. These delegations naturally can only propose the maximum volumes within the terms of reference of the preliminary negotiations. As for balance in trade, it is a principle guiding the trade between our two countries, which has been explicitly stipulated in the Sino-Cuban trade protocols of the previous years. But this does not prevent the use of loans to make up for the imbalance which may actually appear in the trade between the two countries. This has been done by Cuba throughout the past years. In the current preliminary negotiations, the delegation of our Ministry has mentioned the principle of balance in trade on the one hand and on the other suggested that the Cuban side consult the Chinese authorities concerned on the use of the economic co-operation loan. But instead of doing so, the Cuban side tried to shift the responsibility on to us. This does not carry conviction. People cannot help asking: This year why doesn’t Cuba do the same as it did in the past few years?

              The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade further said that as the amount of rice China preliminarily agreed to supply had decreased, the Cuban Government had to explain to the Cuban people that it would be necessary as from January 1966 to reduce the per capita rice ration from six to three pounds per month. The amount of the monthly rice ration for the Cuban population is, of course, entirely an affair of the Cuban Government. However, since the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade has linked up this issue with Sino-Cuban trade, we cannot but clarify the matters which involve us.

              So far as we know, Cuba started to ration rice at the monthly quota of six pounds per capita in 1962. In that year China exported to Cuba 120,000 tons of rice. Then, in 1963 and 1964, China exported to Cuba 135,000 tons of rice each year, but the rice ration for the Cuban population remained unchanged. In 1965, China’s export of rice to Cuba nearly doubled, yet there was still no increase in the Cuban rice ration. According to the figures discussed by the two sides in the preliminary negotiations, China’s export of rice to Cuba in 1966 will indeed be less than that in 1965, but it will exceed 1962 and equal 1963 and 1964. In the face of these facts, how can one arbitrarily connect the cut in the Cuban rice ration with the question of Sino-Cuban trade?

              If the Cuban side, truly because of difficulties in foreign relations, genuinely hoped that China would export more rice to Cuba in 1966, it could very well have raised the matter in negotiations at a higher level as it did in the past. But at a time when the preliminary negotiations between the delegations of the Ministries of Foreign Trade of the two countries are still going on, the Cuban side has unilaterally and untruthfully made public the contents of the negotiations and tried to shift on to China the responsibility for the cut in the rice ration for its population. This really compels us to suspect that in doing this the Cuban side is after something else.

        *       *       *

              Finally, the responsible official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade said: In the trade negotiations between China and Cuba in the past few years some questions cropped up each year, but results satisfactory to both sides were always attained. We sincerely hope that the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Trade, treasuring the friendship between the peoples of China and Cuba, will facilitate the smooth progress of the trade negotiations for 1966 through friendly consultations.





        Britain’s Shaky Labour Government
        by Tung Fang-hsiang

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 17-22.]

                  Clinging to office by a wafer-thin majority in the Commons, the Wilson government has had few balmy days in its 15 months of existence. As monopoly capital’s watch-dog and U.S. imperialism’s accomplice, the Labour government has been described as the weakest and most unpopular administration in postwar Britain. Mounting political uncertainty, a balance of payments crisis and unending financial and economic difficulties—all of which keep Wilson on a razor’s edge and may force him to go to the country at any time—offer his administration small prospects of a breather in 1966.


              MORE than 15 months have gone by since Labour scraped home in Britain’s general elections and became Whitehall’s new tenant. As head of the third Labour government since World War II, Harold Wilson came into office at a time when British imperialism faced an ever deepening crisis. After 13 years’ rule, the failure-ridden Tories had been forced to step down and Labour took over running the British establishment.

              Since that time, the struggles of the revolutionary people of the world against U.S.-led imperialism and its stooges have grown in momentum and the contradictions between the imperialist countries themselves have become more acute. This has had inevitable repercussions on Britain where the political situation has been in a state of flux, the clash of interests between the ruling and the oppressed classes has sharpened and the economy has stagnated. All these, together with the worsening sterling crisis and the rapid disintegration of its colonial system, spell out tough going for the Labour government which is the weakest, most unstable and most unpopular administration Britain has had since the end of World War II.

              The Wilson government is British monopoly capital’s faithful watch-dog. Its ruthless exploitation and oppression of the working people at home have reduced their living standard and, as a result of intensified armament expansion and war preparation efforts, many have been forced to leave Britain and serve as cannon-fodder in colonial wars or wars of aggression. Wilson and his men have been active accomplices of U.S. imperialism, worked hand in glove with the modern revisionists and fostered the reactionaries of various countries in trying to suppress the revolutionary movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. But these anti-communist and anti-popular policies, which point up the truculence of the British imperialists have come home to roost with the Wilson administration and have plunged Britain into deeper trouble.

        Unstable Political Situation and a Vulnerable Government

        Paper-Thin Majority. Wilson formed the government after Labour won the general elections in October 1964 with a small majority of five seats, which was later reduced to three. By the first week of November last year it dropped to one as the result of the deaths of Labour M.P.s. At present, of the 630 seats, Labour has 315, Conservatives 302, Liberals 9, three go to the Speaker, the Chairman (Deputy Speaker) and the Vice-Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means who do not vote in the House of Commons, and the remaining seat is vacant. Labour’s precarious position could lead to total collapse at any time. In May last year, it barely managed to scrape through with a majority of one when the vote was taken on an Opposition’s amendment to the Finance Bill. In early July when the same bill was debated, the Conservatives tabled three amendments and defeated the Labour government by 13, 14 and 15 votes in quick succession. Only behind-the-seenes consultations between the two parties saved Wilson from surrendering office. That the Labour government has managed to cling to office under the strains of a paper-thin majority makes a great mockery of the bourgeois two-party system’s sham democracy.

              In its desperate effort to hold on to a majority in votes and thus to better meet the Opposition’s attacks in the Commons, the Wilson government has resorted to all kinds of gimmicks. It has prescribed that its ministers should attend every session of Parliament. Eight Labour M.P.s have asked to retire because of old age or failing health. Their requests were turned down, however. To guarantee that sick M.P.s attend every session, beds were installed in the lobby. When the time came to vote, some of them were carried in on stretchers, thereby giving Parliament the air of a hospital ward. No Labour M.P., it was also prescribed, should absent himself from the House of Commons on pain of disciplinary action without first “pairing” with a Tory who has also promised not to be present. As another precautionary measure against a crisis that may result from the absence of Labour M.P.s, vote by proxy has recently been proposed.

        “Hilson” and “Weath.” How did the Wilson government manage to last so long in view of its shaky position? The answer is that Labour, following virtually the same domestic and foreign policies as the Conservatives, has become an obedient servant of big monopoly capital. Making no bones about the fact that Labour and Tory are birds of a feather, the British press calls Wilson “Hilson” and Heath, the Tory leader, “Weath.” To keep itself in power, Labour tries to enter into a de facto alliance with the Liberal Party or, failing this, to prevent an alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberals in Parliament. Exploiting to the full the present situation of a small majority in the Commons, Labour’s Right-wing leaders are doing everything to force the so-called Left-wing back-benchers into line, warning them not to “rock the boat” or commit “political suicide.” Wilson has invited several leaders of the party’s former “Bevan faction” to join his government and has appointed Shinwell, an elder Labour statesman, to be the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. In order to silence mounting criticism of the government’s handling of home affairs, Wilson reshuffled his cabinet on December 22. All this was done to keep the Labour M.P.s under his thumb. Wilson even appointed monopoly capital bigwigs top advisers to his cabinet. On major questions of policy, he has never failed to consult with Tory leaders Heath or Home behind the scenes. In this way, the Labour government has temporized and tided over the crises.

        Day-to-Day Viability. Notwithstanding all these devices, the Wilson government will be forced to dissolve Parliament and announce general elections at any time if any one of the following arises: a combined non-confidence vote by Conservatives and Liberals; defeat of Labour’s important bills; loss of an overall majority in the Commons resulting from further setbacks in by-elections; an emergency crisis which Labour cannot surmount. This clearly indicates the government’s vulnerability, Britain’s internal instability and the utter bankruptcy of the Labour Party’s rule. Wilson himself would have liked to have held another general election at an opportune moment in order to secure a greater majority in the House of Commons. But since taking office, he has had a difficult time coping with the situation both at home and abroad. Beset with difficulties for which he has only makeshift solutions, he has to content himself with a day-to-day viability.

        Worsening Economy and Sharpening
        of Class Contradictions

        Sterling Crisis. The pound has been in the throes of a crisis and on the verge of devaluation several times. Britain’s international financial position has never been as weak as it is now. Though there have been signs of a slight turn for the better since last September, the sterling crisis is far from ended.

              Contributing factors to this include: long-time stagnation in industrial production and Britain’s weakened position as a result of cut-throat inter-imperialist competition for markets. The total value of Britain’s national output, down from one-fifth to one-seventh that of the United States, has already been outstripped by West Germany. Britain’s share in the export of capitalist world manufactures fell from 22 per cent in 1953 to 13.7 in 1964. Its share in the total volume of exports to the sterling area plummeted from 58 per cent in 1954 to 38 per cent in 1963; during the same period its exports to countries outside the sterling area also dropped from 13 to 11.9 per cent.

        Large Deficits in Balance of Payments. At a time of a general decline in trade among the capitalist countries and when the major imperialist countries are restricting imports and increasing exports in dog-eat-dog competition with each other, Britain’s economy has suffered a staggering blow. A large deficit in the balance of payments has brought with it the sterling crisis. The causes of this unfavourable balance are manifold. First, huge military expenditures. The military budget climbed from 1,700 million pounds in 1961 to 2,100 million in 1965. Well-informed sources claim that Britain spends 15 per cent of its national output, and not 7 per cent as announced by the British Government, on armaments and war preparations. Second, the crucial factor in the severity of the 1964-65 balance of payments crisis was increased government expenditures overseas, mainly for military purposes. Government expenditures abroad on current account totalled 695 million pounds in the three-year period 1953-55. In 1962-64 they totalled 1,304 million. This increase of more than 600 million alarmed the British rulers. Third, increase in overseas investment—200 million to 300 million pounds of private investment and some 150 million pounds of foreign “aid” per year in the postwar period. These huge expenditures and the widening trade gap account for Britain’s serious deficits in the balance of payments in the past few years. In 1964, the deficit was 765 million pounds and last year it was about 450 million. It decreased by less than half, but the deficit is still the pound’s Achilles’ heel.

        Helping Big Monopoly. To save the pound, the Labour government has adopted a series of reactionary measures favourable to big monopoly and unfavourable to the people. Last year, Britain had to ask for massive loans from the International Monetary Fund and other foreign creditors totalling more than 3,500 million dollars; it raised the bank rate to 7 per cent, resorted to two “little budgets” as stop-gap measures and introduced drastic measures in July. In addition, there were the credit squeeze, restriction on bank loans, increased taxation, cutting back of social services, reduction in local government housing mortgages, restraint on wages, cuts in public investment and government expenditures, premiums on exports, and a surcharge and restrictions on imports. All these are aimed at shifting the burden of the sterling crisis and financial and economic difficulties on to the people of Britain, its colonies and the Commonwealth.

        Harming the Working Class. Labour has gone to great lengths to undermine the interests of the British working class. The main purpose of so-called industrial rationalization and automation is to use modern methods to wring bigger profits from the workers and to throw large numbers of workers out of employment. According to government figures, the number of unemployed in May-August of last year was 338,900. It dropped slightly to 331,892 in mid December, which is 1.5 per cent of the total labour force. The general estimate is that it will rise to 2.5 per cent this year. Reduction in production or shut-downs and the laying off of large numbers of workers in the motor-car, building, steel, textile, ship-building and coal industries have seriously threatened the working class. From October 1964 to October 1965, retail prices of consumer goods went up 5 per cent, while the index for wholesale prices also rose 3.5 per cent. The purchasing power of the pound sterling again decreased by 4.5 per cent during the same period. Sales by hire purchase last July reached 1,178 million pounds which, if divided among Britain’s total population, meant 22 pounds per person. All this constitutes a sizable burden for the working people.

              The Wilson government has introduced a so-called “incomes policy,” putting a 3.5 per cent ceiling on increases in workers’ wages. A royal commission was set up to allow the government to control the trade unions and to participate in talks between capital and labour. While offering no objection to increases in profits and commodity prices, the commission has done its best to keep down the living standards of the working people who constitute the overwhelming majority of Britain’s population. These reactionary measures have contributed to the further sharpening of class contradictions and led to a series of strikes. In the first half of 1965, the year which saw the biggest trade union movement upsurge in Britain since 1960, 1,365 strikes took place. Most of these were in the motor-car, coal, machine-building and manufacturing industries and in the railway and air transport departments. Five hundred and sixty-six thousand workers were involved, resulting in a loss of more than 2 million work-days.

        Deceptive Reformist Measures. The Wilson government has resorted to various reformist gimmicks to deceive the working people and take the edge off their mounting dissatisfaction: making pension increases, abolishing prescription charges in the National Health Service, introducing “security” for tenants threatened by the serious housing shortage and soaring rents, introducing a capital gains tax and publishing a so-called five-year national economic plan covering the period 1965-70. But such highly vaunted promises, followed only by measures giving meagre benefits, have been coldly received by the people.

              Meanwhile, Labour has been doing everything possible to spread the fallacious idea of “labour and management partnership”; the big bosses controlling the industrial enterprises are euphemistically called “managers” and the working class is asked to “co-operate” with them so as to enjoy an “equal share” of the “national cake” in “the interests of the nation.” The “nationalized enterprises,” which account for one-fifth of Britain’s economy, have representatives from the huge monopoly enterprises, which make up four-fifths of the nation’s economy, at the helm. Thus, the “nationalized” enterprises have been whittled down to satellites of monopoly capital. Wilson has departed farther than ever from the “nationalization policy” which Labour bragged so much about while still in the wilderness. In the Queen’s speech on the opening of Parliament in November last year, there was no reference at all to steel re-nationalization—an omission designed to please both the Conservatives and the Liberals and, of course, the big monopoly capitalists whose interests will be left intact.

              Many small and medium-sized enterprises have been forced to shut down or cut production owing to the tightening of bank credits, the suspension and calling back of loans and a tight money market. The credit squeeze has cut down the sales of hire-purchased cars, the number of which is 22 per cent lower than a year ago. This is a pressure on the small and medium-sized enterprises whose pent-up complaints against the government are often reflected in home politics.

              In Britain, there have always been “two nations,” one represented by Wilson and Heath and the other by the working class. Because of the deepening of imperialism’s general political and economic crisis and the sharpening class struggle at home, Wilson and his partners are more isolated than at any other time.

        Disintegration of the Empire

        Widening Cracks in the Commonwealth. The British Commonwealth now consists of no less than 21 independent members. There is an increasing tendency among these countries to move away from Britain, and the Commonwealth’s colonial system is rapidly disintegrating. To prevent the situation from getting out of hand, the Labour administration called a Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference last June. A Commonwealth Secretariat was later formed to facilitate exchange of information, to co-ordinate views and to strengthen the Commonwealth. A Commonwealth Foundation was also set up to administer a fund for increasing interchanges between Commonwealth organizations in professional fields. Among other things, the Prime Ministers emphasized the need to encourage and expand trade between member states. But, within the Commonwealth, the colonialist and neo-colonialist countries have insoluble contradictions with the nationalist countries. The declaration of independence by Singapore which nearly brought about the break-up of the “Malaysian Federation,” India’s aggression against Pakistan and other important events in 1965 revealed the widening cracks in the British Commonwealth and added to Wilson’is setbacks.


        Seething Struggles in Colonies. Britain now has about 30 remaining dependencies, with only 7 million inhabitants. Under the hammer blows of seething revolutionary struggles, the Labour government had little choice but to promise to “grant” independence to British Guiana and Mauritius this year and to Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland in 1967. On the other hand, it is putting together mergers such as the “South Arabian Federation” and the “East Caribbean Federation,” which are neo-colonialist products, to ensure British control. But where there is oppression there is struggle. The Wilson government is bound to run into disaster no matter how desperately it tries to turn back the wheels of history.

        Labour Government—A Ruthless Colonialist. True to type, Labour has acted out the ruthless colonialist since assuming power. In December 1964 it succeeded in subverting the legal Jagan government of British Guiana and sent in troops to put down people’s opposition. During the rape of the Congo (Leopoldville) a month earlier, it placed its bases in Malta and Ascension Is. at the beck and call of the U.S. and Belgian aggressor troops for use as staging areas. When U.S. imperialism rushed in marines and airborne forces in the Dominican Republic last April to smash the people’s uprising, it supported U.S. aggression, saying that it was “necessary” and that it was “not aggression.” Towards the end of 1964 and in the early part of 1965, it dispatched large reinforcements to Malaya and Singapore in an open threat against the people of Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries. In addition to these actions, it crushed the demonstrations of the students and workers on Bahrein Is. in the spring of 1965; it wantonly slaughtered, wounded and arrested the people of south Yemen and winked at the unilateral declaration of “independence” in November 1965 by the white settlers of Southern Rhodesia who have imposed a fascist-racist rule on the Zimbabwe people. These and other iniquities by the Labour government have met with firm resistance from the revolutionary people and severe condemnation by world progressive opinion. The claws of British colonialism, like those of U.S. imperialism, will be chopped off by the revolutionary people of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the rest of the world.


        Hoop-la!            Cartoon by Jack Chen


        Cost of Toeing the U.S. Line

        “East of Suez” Aggressive Policy. For years, British imperialism has been a junior partner of U.S. imperialism playing the inglorious role of an accomplice. The Labour government has outdone its predecessors in relying on the United States and collaborating with it. In its wild ambition to push British imperialism’s policy of aggression, throttle the Afro-Asian people’s revolutionary movements, support U.S. imperialism’s war of aggression against Vietnam and abet the Indian reactionaries in their anti-Chinese manoeuvres, the Labour government went to the extent of declaring that Britain’s frontier was “at the Himalayas.” It has spared no effort to keep its military bases extending from Aden to Singapore under tight control and to plunder the Asian and African countries around the Indian Ocean. Discharging its duties as U.S. imperialism’s active accomplice, the Labour government has strengthened its troop deployment for carrying out its “East of Suez” policy of aggression. It has concentrated a large number of troops, warships and military aircraft in the Indian Ocean region and, together with Washington, has undertaken war preparations directed against the people of Asia, Africa and the rest of the world. Slandering China as the “main threat to Asia and Africa,” Wilson shouted about the need for a “close alliance” with the United States to cope with what he called the menace extending from the Red Sea to the South China Sea. The United States, on its part, has recently brought pressure to bear on Britain to take on a larger share of the military burden east of Suez and to provide its bases in this region for American use.

        Subservience to U.S. on Vietnam Question. On the Vietnam question, the Labour government has slavishly backed the United States in escalating its war of aggression against Vietnam. It has done everything in its power to help push the Johnson Administration’s “peace talks” hoax, viciously attacking the heroic Vietnamese people and persisting in its hostile attitude towards the Chinese people. While Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart said that U.S. bombing and aggression were “proper,” Wilson had the audacity to speak up for the U.S. aggressors’ use of poison gas in Vietnam. He alleged that it did not violate the 1925 Geneva Protocol or any other instruments, and he defended the United States by claiming that Washington’s poison gas was “not poisonous.” In a deliberate move against the people of China, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries, the Wilson administration has allowed the U.S. imperialists to use Hongkong as a base for aggression against Vietnam. These and countless other acts add up to a disgraceful record of working cheek by jowl with U.S. imperialism in the latter’s aggression in Vietnam. The Labour government’s subservience to the United States on the Vietnam question has aroused strong opposition from the British people, and anti-government demonstrations have been frequent. At the annual conferences of the Labour Party and the Trade Union Congress, a third of the participants took Wilson’s policy on this question to task. Among other prominent figures, well-known British philosopher Bertrand Russell, a Labour Party member for 51 years, recently tore up his membership card and declared his withdrawal from the party in an open protest against the government’s support for U.S. aggression.


            
        Britain Through Washington’s Eyes

              To maintain its semblance as a world power, in which the so-called British Commonwealth serves as a facade, Britain has cast its lot with U.S. imperialism and often harped on the Anglo-American “special relationship” and “interdependence.”

              The harsh fact is that while this “special relationship” is one between boss and junior partner and “interdependence” means greater dependence on U.S. imperialism, Britain’s “professions of love” are seldom reciprocated. Washington and its spokesmen are not averse to calling a spade a spade. Dean Acheson once twitted the British, saying that they had lost an empire but had not yet found a role. Two articles in the New York Times on January 23 openly urged Britain to hand over the British Commonwealth to U.S. imperialism.

              The British empire, wrote C.L. Sulzberger in one of the articles, “except for fragments, is already gone. Now it is time to abandon the legend that the Commonwealth exists.” He added: “Pretending there is a Commonwealth when there isn’t has both hampered Britain’s freedom of diplomatic action and sapped its waning economic strength.... Is it not time for Britain to adjust diplomatic, military and economic policies to the reality of a post-Commonwealth period?” Sulzberger suggested, as a substitute for the Commonwealth, a rearrangement on separate regional bases. “For example, in the Americas, Guiana and Honduras must find freedom and, together with Canada, should join the Organization of American States and continental defence arrangements.... Australia and New Zealand are already linked in Asia to U.S. defence through ANZUS. Together with Britain and other interested nations, they should join the U.S.A. in a grand Pacific alliance extending all the way up through the Philippines to Japan.”

              In the other article, Anthony Lewis ridiculed “the oversimplified view of the Commonwealth which prevails in British school syllabuses” and wrote sarcastically: “For Britain, the Commonwealth represents an avenue to world influence—a moral substitute for empire. A tiny island stripped of these imperial pretensions would just look much less like a world power.” But, he warned, “politicians as well as school syllabuses may go on too long talking about rosy but non-existent dreams.”

            


        Greater Dependence on Washington. The Labour administration has resorted to greater dependence on the United States in order to prolong Britain’s colonialist rule. Defence Secretary Denis Healey admitted that economic difficulties had made it impossible for Britain to continue its role as the policeman of the whole of Asia and Africa and he asked the United States to share the responsibility. He also hoped to make more use of the United Nations to stamp out the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American people. Regarding the question of nuclear weapons, the Labour government considers it impossible for Britain to have an “independent nuclear deterrent.” It holds that the only basis for Britain’s security in the nuclear age is Anglo-American “interdependence” that the Anglo-American alliance is the anchor of British policy. The Labour administration has completely subscribed to the U.S. policies of aggression and war. This inevitably leads to a sharp decline in Britain’s international position.

              The Labour government’s reactionary home and foreign policies have run up against strong opposition from the British people and world condemnation. Quarrels and complaints are loud even among the British ruling circles themselves. Selwyn Lloyd, former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a blistering attack on Labour’s financial and economic policies, saying that the government had “arranged the toughest credit squeeze for 40 years, the biggest increases in taxation since the darkest days of the war, the biggest increase in prices since the last Labour government, and the worst drafted and most complicated Finance Bill of all time.” Peter Thorneycroft, former Conservative Defence Secretary, censured the government for the cancellation of three British-designed aircraft and placing orders for American planes instead at the expense of the British aircraft industry. The government’s “East of Suez” policy has also been under fire from Enoch Powell, Tory’s “shadow” defence minister. Tory leader, Edward Heath, called on de Gaulle during his visit to Paris and had a tête-à-tête with him on the question of Britain joining the Common Market. Christopher Soames, chairman of the Conservative back-bench committee on foreign affairs, stated that “the Conservative Party’s desire to see Britain join the Community at the first favourable opportunity is clearly understood by the Governments of the Six. But where, they ask, does the British Government stand?” This statement in a letter to The Times revealed Soames’ impatience to get the Wilson government to clarify its ambiguous attitude on this issue.

              British imperialism, which once was, in Lenin’s words, the “richest in colonies, in finance capital, and in imperialist experience,” is on the skids as a result of the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism and the British Government’s increasing dependence on the United States. Under these circumstances, the Wilson administration, which serves the interests of monopoly capital, is now deap in a tunnel with no light in sight.




        Britain’s Shaky Labour Government
        by Tung Fang-hsiang

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 17-22.]

                  Clinging to office by a wafer-thin majority in the Commons, the Wilson government has had few balmy days in its 15 months of existence. As monopoly capital’s watch-dog and U.S. imperialism’s accomplice, the Labour government has been described as the weakest and most unpopular administration in postwar Britain. Mounting political uncertainty, a balance of payments crisis and unending financial and economic difficulties—all of which keep Wilson on a razor’s edge and may force him to go to the country at any time—offer his administration small prospects of a breather in 1966.


              MORE than 15 months have gone by since Labour scraped home in Britain’s general elections and became Whitehall’s new tenant. As head of the third Labour government since World War II, Harold Wilson came into office at a time when British imperialism faced an ever deepening crisis. After 13 years’ rule, the failure-ridden Tories had been forced to step down and Labour took over running the British establishment.

              Since that time, the struggles of the revolutionary people of the world against U.S.-led imperialism and its stooges have grown in momentum and the contradictions between the imperialist countries themselves have become more acute. This has had inevitable repercussions on Britain where the political situation has been in a state of flux, the clash of interests between the ruling and the oppressed classes has sharpened and the economy has stagnated. All these, together with the worsening sterling crisis and the rapid disintegration of its colonial system, spell out tough going for the Labour government which is the weakest, most unstable and most unpopular administration Britain has had since the end of World War II.

              The Wilson government is British monopoly capital’s faithful watch-dog. Its ruthless exploitation and oppression of the working people at home have reduced their living standard and, as a result of intensified armament expansion and war preparation efforts, many have been forced to leave Britain and serve as cannon-fodder in colonial wars or wars of aggression. Wilson and his men have been active accomplices of U.S. imperialism, worked hand in glove with the modern revisionists and fostered the reactionaries of various countries in trying to suppress the revolutionary movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. But these anti-communist and anti-popular policies, which point up the truculence of the British imperialists have come home to roost with the Wilson administration and have plunged Britain into deeper trouble.

        Unstable Political Situation and a Vulnerable Government

        Paper-Thin Majority. Wilson formed the government after Labour won the general elections in October 1964 with a small majority of five seats, which was later reduced to three. By the first week of November last year it dropped to one as the result of the deaths of Labour M.P.s. At present, of the 630 seats, Labour has 315, Conservatives 302, Liberals 9, three go to the Speaker, the Chairman (Deputy Speaker) and the Vice-Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means who do not vote in the House of Commons, and the remaining seat is vacant. Labour’s precarious position could lead to total collapse at any time. In May last year, it barely managed to scrape through with a majority of one when the vote was taken on an Opposition’s amendment to the Finance Bill. In early July when the same bill was debated, the Conservatives tabled three amendments and defeated the Labour government by 13, 14 and 15 votes in quick succession. Only behind-the-seenes consultations between the two parties saved Wilson from surrendering office. That the Labour government has managed to cling to office under the strains of a paper-thin majority makes a great mockery of the bourgeois two-party system’s sham democracy.

              In its desperate effort to hold on to a majority in votes and thus to better meet the Opposition’s attacks in the Commons, the Wilson government has resorted to all kinds of gimmicks. It has prescribed that its ministers should attend every session of Parliament. Eight Labour M.P.s have asked to retire because of old age or failing health. Their requests were turned down, however. To guarantee that sick M.P.s attend every session, beds were installed in the lobby. When the time came to vote, some of them were carried in on stretchers, thereby giving Parliament the air of a hospital ward. No Labour M.P., it was also prescribed, should absent himself from the House of Commons on pain of disciplinary action without first “pairing” with a Tory who has also promised not to be present. As another precautionary measure against a crisis that may result from the absence of Labour M.P.s, vote by proxy has recently been proposed.

        “Hilson” and “Weath.” How did the Wilson government manage to last so long in view of its shaky position? The answer is that Labour, following virtually the same domestic and foreign policies as the Conservatives, has become an obedient servant of big monopoly capital. Making no bones about the fact that Labour and Tory are birds of a feather, the British press calls Wilson “Hilson” and Heath, the Tory leader, “Weath.” To keep itself in power, Labour tries to enter into a de facto alliance with the Liberal Party or, failing this, to prevent an alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberals in Parliament. Exploiting to the full the present situation of a small majority in the Commons, Labour’s Right-wing leaders are doing everything to force the so-called Left-wing back-benchers into line, warning them not to “rock the boat” or commit “political suicide.” Wilson has invited several leaders of the party’s former “Bevan faction” to join his government and has appointed Shinwell, an elder Labour statesman, to be the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. In order to silence mounting criticism of the government’s handling of home affairs, Wilson reshuffled his cabinet on December 22. All this was done to keep the Labour M.P.s under his thumb. Wilson even appointed monopoly capital bigwigs top advisers to his cabinet. On major questions of policy, he has never failed to consult with Tory leaders Heath or Home behind the scenes. In this way, the Labour government has temporized and tided over the crises.

        Day-to-Day Viability. Notwithstanding all these devices, the Wilson government will be forced to dissolve Parliament and announce general elections at any time if any one of the following arises: a combined non-confidence vote by Conservatives and Liberals; defeat of Labour’s important bills; loss of an overall majority in the Commons resulting from further setbacks in by-elections; an emergency crisis which Labour cannot surmount. This clearly indicates the government’s vulnerability, Britain’s internal instability and the utter bankruptcy of the Labour Party’s rule. Wilson himself would have liked to have held another general election at an opportune moment in order to secure a greater majority in the House of Commons. But since taking office, he has had a difficult time coping with the situation both at home and abroad. Beset with difficulties for which he has only makeshift solutions, he has to content himself with a day-to-day viability.

        Worsening Economy and Sharpening
        of Class Contradictions

        Sterling Crisis. The pound has been in the throes of a crisis and on the verge of devaluation several times. Britain’s international financial position has never been as weak as it is now. Though there have been signs of a slight turn for the better since last September, the sterling crisis is far from ended.

              Contributing factors to this include: long-time stagnation in industrial production and Britain’s weakened position as a result of cut-throat inter-imperialist competition for markets. The total value of Britain’s national output, down from one-fifth to one-seventh that of the United States, has already been outstripped by West Germany. Britain’s share in the export of capitalist world manufactures fell from 22 per cent in 1953 to 13.7 in 1964. Its share in the total volume of exports to the sterling area plummeted from 58 per cent in 1954 to 38 per cent in 1963; during the same period its exports to countries outside the sterling area also dropped from 13 to 11.9 per cent.

        Large Deficits in Balance of Payments. At a time of a general decline in trade among the capitalist countries and when the major imperialist countries are restricting imports and increasing exports in dog-eat-dog competition with each other, Britain’s economy has suffered a staggering blow. A large deficit in the balance of payments has brought with it the sterling crisis. The causes of this unfavourable balance are manifold. First, huge military expenditures. The military budget climbed from 1,700 million pounds in 1961 to 2,100 million in 1965. Well-informed sources claim that Britain spends 15 per cent of its national output, and not 7 per cent as announced by the British Government, on armaments and war preparations. Second, the crucial factor in the severity of the 1964-65 balance of payments crisis was increased government expenditures overseas, mainly for military purposes. Government expenditures abroad on current account totalled 695 million pounds in the three-year period 1953-55. In 1962-64 they totalled 1,304 million. This increase of more than 600 million alarmed the British rulers. Third, increase in overseas investment—200 million to 300 million pounds of private investment and some 150 million pounds of foreign “aid” per year in the postwar period. These huge expenditures and the widening trade gap account for Britain’s serious deficits in the balance of payments in the past few years. In 1964, the deficit was 765 million pounds and last year it was about 450 million. It decreased by less than half, but the deficit is still the pound’s Achilles’ heel.

        Helping Big Monopoly. To save the pound, the Labour government has adopted a series of reactionary measures favourable to big monopoly and unfavourable to the people. Last year, Britain had to ask for massive loans from the International Monetary Fund and other foreign creditors totalling more than 3,500 million dollars; it raised the bank rate to 7 per cent, resorted to two “little budgets” as stop-gap measures and introduced drastic measures in July. In addition, there were the credit squeeze, restriction on bank loans, increased taxation, cutting back of social services, reduction in local government housing mortgages, restraint on wages, cuts in public investment and government expenditures, premiums on exports, and a surcharge and restrictions on imports. All these are aimed at shifting the burden of the sterling crisis and financial and economic difficulties on to the people of Britain, its colonies and the Commonwealth.

        Harming the Working Class. Labour has gone to great lengths to undermine the interests of the British working class. The main purpose of so-called industrial rationalization and automation is to use modern methods to wring bigger profits from the workers and to throw large numbers of workers out of employment. According to government figures, the number of unemployed in May-August of last year was 338,900. It dropped slightly to 331,892 in mid December, which is 1.5 per cent of the total labour force. The general estimate is that it will rise to 2.5 per cent this year. Reduction in production or shut-downs and the laying off of large numbers of workers in the motor-car, building, steel, textile, ship-building and coal industries have seriously threatened the working class. From October 1964 to October 1965, retail prices of consumer goods went up 5 per cent, while the index for wholesale prices also rose 3.5 per cent. The purchasing power of the pound sterling again decreased by 4.5 per cent during the same period. Sales by hire purchase last July reached 1,178 million pounds which, if divided among Britain’s total population, meant 22 pounds per person. All this constitutes a sizable burden for the working people.

              The Wilson government has introduced a so-called “incomes policy,” putting a 3.5 per cent ceiling on increases in workers’ wages. A royal commission was set up to allow the government to control the trade unions and to participate in talks between capital and labour. While offering no objection to increases in profits and commodity prices, the commission has done its best to keep down the living standards of the working people who constitute the overwhelming majority of Britain’s population. These reactionary measures have contributed to the further sharpening of class contradictions and led to a series of strikes. In the first half of 1965, the year which saw the biggest trade union movement upsurge in Britain since 1960, 1,365 strikes took place. Most of these were in the motor-car, coal, machine-building and manufacturing industries and in the railway and air transport departments. Five hundred and sixty-six thousand workers were involved, resulting in a loss of more than 2 million work-days.

        Deceptive Reformist Measures. The Wilson government has resorted to various reformist gimmicks to deceive the working people and take the edge off their mounting dissatisfaction: making pension increases, abolishing prescription charges in the National Health Service, introducing “security” for tenants threatened by the serious housing shortage and soaring rents, introducing a capital gains tax and publishing a so-called five-year national economic plan covering the period 1965-70. But such highly vaunted promises, followed only by measures giving meagre benefits, have been coldly received by the people.

              Meanwhile, Labour has been doing everything possible to spread the fallacious idea of “labour and management partnership”; the big bosses controlling the industrial enterprises are euphemistically called “managers” and the working class is asked to “co-operate” with them so as to enjoy an “equal share” of the “national cake” in “the interests of the nation.” The “nationalized enterprises,” which account for one-fifth of Britain’s economy, have representatives from the huge monopoly enterprises, which make up four-fifths of the nation’s economy, at the helm. Thus, the “nationalized” enterprises have been whittled down to satellites of monopoly capital. Wilson has departed farther than ever from the “nationalization policy” which Labour bragged so much about while still in the wilderness. In the Queen’s speech on the opening of Parliament in November last year, there was no reference at all to steel re-nationalization—an omission designed to please both the Conservatives and the Liberals and, of course, the big monopoly capitalists whose interests will be left intact.

              Many small and medium-sized enterprises have been forced to shut down or cut production owing to the tightening of bank credits, the suspension and calling back of loans and a tight money market. The credit squeeze has cut down the sales of hire-purchased cars, the number of which is 22 per cent lower than a year ago. This is a pressure on the small and medium-sized enterprises whose pent-up complaints against the government are often reflected in home politics.

              In Britain, there have always been “two nations,” one represented by Wilson and Heath and the other by the working class. Because of the deepening of imperialism’s general political and economic crisis and the sharpening class struggle at home, Wilson and his partners are more isolated than at any other time.

        Disintegration of the Empire

        Widening Cracks in the Commonwealth. The British Commonwealth now consists of no less than 21 independent members. There is an increasing tendency among these countries to move away from Britain, and the Commonwealth’s colonial system is rapidly disintegrating. To prevent the situation from getting out of hand, the Labour administration called a Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference last June. A Commonwealth Secretariat was later formed to facilitate exchange of information, to co-ordinate views and to strengthen the Commonwealth. A Commonwealth Foundation was also set up to administer a fund for increasing interchanges between Commonwealth organizations in professional fields. Among other things, the Prime Ministers emphasized the need to encourage and expand trade between member states. But, within the Commonwealth, the colonialist and neo-colonialist countries have insoluble contradictions with the nationalist countries. The declaration of independence by Singapore which nearly brought about the break-up of the “Malaysian Federation,” India’s aggression against Pakistan and other important events in 1965 revealed the widening cracks in the British Commonwealth and added to Wilson’is setbacks.


        Seething Struggles in Colonies. Britain now has about 30 remaining dependencies, with only 7 million inhabitants. Under the hammer blows of seething revolutionary struggles, the Labour government had little choice but to promise to “grant” independence to British Guiana and Mauritius this year and to Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland in 1967. On the other hand, it is putting together mergers such as the “South Arabian Federation” and the “East Caribbean Federation,” which are neo-colonialist products, to ensure British control. But where there is oppression there is struggle. The Wilson government is bound to run into disaster no matter how desperately it tries to turn back the wheels of history.

        Labour Government—A Ruthless Colonialist. True to type, Labour has acted out the ruthless colonialist since assuming power. In December 1964 it succeeded in subverting the legal Jagan government of British Guiana and sent in troops to put down people’s opposition. During the rape of the Congo (Leopoldville) a month earlier, it placed its bases in Malta and Ascension Is. at the beck and call of the U.S. and Belgian aggressor troops for use as staging areas. When U.S. imperialism rushed in marines and airborne forces in the Dominican Republic last April to smash the people’s uprising, it supported U.S. aggression, saying that it was “necessary” and that it was “not aggression.” Towards the end of 1964 and in the early part of 1965, it dispatched large reinforcements to Malaya and Singapore in an open threat against the people of Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries. In addition to these actions, it crushed the demonstrations of the students and workers on Bahrein Is. in the spring of 1965; it wantonly slaughtered, wounded and arrested the people of south Yemen and winked at the unilateral declaration of “independence” in November 1965 by the white settlers of Southern Rhodesia who have imposed a fascist-racist rule on the Zimbabwe people. These and other iniquities by the Labour government have met with firm resistance from the revolutionary people and severe condemnation by world progressive opinion. The claws of British colonialism, like those of U.S. imperialism, will be chopped off by the revolutionary people of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the rest of the world.


        Hoop-la!            Cartoon by Jack Chen


        Cost of Toeing the U.S. Line

        “East of Suez” Aggressive Policy. For years, British imperialism has been a junior partner of U.S. imperialism playing the inglorious role of an accomplice. The Labour government has outdone its predecessors in relying on the United States and collaborating with it. In its wild ambition to push British imperialism’s policy of aggression, throttle the Afro-Asian people’s revolutionary movements, support U.S. imperialism’s war of aggression against Vietnam and abet the Indian reactionaries in their anti-Chinese manoeuvres, the Labour government went to the extent of declaring that Britain’s frontier was “at the Himalayas.” It has spared no effort to keep its military bases extending from Aden to Singapore under tight control and to plunder the Asian and African countries around the Indian Ocean. Discharging its duties as U.S. imperialism’s active accomplice, the Labour government has strengthened its troop deployment for carrying out its “East of Suez” policy of aggression. It has concentrated a large number of troops, warships and military aircraft in the Indian Ocean region and, together with Washington, has undertaken war preparations directed against the people of Asia, Africa and the rest of the world. Slandering China as the “main threat to Asia and Africa,” Wilson shouted about the need for a “close alliance” with the United States to cope with what he called the menace extending from the Red Sea to the South China Sea. The United States, on its part, has recently brought pressure to bear on Britain to take on a larger share of the military burden east of Suez and to provide its bases in this region for American use.

        Subservience to U.S. on Vietnam Question. On the Vietnam question, the Labour government has slavishly backed the United States in escalating its war of aggression against Vietnam. It has done everything in its power to help push the Johnson Administration’s “peace talks” hoax, viciously attacking the heroic Vietnamese people and persisting in its hostile attitude towards the Chinese people. While Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart said that U.S. bombing and aggression were “proper,” Wilson had the audacity to speak up for the U.S. aggressors’ use of poison gas in Vietnam. He alleged that it did not violate the 1925 Geneva Protocol or any other instruments, and he defended the United States by claiming that Washington’s poison gas was “not poisonous.” In a deliberate move against the people of China, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries, the Wilson administration has allowed the U.S. imperialists to use Hongkong as a base for aggression against Vietnam. These and countless other acts add up to a disgraceful record of working cheek by jowl with U.S. imperialism in the latter’s aggression in Vietnam. The Labour government’s subservience to the United States on the Vietnam question has aroused strong opposition from the British people, and anti-government demonstrations have been frequent. At the annual conferences of the Labour Party and the Trade Union Congress, a third of the participants took Wilson’s policy on this question to task. Among other prominent figures, well-known British philosopher Bertrand Russell, a Labour Party member for 51 years, recently tore up his membership card and declared his withdrawal from the party in an open protest against the government’s support for U.S. aggression.


            
        Britain Through Washington’s Eyes

              To maintain its semblance as a world power, in which the so-called British Commonwealth serves as a facade, Britain has cast its lot with U.S. imperialism and often harped on the Anglo-American “special relationship” and “interdependence.”

              The harsh fact is that while this “special relationship” is one between boss and junior partner and “interdependence” means greater dependence on U.S. imperialism, Britain’s “professions of love” are seldom reciprocated. Washington and its spokesmen are not averse to calling a spade a spade. Dean Acheson once twitted the British, saying that they had lost an empire but had not yet found a role. Two articles in the New York Times on January 23 openly urged Britain to hand over the British Commonwealth to U.S. imperialism.

              The British empire, wrote C.L. Sulzberger in one of the articles, “except for fragments, is already gone. Now it is time to abandon the legend that the Commonwealth exists.” He added: “Pretending there is a Commonwealth when there isn’t has both hampered Britain’s freedom of diplomatic action and sapped its waning economic strength.... Is it not time for Britain to adjust diplomatic, military and economic policies to the reality of a post-Commonwealth period?” Sulzberger suggested, as a substitute for the Commonwealth, a rearrangement on separate regional bases. “For example, in the Americas, Guiana and Honduras must find freedom and, together with Canada, should join the Organization of American States and continental defence arrangements.... Australia and New Zealand are already linked in Asia to U.S. defence through ANZUS. Together with Britain and other interested nations, they should join the U.S.A. in a grand Pacific alliance extending all the way up through the Philippines to Japan.”

              In the other article, Anthony Lewis ridiculed “the oversimplified view of the Commonwealth which prevails in British school syllabuses” and wrote sarcastically: “For Britain, the Commonwealth represents an avenue to world influence—a moral substitute for empire. A tiny island stripped of these imperial pretensions would just look much less like a world power.” But, he warned, “politicians as well as school syllabuses may go on too long talking about rosy but non-existent dreams.”

            


        Greater Dependence on Washington. The Labour administration has resorted to greater dependence on the United States in order to prolong Britain’s colonialist rule. Defence Secretary Denis Healey admitted that economic difficulties had made it impossible for Britain to continue its role as the policeman of the whole of Asia and Africa and he asked the United States to share the responsibility. He also hoped to make more use of the United Nations to stamp out the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American people. Regarding the question of nuclear weapons, the Labour government considers it impossible for Britain to have an “independent nuclear deterrent.” It holds that the only basis for Britain’s security in the nuclear age is Anglo-American “interdependence” that the Anglo-American alliance is the anchor of British policy. The Labour administration has completely subscribed to the U.S. policies of aggression and war. This inevitably leads to a sharp decline in Britain’s international position.

              The Labour government’s reactionary home and foreign policies have run up against strong opposition from the British people and world condemnation. Quarrels and complaints are loud even among the British ruling circles themselves. Selwyn Lloyd, former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a blistering attack on Labour’s financial and economic policies, saying that the government had “arranged the toughest credit squeeze for 40 years, the biggest increases in taxation since the darkest days of the war, the biggest increase in prices since the last Labour government, and the worst drafted and most complicated Finance Bill of all time.” Peter Thorneycroft, former Conservative Defence Secretary, censured the government for the cancellation of three British-designed aircraft and placing orders for American planes instead at the expense of the British aircraft industry. The government’s “East of Suez” policy has also been under fire from Enoch Powell, Tory’s “shadow” defence minister. Tory leader, Edward Heath, called on de Gaulle during his visit to Paris and had a tête-à-tête with him on the question of Britain joining the Common Market. Christopher Soames, chairman of the Conservative back-bench committee on foreign affairs, stated that “the Conservative Party’s desire to see Britain join the Community at the first favourable opportunity is clearly understood by the Governments of the Six. But where, they ask, does the British Government stand?” This statement in a letter to The Times revealed Soames’ impatience to get the Wilson government to clarify its ambiguous attitude on this issue.

              British imperialism, which once was, in Lenin’s words, the “richest in colonies, in finance capital, and in imperialist experience,” is on the skids as a result of the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism and the British Government’s increasing dependence on the United States. Under these circumstances, the Wilson administration, which serves the interests of monopoly capital, is now deap in a tunnel with no light in sight.




              On the Ideological Front
        Workers, Peasants and Soldiers
        Study Marxist Philosophy

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 23-24.]

            Considerable space in newspapers and magazines today is being devoted to the philosophical writings of workers, peasants and soldiers. In vivid language that only people closely linked with practice can use, these writers impress the reader with their clear thinking, scientific analysis and direct approach. From the way this trend is developing it can be said that philosophy in China is entering a new historic stage.


              THE movement among the workers, peasants and soldiers for the study of Chairman Mao’s works is proceeding vigorously across the land. Coming in the midst of China’s socialist revolution and socialist construction, this is an important event in the political and ideological life of the nation. It already has made substantial contributions in all fields of work, and as the movement surges ahead, its far-reaching significance will be more readily seen.

        Mastering the Laws Governing
        Every Sphere of Work

              The working masses are not interested in study “for the sake of study.” They study the works of Mao Tse-tung for the explicit purpose of learning from Chairman Mao—his Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint and method—to acquire the outlook of working for the revolution and to learn to do a better job in their revolutionary work. In China, Mao Tse-tung’s thinking is compared to a telescope and a microscope which help to see things that are far off and things that are normally unobservable. People seek out Chairman Mao’s works for answers to specific questions. They use the basic theories they learn from these writings to analyse and solve these problems. Thus, they find their jobs—such as operating a machine, ploughing or waiting on customers behind a sales-counter—full of meaning and they do them enthusiastically and creatively.

              Among workers, peasants and soldiers there is great zeal to apply consciously what they learn from On Practice, On Contradiction and other philosophical writings by Chairman Mao in summing up their experience in practice, analysing the contradictions in objective reality, and in discussing the laws governing their own sphere of work so that they can put their everyday work on the basis of making full use of objective laws. This is popularly called “riding on the back of the objective laws,” and is capable of producing tremendous strength.

        A Great Motivating Force

              Marx has said: “Theory too becomes a material force as soon as it grips the masses.” This truth has been borne out most vividly by what is taking place in China today. With Mao Tse-tung’s thinking as their guide, many workers, peasants and soldiers go about their work with a scientific attitude backed up by great enthusiasm. This helps bring about an increase in the output of grain or industrial goods, successes in technical innovations and good results in political work. It enables workers to play their role as the leading class in the country better, and it enables the former poor and lower-middle peasants to assume leadership in their own villages.

              It can be predicted that with the spreading and deepening of this movement, it will give rise to more and greater strength and material wealth. This is a great motivating force for transforming China from poverty to abundance, from technically backward to technically advanced. It is a powerful impetus for propelling the socialist revolution and construction.

        Fostering a New Communist Generation

              The present study movement also serves as a big school in which a new communist generation is being trained.

              While using Mao Tse-tung’s thinking to transform the objective world, the working masses find that a fundamental change has taken place in their own minds, in their subjective world.

              In the course of exploring the possibilities for introducing technical innovations in the light of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, for instance, many workers and peasants have learnt to use materialist dialectics to analyse questions and have acquired the working style of following the mass line. This also provides a good opportunity for tempering the revolutionary will for wholehearted service to the people and strengthening tenacity in surmounting difficulties.

              Many cadres at the grass-roots level—leaders of factory work groups and commune production teams, Party branch secretaries, and others—admit that by creatively applying Mao Tse-tung’s thinking they have learnt to do a satisfactory job of ideological and organizational work, to view people and things on the basis of the concept of the unity of opposites which is popularly called “the concept of dividing one into two,” and to discover the laws in their own field of work so that they are able to transform the backward into the advanced and the advanced into the even more advanced.

              In short, with Mao Tse-tung’s thinking in command, all kinds of daily work are treated as a science whose laws can be discovered and mastered. This in turn helps to raise the ideological level of people in all kinds of work.

              In studying Chairman Mao’s works, workers, peasants and soldiers have further enhanced their communist consciousness, knowing that all work is for the revolution and that at their places of duty, no matter what they are, they are doing their share for China’s socialist revolution and construction and for the proletarian revolution throughout the world. This is a process in which the working masses are gradually acquiring a communist world outlook, to become a new generation of communist fighters. This is more important than anything, because the fostering of a new communist generation is essential to guarding against revisionism and to carrying the revolution through to the end.

        They Also Write Philosophical Articles

              In the course of the study movement, thousands and thousands of workers, peasants and soldiers have taken up their pens and written philosophical articles. Applying the Marxist theory of knowledge and the methodology of Marxism learnt through their study of Chairman Mao’s works, they deal with their problems in production and work and write in their own everyday language. Many of their writings are down-to-earth, lively and highly original, and stand out in sharp contrast to philosophical theses written by intellectuals divorced from practice. Principles that seem abstruse in many books on philosophy become easy to understand in these writings.

              Thus, under the impact of the study movement, philosophy, which was long considered a subject for the classroom, academic circles and research institutes only, is taking root in factories, mines, villages, shops and army units in every corner of the country. Workers, peasants and soldiers have set foot in the domain of philosophy which for thousands of years was the monopoly of intellectuals. Their study and application of Marxist philosophy and their writings on it have proved that philosophy is no mystery and clearly show that as the philosophy of the proletariat, Marxist philosophy can and should be mastered by the masses of workers and peasants.

              The movement among the workers, peasants and soldiers for the study of Chairman Mao’s works is also proving to be a rich source of development of Marxist philosophy. Their writing in this respect is a spur to philosophical research. An additional important factor is that people specializing in philosophy are put on their mettle and challenged to improve their work. Describing this as “giving a good shove” to our workers in philosophy, a recent editorial in the magazine Zhexue Yanjiu (Philosophical Research) called on all such workers to learn modestly from the workers, peasants and soldiers, from their attitude and method in the study of the philosophical writings of Chairman Mao and from their experience in applying his philosophical thinking. It urged them to break away from “force of habit,” thoroughly emancipate themselves from the bookish atmosphere of libraries and studies, and make an earnest effort to integrate their research work more closely with reality.

        “Renmin Ribao’s” Call to Workers in Philosophy

              In a smilar vein, Renmin Ribao pointed out in a recent editorial: “The practice of class struggle and the struggle for production by the masses of the people is the greatest and richest source of philosophical ideas, indeed the only source. Anyone who cuts himself off from it and secludes himself in the library will never master Marxism however many books he reads. The only possible outcome will be dogmatism and revisionism.” By recalling Chairman Mao’s injunction about the need to be a student if one is to be a teacher, the editorial said that this is “the only way to solve the contradiction confronting workers in philosophy, the problem of theory divorced from practice.” It also said, “In order that philosophy can better serve workers, peasants and soldiers, workers in philosophy must go into the villages, factories, shops and army units, take part in the class struggle and the struggle for production and earnestly learn from the masses.”

              Seeing the way ahead, our workers in philosophy are ready to answer the call of the times. They are determined to go to factories, farms and army units and stay there for a number of years, study living philosophy in the course of actual struggle, learn to write in the language of the labouring masses and produce philosophical articles that will be easily understood by the working people. They know that only by doing so will they be able to steel themselves into genuine Marxist philosophical workers. They are confident that by travelling on the right road they will be able to turn philosophy into a sharper ideological weapon in the hands of the people and make their contributions to the enrichment and development of Marxist philosophy.




              Applying Mao Tse-tung’s Thinking
        A Revolutionary Outlook in Treating Burns
        [by Kuo Wang-ho]

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, pp. 25-28.]

            “Peking Review” will publish a series of articles describing how people in various fields of work in China today are learning to use Mao Tse-tung’s thinking creatively to solve their problems. The following is the first of this series. It tells how a group of young surgeons dedicated to the ideal of serving the people, by consciously applying materialist dialectics, succeeded in catching up with and surpassing world levels in treating burns. —Ed.


              THERE is a new hospital in Peking—the Jishuitan Hospital, with a new Department of Traumatology. No such department existed in China’s hospitals before liberation. Furthermore this department has a new unit specializing in burns, a speciality which did not exist in pre-liberation China. When it was established in 1958, eight of the unit’s ten surgeons were under 30 years of age. Three of the group had considerable experience in surgery but the other seven had only recently graduated from medical college. None of the ten had specialist training in burns. Yet since the unit was set up, the rate of recovery from burns covering more than 20 per cent of the body area has risen steadily from less than 70 per cent in 1958, to over 95 per cent in 1965.

              Foreign medical literature agrees that few persons recover from burns covering over 80 per cent of the body area or from third degree burns (burns destroying the full thickness of the skin) exceeding 30 per cent of the body surface. China’s young surgeons, however, have not been deterred by the difficulties involved. In 1958, the Shanghai Guangci Hospital, in collaboration with other medical units, successfully treated Chiu Tsai-kang, burnt over 89 per cent of his body, and thus set a new record in curing such cases in our country. Encouraged by this example, the Burns Unit of Peking’s Jishuitan Hospital has cured 17 similar cases in the last few years. These included one with a total burn area of 96 per cent, another with third degree burns on 47 per cent of the body area. The quality of treatment for moderate and mild burns has also been markedly improved and the duration of treatment in such cases has been shortened by a third to a half. In this field of medicine China is now on a par with or ahead of the most advanced world levels.

              How have these results been achieved? Have Chinese surgeons got any new techniques?

              It is true that new achievements in medicine are often linked with new technique. Does this Burns Unit then employ any new technique? The answer can be: No, or yes. No, if by new technique is meant new equipment or drugs hitherto unheard of in the world. Yes, if it is taken to mean new ways of employing existing equipment and drugs. The unit has devised many new ways of doing things. Its success is the fruit of the application of Mao Tse-tung’s thinking in medical practice, the fruit of new medical thinking consciously based on Marxist dialectical materialism applied to medicine. The endless vitality of materialist dialectics inspires medical workers to seek continually for new techniques.

        Deal With a Part While Keeping the Whole in View

              A concrete example may help to give some idea of what this involves. At a recent discussion, Dr. Wang Chang-yeh, head of the unit, put forward the idea of “grappling with a part while keeping the whole in view.”

              The antithesis of this idea is found in a common Chinese saying: “Treat the head when there’s a headache, and the foot when there’s a footache.” This metaphysical approach exercised considerable influence in certain Chinese medical circles in the past and has not been thoroughly overcome even to this day. In treating burns, the doctor is often confronted by extremely complicated and ever-changing problems. A patient may be simultaneously beset by many ills. Initially, not knowing how to cope with such cases, they tried everything all at the same time. If the patient had a fever, they dosed him with antipyretic; they gave him medicine for his headache and prescribed tranquillizer to calm him down; if he had diarrhoea, they treated that. All these measures were taken at the same time. Now a dose of medicine, then an injection, and then something else. The patient became so fatigued by overtreatment that instead of getting better, he got worse. Such treatment seemed to have taken the “whole” into consideration, but actually it was a piecemeal approach. Then they began to understand that in treating a patient, as in everything else, it is necessary to seize and grapple with the key aspects of a case. In burns, the key problem is healing the burnt area but this must be tackled with a full understanding of the relation of this key aspect to the body organism as a whole and as a sum of parts. If some aspects of the case are treated—shock or headache, for instance, this has to be done with the key aspects and the whole held in mind, not in isolation. Before they had fully understood this they had, for example, even administered a general anaesthetic in order to give the burnt area a thorough cleansing. This amounted to giving the patient two fresh blows in addition to the burn. The burnt surface was thoroughly cleaned but the case was aggravated. In such circumstances, a few remaining germs might prove to be formidable foes.

              Learning lessons from such failures, the unit gradually came to see that it was simply impossible “to tackle the whole all at once,” and that the correct approach could only be “to grapple with a part for a start.” At every stage, the main therapeutic measure applied should be directed at one specific part. This is one side of the question. The other side is that while “grappling with a part,” it is necessary to “keep the whole in view.” Some parts have a decisive effect on the whole and some don’t. In treatment, those parts that affect the whole should be brought under control first. Depending on circumstances, those that do not affect the whole, may either be treated or ignored. Whether or not a part has a decisive or important bearing on the whole depends on the given conditions and may change as conditions change. For instance, a needle puncture following an injection generally has no effect on the whole organism. But if the patient is extremely weak, germs might penetrate through the puncture hole and cause septicaemia, thus severely affecting the whole organism.

              The metaphysical error in “treating the head when there is a headache and the foot when there is a footache” does not originate from “grappling with a part.” Quite often, to cure a “headache” or a “footache,” one has to start with the “head” or “foot.” But in treating the “head” or “foot,” one must first of all have a clear understanding of the relationship of that “head” or “foot” ache to the other parts of the body. Otherwise one will be considering only individual parts and not the whole and so may either fail to cure the “head” or “foot,” or may “cure” the part at the expense of the body as a whole.

        Dialectics in Medical Work

              The foregoing is only one instance of their conscious, creative application of materialist dialectics. The members of the unit discuss the dialectics of their work as a regular practice. Often a discussion of a therapeutic programme ends up in a discussion on dialectics. This reporter spent some two weeks interviewing all the ten doctors of this unit. I asked many kinds of questions as my interests were varied, but each time the conversation led quite naturally to the dialectics of the matter. So finally I asked to attend their philosophical seminar, which I did twice. The following gives an idea of what was said at such meetings:

              Chang Chung-ming: The proper handling of burn eschar (tissue coagulated by the heat of the burn) is important to the healing of the burnt surface. Eschar has a dual character. In the past, we paid too much attention to its negative aspect, being over credulous of what is said in some medical literature about eschar being dead matter and therefore very susceptible to infection. As a result of this we always tried to remove it as soon as possible. But later we saw the other side of the question: eschar has a protective value and, if properly sterilized and dried, can protect against infection. So later we turned to the method of protecting the eschar in treating extensive burns. Naturally, its timely removal is necessary when it becomes a hindrance to the growth of skin or granulation tissue.

              Tsao Ta-hsing: To prevent or treat septicaemia, we use a lot of antibiotics which have proved to be efficacious. But if used improperly, antibiotics can be dangerous and even fatal. This is their dual character. In the past, we sometimes saw only the positive side and neglected the negative side. In one case, we gave the patient a series of heavy intravenous doses of antibiotics as a means of controlling septicaemia. This so overtaxed his kidneys that he did not have the strength to resist a subsequent bacterial invasion. This painful experience shattered our blind faith in antibiotics and now we always take their dual character into account.

              Dr. Kao Chih-jen noted that doctors naturally want to protect and reinforce the power of resistance of the patient by giving him a high-calory, high-protein diet, but they soon learnt that not every patient can eat nutritious foods like meat, eggs or milk. Some seriously ill patients have no appetite for such foods, or cannot digest them. In such cases, in order to eat well, the patient should first eat less. That is, light food such as gruel should be given first and rich food later when the patient is well enough to digest it and has the appetite for it. Thus “eat less” can be transformed into “eat more,” and “less nutritious” can be transformed into “more nutritious.”

              On several occasions Dr. Chang Chih-teh and his colleagues compared treating a disease to fighting a war. The situation is changeable and conditions vary from case to case, each having its own special features. The soul of materialist dialectics is the concrete analysis of concrete things. For instance, we have just mentioned that antibiotics have their harmful side. But if a patient is critically ill and it appears that he cannot possibly be saved without large doses of antibiotics, then the doctor naturally decides to save the life of the patient first and to treat his burns later. Mechanical uniformity is not dialectics. This Burns Unit scored a series of successes precisely because its workers have skilfully applied their knowledge of dialectics.

        Bold in Medical Practice,
        Diligent in Reviewing Experience

              How did these young doctors achieve so much so quickly? This also involves the question of their attitude to practice based on Chairman Mao’s thesis that knowledge comes from practice. While learning from the experience of others, they pay very great attention to their own investigations and studies. Day and night they are in attendance on their seriously ill patients, keeping a close watch, carefully weighing every new development and noting them down in the case history. Sometimes, within a few days, a case history can grow into a thick volume.

              They are tireless in conducting experiments. One example is their investigation and study of B. pyocyaneus. This germ is a source of worry to doctors for it can cause septicaemia which is the main cause of death following burns. Patients must therefore be strictly protected against it. But how? Some foreign studies state that since 10 per cent of healthy people carry this germ in their faeces, infection may come from the patients themselves and that it is, therefore, difficult to prevent. At first no one in this Burns Unit doubted this conclusion. Then one of its surgeons went to northwest China as a member of a rescue mission. There he saw a big burn which had not been infected by B. pyocyaneus over a period of three months even in the absence of strict sterilization and isolation. This went against all expectations. Was this purely accidental? Knowing that necessity is inherent in chance, they decided to get to the bottom of the matter. After making cultures of the faeces of 1,270 patients, they found that only 1.1 per cent, not 10 per cent, carried B. pyocyaneus. This forced them to the conclusion that the main source of infection was not the patients themselves. The investigation therefore shifted to the patients’ environment. They made 1,080 cultures and found large numbers of B. pyocyaneus on various articles, on the floors, walls or in the air of the ward and relatively heavy contamination with this germ on the hands, working clothes and shoes of personnel in the ward. Measures were immediately taken to sterilize these sources still more thoroughly and to prevent cross infection by the establishment of a special isolation ward and by the strictest sterilization of everything going into that ward. These measures, subsequently improved, have markedly reduced the incidence of B. pyocyaneus infection and B. pyocyaneus septicaemia which were largely responsible for the high mortality rate in cases of burns exceeding 50 per cent of the body area before 1960.


        Young surgeons of the burns ward of Peking’s
        Jishuitan Hospital study a case history.

              In early 1960, the hospital was still unable to cure patients with burns exceeding 70 per cent of the body surface or with third degree burns exceeding 40 per cent of the body area. It was the secretary of the hospital Party Committee, Jung Tsu-ching, who then raised the question of summing up past experience in order to find effective means of curing such cases. In preparation for this task all members of the unit once again studied Chairman Mao’s works On Practice and On Contradiction. This was followed by an analytical study of every important case treated and every important measure adopted. Many group discussions were held. All this was of great help in improving their understanding of burns and, strengthening their confidence that they could suecessfully heal these extreme cases. They soon had occasion to use the skill and knowledge they possessed.

              Some months later, Ma Yuan, a kiln worker, was admitted to the ward; 90 per cent of his body surface had been burnt and of this area 22 per cent had suffered third degree burns. After emergency treatment, his case took a turn for the better.

              Some three weeks later came another patient, Kao Teh-shan. He had an 85 per cent burn including 30 per cent third degree. The experience gained in treating Ma Yuan was applied to the new arrival.

              Three months passed and the two had not yet fully recovered when two more patients, Chu Lien-jui and Yin Teh-lu, arrived, both with 87 per cent burns. With enhanced experience, the Burns Unit successfully treated the two newcomers. In the short span of seven months they had consecutively created four new records.

              Meticulous and dedicated care of the patients, based on a wholehearted dedication to service to the people combined with skilful application of materialist dialectics, had achieved the desired results.

        Service—Heightened Skill—Service

              Discussing the development of the unit’s new attitude to work, Chang Tung, the present secretary of the hospital’s Party Committee, told us: “As in the past, so even now the formula ‘Heightened Skill—Service—Heightened Skill’ still influences the minds of some doctors in China. That is, starting from a desire to increase their skill and knowledge, such people actually use treatment (service) as a means to attain the end of raising their own qualifications. What actually lies behind this is the personal goal of becoming a ‘famous specialist,’ an author of important scientific papers, a noted researcher, and so on. For this reason, more often than not, such persons actually take a greater interest in the sickness than in the patient! But not all sicknesses, only those that are useful to their scientific papers or research work, and those that are out of the ordinary. As to ordinary diseases, they would very much rather have others bother about them. This attitude to some extent found expression among the surgeons of this burns ward. But that is now a thing of the past. Now they work according to a new formula: ‘Service—Heightened Skill—Service.’ That is, proceeding from a desire to be of service to their patients, they try to improve their skill through work in order to be able to serve their patients still better.”

              They are waging a persistent struggle against the influence of the formula “Heightened Skill—Service—Heightened Skill” and forging ahead along the path charted by the formula “Service—Heightened Skill—Service.” At a time when emergency measures were being taken to save the lives of severely burnt patients, Dr. Chang Chih-teh lived beside his patients for several weeks at a stretch; Dr. Wang Chang-yeh’s wife gave birth to a baby, but knowing that his wife was well taken care of, it was more than a month before he took time off for a visit home. At the height of the battle to save the life of the kiln worker Ma Yuan, Dr. Tsao Ta-hsing stayed with him day and night, sleeping by his side. These doctors were in fact in attendance in the ward all round the clock. Thus they were able to take the correct therapeutic measures exactly when needed.

              Imbued with the idea of service to the people, they have extended the scope of their work far beyond the bounds of the hospital walls. When emergency treatment is needed, no matter when or where, they are always ready to go. This wide ranging practice has enriched their experience and widened their horizons. This wealth of new, first-hand material has contributed to the laying of a solid foundation for the raising of the unit’s standards in treatment and research work.

        To Make Revolution, You Must Be Revolutionary

              We should now give a general answer to the questions we touched on above. What makes it possible for the comrades of the Burns Unit to carry out so well in practice the formula of “Service—Heightened Skill—Service”? What accounts for their daring in medical practice, their diligence in reviewing experience and their steady advance in understanding the dialectics of their work? How has this group of young surgeons in a newly established unit of a new hospital achieved so much?

              Underlying all this is the fact that they have learnt to dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to the revolution, to serving the masses.

              Through the revolutionary movements of class struggle and scientific experiment, and through diligent study of Chairman Mao’s works, the comrades of the Burns Unit have fostered in themselves the idea of “all for the revolution.” Without this revolutionary outlook, all that we spoke about above would be inconceivable. Without being inspired by the idea of “for the revolution,” one can never “know how to make revolution.”

              The surgeons of the Burns Unit have studied revolutionary dialectics in the course of practice and in summing up their experience; they have become revolutionized and are able consciously and skilfully to use the dialectic method.

              Dr. Wang Chang-yeh and his colleague said to me: “When we came to understand better the relation between the part and the whole in the person of a patient, we came to see more clearly the relation between the individual and the collective—to see the individual as a part of a whole. In relation to the individual, the Party, the state, the hospital, and the Burns Unit is the whole.” In the case of the kiln worker Ma Yuan, it was the socialist state with its great concern for the working people that brought him swiftly to the hospital where it had established the burns ward; and it was the Party and Mao Tse-tung’s thinking that had enabled the doctors in this ward to acquire a revolutionary outlook and so to master the laws of treating severe burns that they could save him. In the absence of all these conditions, the life of this kiln worker could not have been saved. Seeing the truth of this, the burns ward staff became more and more conscious that the collective must come before the individual. It is this consciousness and its practical expression in deeds that makes the difference between an individualist and a person wholly dedicated to the revolutionary cause.

              When they saw how necessary it is to maintain a strict scientific approach towards all measures of treatment—that is, to understand the dialectical concept of the unity of opposites, they came to understand that it is equally necessary to have the same approach towards their own thinking and work; that in times of danger and difficulty, they should see the bright prospects and that when things are going well, they should give thought to possible difficulties. They learnt that it is precisely when a succession of successes has been achieved that the need to guard against being proud and self-complacent is greatest: that “pride comes before a fall.” Experience has taught them that every step forward along the revolutionary path should be accompanied by a search for remnants of individualism in themselves; that when marked progress has been achieved in their work, it is especially important to boldly expose shortcomings and mistakes.

              Dedication to the revolution knows no limits; there is no end to learning how to make revolution. As the revolution advances, the problems that arise in every sphere of activity are endless. There can be no resting on one’s oars. The task of renovating medical knowledge and practice in the light of materialist dialectics is a formidable one. Inspired by Mao Tse-tung’s thinking, the staff of the Burns Unit have pledged themselves to work on boldly in full recognition of the great responsibility of that task.

        —Kuo Wang-ho      





              PUBLISHING
        Workers’ and Peasants’ Philosophical Writings

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #6, Feb. 4, 1966, p. 29.]

              Zhexue Yanjiu (Philosophical Research), a nationally circulated magazine which is published every other month, devotes its recent issue—No. 6, 1965—to 20 articles by worker, peasant and soldier authors arising out of their study of Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s works, The articles were selected from thousands of philosophical writings contributed in recent months to newspapers and magazines in various parts of the country by factory and building workers, commune members, armymen, shop assistants and others.

              This special issue includes an article entitled “Holding the Reins of Objective Laws” by the cotton spinner Hsieh Yueh, who uses the example of her invention of a new spinning method to illustrate the relation between analysis and synthesis in cognition and practice. Tan Hsien-ping, a driver who has a record of ten years’ safe driving, writes on “Dialectics in Motor Driving.” In “Seeing People With a Living Eye,” Lu Hsien-hsien, member of a rural people’s commune and secretary of a Communist Youth League branch in a production brigade, describes her experience in helping backward comrades catch up with the activists. Other articles are “There Is Dialectical Materialism in Farming, Too” by the nationally known ground-nut planter Yao Shih-chang of Shantung; “What Stops a Man From Listening?” by Keng Chang-so, national model peasant and head of the Wugong Production Brigade of the Wugong People’s Commune in Jaoyang County, Hopei Province; and “I Will Learn From Chairman Mao’s Writings My Whole Life” by Li Su-wen, a shop assistant of Shenyang, Liaoning Province, who is a Deputy to the National People’s Congress.

              The editorial of the magazine and a recent Renmin Ribao review of the number point out that as the masses’ study of Marxist philosophy is clearly aimed at practical application, at solving the problems they come up against, and as they are the people who have the richest experience in practice, they show immense vitality and creativeness in applying Marxism-Leninism and Chairman Mao’s fundamental philosophical ideas to their daily life and work. They base their daily work on a grasp and application of the objective laws involved in it. This generates fresh revolutionary energy and a scientific spirit; it helps produce more food and industrial goods, spark technical innovations and carry forward the class struggle in socialist society in the correct way. Their philosophical theses are fine examples of theory drawn from objective reality and then verified by objective reality.

              In “Dialectics in Motor Driving,” Tan Hsien-ping writes vividly of many contradictions in driving and the way he solved them. Especially interesting are his views on “driving in a reasonable and unreasonable way” which concern the dialectics of morality and law. To him, these are vital issues. “... Supposing an accident is imminent. If a driver can avoid it by giving the pedestrian violating the rule of the road more room or by stopping earlier, then he should do so.... It would seem that reason is on your side if an accident occurs while you have faithfully abided by the traffic laws; but, if you failed to do your best by stopping earlier or taking some other action to avoid an accident which was avoidable, and thus caused loss to the life or wealth of the people, then reason is not on your side and you have failed to do your duty.”

              “Seeing People With a Living Eye” by Lu Hsien-hsien illustrates the importance of considering people in the light of their development and not statically. She generalizes this as “a thread through three stages.” The thread is Chairman Mao’s ideas on the thesis “one divides into two.” In helping a youth who is still backward, one must first of all discover his good points, unite with him, and then persuade him to make use of his good points to overcome his weak points. That is the first stage. When he begins to wake up politically and shows actual progress, even though it may be but small, it is best to give him suitable encouragement to consolidate his progress. That is the second stage. But when a youngster has been praised for some reason, it is necessary to pay attention to his negative side and for his own sake give him a timely reminder about this. If this is not done, a “time bomb” is laid and some day it will explode to throw him back again.

              Citing such examples, the editorial praises these writings for being vivid and down-to-earth, combining theory and practice and offering a host of fresh ideas. They are indeed easily understood and stand in sharp and striking contrast to philosophical research which is divorced from reality, or thesis writing which is swaddled in abstract thoughts. The emancipation of philosophy from the classroom and bookish knowledge will yield unprecedentedly rich material for the further development of dialectical materialism.

              The last two pages of the magazine recommend to its readers’ attention a wide selection of philosophical writings of the working people put out by national, provincial and regional publishers. Written either in Han—the main Chinese language—or in the languages of various minority peoples, these writings show how powerful an ideological weapon dialectical materialism is in the hands of the revolutionary people. Theory indeed becomes an immense material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.

    ------------------

        Peking Review: Contents Page
        Vol. 9, #9      February 25, 1966

        [The articles below with active links have been scanned in and posted on this site.
        Comments in brackets added by the MASSLINE.ORG editor.]

        The Week

            * The Taching Spirit and the Taching Men
            * U.S. Bombing of Chinese Consulate Protested
            * Hooliganism Continues in Indonesia

        Articles and Documents

            “Revolutionary Leadership:
            County Party Secretary Chiao Yu-lu”. [An outstanding revolutionary leader held up as a model for the Party and country.]

            “Refuting Bundy”, by Observer.

            “Wilson Is Too Ignorant of the Times”, by “Renmin Ribao” Commentator

            “‘Renmin Ribao’ Editor’s Note on Prime Minister Castro’s Anti-China Statement”

            “Castro’s February 6 Anti-China Statement” [Full text of Fidel Castro’s statement in Granma.]

            “Anti-China Hysteria in Cuba”

            “Castro Speaks of Unity, But Has Chosen a Split”, from the Belgian C.P. Weekly.

            “Castro Joins Anti-China Chorus”, by N. Sanmugathasan, Member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Ceylon.

            “Who Are Applauding Castro’s Anti-China Statement?”   [Survey of Soviet and American press reports.]

            “South Vietnam Battlefield:
            “Mounting U.S. Casualties”

            “Foreign Press Review:
            “South Vietnam Tunnels Snare and Scare Invaders”

        Round the World

            * Indonesia: White Terror Rampant
            * India: Food Crisis Worsens
            * Africa: Spark of Armed Revolt
            * U.S.A.: Uproar on Capitol Hill
            * Latin America: Hitting the Colossus of the North   [Very short items about Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Chile.]
            * News Notes

        Art

            * Chinese Art in U.S.S.R.
            * Vietnamese Ensemble in Peking

    ------------

        THE WEEK
    The Taching Spirit and the Taching Men

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #9, Feb. 25, 1966, pp. 3-4.]

          Five years ago, Taching was only a grassland. Today it is a modern oilfield, a rapidly rising enterprise which has contributed immensely to China’s self-sufficiency in oil for the first time in history.

          But Taching, which has become a household word all over the country, means much more than a petroleum centre. Opened up entirely by Chinese workers, geologists and engineers, it is a landmark in the nation’s oil industry, an example of developing socialist industry by self-reliance, a pace-setter in building socialism the quickest way and with the maximum and best results.

          In the process of socialist construction, Taching has trained a new generation of men. They have a high political consciousness and are skilled in their work, combining revolutionary drive with a realistic, scientific approach.

          These Taching men working in the Taching spirit have blazed a trail for a Chinese way in oil prospecting and oilfield construction. Their splendid example has given tremendous impetus to the whole nation. Their impact on speeding up China’s industry and other fields of national endeavour cannot be over-estimated. A campaign to emulate the Taching men and the Taching spirit is gathering momentum throughout the country.

    Politics in Command

          Conditions were extremely trying when work first started at Taching. There were no houses on the vast grasslands while the tools and machines available were not sufficient for the workers to tackle the enormous job. But the workers were not dismayed. They were aware that they had come to Taching not only to conquer Nature but also to smash the blockade of the imperialists and revisionists who were taking advantage of China’s dependence on imported oil.

          Inspired by the exploits of Chinese geologists who had painstakingly scoured the country to discover the big oilfield, thereby exploding the false theory spread by Western bourgeois “experts” that China had little or no oil reserves, the workers erected makeshift shacks to keep out the rain and the cold and made do with whatever tools and machines were on hand. Their persistent efforts and determination to extract oil as quickly as possible to meet the nation’s growing needs soon paid off handsomely. The virgin land which had slumbered for ages began to throb with activity. The first barrel of oil was extracted less than a year after construction started. Since large-scale production began in 1963, the wells have been sending trainload after trainload of the precious “black gold” to all parts of the country.

    The Man of Iron

          Most of this and more of the Taching story was told by Wang Chin-hsi, a well-known model worker from the oilfield, in Peking’s Great Hall of the People on February 16. His graphic account kept the 13,000 people who packed the hall spellbound for three hours. An oilman from the Yumen oilfield in northwest China, Wang went to Taching in 1960. The revolutionary fervour with which he set about his work and his fortitude and resolve in face of near insuperable difficulties earned him the fond nickname Wang the Man of Iron.

          Wang Chin-hsi is only one of the many outstanding workers of Taching who, dedicated to the revolution, find in their work something deeper and more far-reaching in significance than a mere struggle to get oil out of the ground. They look upon it as a pressing task in helping their country get rid of its economic backwardness and as part of the struggle against the imperialists and the revisionists who are trying to bully the Chinese people. Always putting politics first, they have tempered themselves to become skilled workers with revolutionary ideals, united in purpose and able to withstand all difficulties. This proletarian revolutionary spirit which emanates from the study and creative application of Mao Tse-tung’s works prevails all over Taching.

    Revolutionary Enthusiasm Plus Scientific Approach

          Revolutionary enthusiasm alone, of course, would not have enabled them to carry the day. Chairman Mao’s teaching that “man’s correct knowledge comes from social practice” has spurred them on to make thorough investigations, get first-hand material and continually experiment so as to master objective laws. This scientific approach has helped the workers to build up Taching at an unprecedented speed and make it one of the most technologically advanced oilfields in the world.

          When prospecting was started in 1960, the pioneers broke away from foreign stereotypes and taboos and adopted a method different from that commonly used abroad. Shattering the claims of some “authorities” that one can get only a rough understanding of the oil formations underground, the Taching builders made large-scale investigations and obtained voluminous first-hand data which enabled them to complete the prospecting work in a surprisingly short space of time.



    Behind the makeshift shacks rises a modern oilfield   Sketch by Shao Yu

          Engineers, workers and cadres have worked together and made careful studies of the special conditions of every bed in the strata and devised a whole series of working methods suited to Taching. They introduced a special method of high-speed drilling, and the result was that the average monthly speed which each drilling machine attained has rarely been known anywhere in the world in drilling wells of the same type. A special production test area was developed and every new invention or innovation was repeatedly tested there until it was proved satisfactory. Often, the number of analyses and comparisons ran into seven figures before a plan was finally adopted. It is through such painstaking and scientific efforts—constantly summing up their experience, making new discoveries and inventions and going on creating and advancing—that Taching’s builders have made it the big and most up-to-date oilfield it is today.

          Taching’s men working in the Taching spirit have abundantly demonstrated that the Chinese people are fully capable of building a modern socialist industry with greater, faster, better and more economical results by relying on their own efforts. Taching has set an example of building industries the Chinese way. Following this example, other enterprises of the Taching type are springing up in growing numbers all over the land. The miracle of self-sufficiency in petroleum which has opened the eyes of many foreigners to the reality in China today will in the days to come be repeated in other branches of industry, in science and in every other aspect of life in China.

    --------

    THE WEEK
    U.S. Bombing of Chinese Consulate Protested

    [This short article is reprinted from Peking
    Review, Vol. 9, #9, Feb. 25, 1966, pp. 4 and 9.]

          The United States had “only one desire” for Laos and all nations, namely, that “the people may live in peace.” Thus spoke U.S. Vice-President Humphrey in Vientiane in mid February while on his Far East capital-hopping trip to drum up support and soldiers for Washington’s misadventure in Vietnam.

          Within a few days, however, American planes blew Humphrey’s fine words sky-high. On February 18, four U.S. jet fighter-bombers bombed and strafed the city of Phong Saly in northern Laos. During the bombing, the American planes also attacked the Chinese Consulate-General in the city, causing serious damage to buildings and other Chinese property. This was the third time that U.S. military aircraft had bombed Chinese diplomatic missions in Laos and it was another direct provocation against the Chinese people by U.S. imperialism and its followers in expanding the war in Indo-China. In a statement of protest issued on February 19, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared: “The bombing of the city of Phong Saly by U.S. planes indicates that U.S. imperialism has stretched its tentacles of aggression over the whole of Laos. In professing the desire that the Laotian ‘people may live in peace,’ the United States actually wants to wage a general war in Laos.”

          Pointing out that the Laotian authorities in Vientiane who had allowed the U.S. planes to carry out such raids could not shirk their responsibility, the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said: “The Chinese Government solemnly points out that the Laotian authorities are acting against the wishes of the Laotian people in serving as a willing henchman of U.S. imperialism in its expansion of the war in Indo-China, violating the Geneva agreements and being hostile to the Chinese people, and that they will certainly come to no good end.”

    -------

       THE WEEK
    Hooliganism Continues in Indonesia

    [This short article is reprinted from Peking
    Review, Vol. 9, #9, Feb. 25, 1966, p. 12.]

          Over the last four months, the Indonesian Right-wing forces have gone to great lengths to poison Sino-Indonesian relations. They have again and again organized hooligans to create incidents and commit outrages against Chinese nationals and Chinese diplomatic missions.

          Only seven days after the February 3 attack on the Chinese Embassy in Djarkarta, acts of violence took place against the Chinese Consulate and Chinese nationals in Bandjarmasin. Thus, in disregard of the Chinese Government’s repeated protests and demands, the Indonesian Government again has not kept its promise to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents.

          On February 10, hundreds of hooligans made a wild attack on the Chinese Consulate in Bandjarmasin. They stoned the Consulate building, breaking many windows. While the rowdies shouted anti-Chinese slogans outside, some climbed over the walls and carried out provocations. In the afternoon, they damaged shops and houses of Chinese nationals.

          Two days later, the hooligans were out again, doing serious damage to Chinese shops and houses and the local Chung Hua Chung Hui. That same day, while Su Sheng, the Chinese Consul in Bandjarmasin, was conferring with the Governor of South Kalimantan, hoodlums inscribed anti-Chinese slogans on his car. All this occurred after the Chinese Consul had called on the Governor of South Kalimantan on February 9, demanding that the Indonesian authorities take effective measures to guarantee the safety of the Consulate and protect the life and property of Chinese nationals. The Chinese Embassy in Indonesia, in its February 15 note to the Indonesian Foreign Ministry, lodged the strongest protest with the Indonesian Government. It demanded that the Indonesian Government make a public apology for the incidents, punish the culprits and their instigators, compensate the Consulate and the Chinese nationals for their losses, and take measures to guarantee against the occurrence of similar incidents in the future.

    ------------

    Speech by U.S. Negro Leader Robert Williams

    Peking Review, Vol. 9, #33, Aug. 12, 1966, pp. 24-27

    Brothers, Sisters, Patriots, Revolutionaries:

    Once again, I want to thank Chairman Mao Tse-tung and our brothers,
    the great Chinese people for their support of our struggle. Commemorating
    the third anniversary of Chairman Mao Tse-tung's statement calling upon
    the people of the world to unite against racial discrimination by U.S.
    imperialism and support the American Negroes in their struggle against
    racial discrimination, the greatest tribute that can be paid to the correctness
    of his immortal words lie in a current analysis and assessment of the present
    development of struggle being waged by the Afro-American people.

    Chairman Mao Tse-tung's statement of August 8, 1963 gave inspiration
    to a people long and brutally oppressed and dehumanized, then laboring
    under the masochist-like philosophy of neo-Gandhism. His words gave impetus
    to a floundering and feeble movement of armed self-defence. And today all
    of the reactionary world is shocked and terrified by the turbulent winds
    of ever increasing armed resistance now sweeping the mighty fortress of
    savage imperialism and beastly racism. In racist America's might northern
    cities, in the small towns, in the countryside, in the dark and deep jungle
    wilderness of the southland, from coast to coast, oppressed and dehumanized
    black people are meeting oppressive racist terrorist's violence with revolutionary
    violence. The thunder of BLACK POWER echoes throughout the land. A mighty
    firestorm sweeps through the ghettoes rife with rebellion. In their paradise
    of stolen wealth, ringed by massive arsenals of horrible death weapons,
    the tyrannical kings of imperialism tremble from the terrifying shock of
    a confrontation with wretched and angry slaves, armed with a common household
    match and a bottle of gasoline.

    What is the meaning of this cry BLACK POWER in a land dominated by the
    unmerciful power of white intruders who murdered and all but exterminated
    the rightful owners, the American Indians? Black Power means that black
    men want to have some control over their own lives, to have a respected
    voice in public affairs that affect them. We resent being a colonial people,
    treated as third class citizens in our native land. We resent being forbidden
    to speak for ourselves, even in black belts where we constitute as much
    as 85 percent of the population. We resent being deformed by a white man's
    mold in a degenerate white supremacy society that derides and belittles
    our African heritage and make us ashamed of our ethnic characteristics.
    Black Power is the vehicle by which we hope to reach a stage wherein we
    can be proud black people without the necessity of an apology for our non-Anglo-Saxon
    features. The dominant society in racist America is reactionary, imperialist,
    racist, and decadent and we wish to disassociate ourselves from it. Black
    Power is a dissident force challenging the racist white power structure
    that is so heinously exterminating the people of Vietnam and threatening
    the world with nuclear destruction.

    We have been victims of white racism for 400 years in the new world.
    We have been victims of racist barbarism for almost 200 years under the
    present form of government. Our people are slaughtered like swine on the
    main streets of racist America. Our churches and homes have been bombed.
    Our women raped with impunity. Our men have been emasculated. We are hated
    and murdered for no other reason than being born black and because we refuse
    to commend and love our savage oppressors, we are called racists.

    We are oppressed people. Our objective is to destroy the hurtful stranglehold
    of our enemy oppressors. An opponent without the courage to designate his
    enemy by his true characteristics cannot expect to confront and defeat
    him. We propose to call our enemies what they are. We propose to rally
    our people and fight on this basis. We do not propose to mince our words
    for the sake of peaceful coexistence. It is a natural law that a humble
    lamb cannot peacefully coexist with a rabid wolf in close proximity.

    Yes, we have some white Americans with us in our struggle. They are
    our true brothers. These revolutionaries understand and share our anger.
    They know it is justified. Their spirit is an extension of the glorious
    spirit of the great and noble antislavery fighter, John Brown. Yes, they
    too are a hated and persecuted minority people in Johnson's majority mob
    rule Hitlerite jungle society. Yes, and like all other peoples we have
    enemies in our ranks. We have black traitors who practice treason for 30
    pieces of silver. We have black Judases, insensate running dogs for the
    Johnson administration and its racist white power structure. Like their
    white puppet masters, these black puppets too have days that are numbered.

    Our wrath is as intense against the black lackeys of our white oppressors
    as it is against the white supremacy oppressors themselves. These mercenary
    Uncle Toms are the most vocal nonviolent peace peddlers in the storm centers
    of racist America today. The ghettoes are ablaze but they advocate peaceful
    submission to continued tyranny and oppression.

    Johnson, the great civil rights advocate, the former senator from the
    racist state of Texas, who as senator voted against every civil rights
    bill that came before the U.S. Senate, claimed to be a modern day Moses
    to black Americans so long as they passively allowed themselves to be mauled
    and maimed by white supremacy brutes and thugs. But now, with brutal white
    supremacy Federal Power, he threatens those who defend themselves, their
    homes, and their women and children. Mr. Johnson, the big daddy white supremacist,
    would remind our people that we are a minority and the brutal racist white
    savages are a majority. Like his fellow-traveling Ku Klux Klansmen, he
    endeavors to frighten and intimidate us by the mere numbers of our eternal
    oppressors. In the same fashion that Mr. Johnson would like to intimidate
    the Chinese people with a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, he is endeavoring
    to intimidate the black American by alluding to great hordes of white supremacists
    who are ready and willing to exterminate our people. We say to Mr. Johnson
    that intimidation, violence, and brutality will not stop the raging fires
    in the people's liberation struggle. The only force on earth powerful enough
    to halt the flames engulfing ghettoes and main streets of racist America
    consists of fair play, brotherhood, equality, and justice.

    We serve notice on big daddy Texas Lyndon B. Johnson that he can no
    more intimidate the Afro-American people with his threat of unleashing
    his great hordes of mad-dog racists than he can intimidate the Chinese
    people with the threat of unleashing a nuclear attack. The day when brutal
    white racist oppressors and imperialists can frighten colored peoples into
    submission by threats of savage violence are gone forever!

    We revolutionary Afro-Americans respond to Mr. Johnson and his Ku Klux
    Klan fraternity of white supremacy with the cry of BLACK POWER, FREEDOM
    NOW! JUSTICE! We proclaim our inalienable right to live as human beings
    and we shall implement our demand with blood and fire. Yes, Mr. Johnson,
    we are a minority but more than that we are an oppressed minority determined
    at all costs to be free, and we are resolved to pay any price, to perform
    any task, and to go to any length for our freedom.

    Yes, we are a minority but we are a minority with the power of a righteous
    cause and justice on our side. We are a minority marching in the endless
    files of the great multiracial masses of the invincible anti-imperialist
    and antiracist forces of the world. For the benefit of Mr. Johnson, who
    puts so much stock in numbers, we remind him once again, in the words a
    great people's leader a liberator who words, thought, and teachings stand
    as impeccable in the turbulent winds of time as the might Rock of Gibraltar,
    yes, we remind him once again that our great leader and teacher, Chairman
    Mao Tse-tung has said:

    "We are in the majority and they are in the minority. At most, they
    make up less than ten percent of the three thousand million population
    of the world. I am firmly convinced that, with the support of more than
    ninety percent of the people of the world, the American Negroes will be
    victorious in their just struggle. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism
    arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes,
    and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the
    black people."

    Today, in the social jungle of racist America the rights of colored
    people are less respected than those of common street dogs. The law and
    the kangaroo courts of the so-called free world of "Christian" democracy
    protect the rights of common street dogs and other dumb animals but there
    is not a single court of law that dispenses even-handed justice and unbiased
    constitutional and human rights to colored Americans. The long, brutal,
    and miserable plight of our people throughout the history of barbaric America
    encompasses one of the most shameful and savage chapters in the history
    of slavery and man's injustice to man.

    The dominant class in racist America is one of the most hypocritical
    the world has ever seen. It captured the African in Africa, enslaved him,
    ripped his culture from him, raped him, reproduced from him, completely
    dehumanized him, and reduced him to the level of beast of burden and stamped
    him with the name Negro as a tribute to the white man's creation and invention
    of a new implement of agriculture and an instrument of labour. And all
    the while, he promoted this brutal slavery, he proclaimed himself architect
    of democracy and a Christian society. All the while, he brutally and savagely
    exterminated the American Indian and piously proclaimed Thanksgiving to
    his white god for being so generous in blessing him with the bounty of
    the Indian's rich land and paradise. He built a brutal imperialist prison
    wall around the peoples of Latin America and piously named it the protective
    Monroe Doctrine. He stretched his bloody hand to Asia and arrogantly called
    it an "Open Door Policy."

    The same bandit who exterminated and starved the American Indian on
    his own native soil now piously proclaims to practice charity to the nation
    of India in a hypocritical effort to use them in his campaign to subdue
    and enslave the peoples of Asia. What is the nature of his democracy? What
    does such a beastly, imperialist, racist savage know about democracy? Should
    not democracy, like charity, start first at home, and then spread abroad?
    What is the democracy of the Black American captives in the miserable ghettoes,
    in the cotton fields of Mississippi, battered by the savage policeman's
    club in Washington, D.C.? What is the democracy of the Puerto Ricans, of
    the Mexicans, and of the American Indians in racist America? Only the most
    naive can believe the empty words and promise of such a morally bankrupt
    charlatan.

    Deceptive American white supremacy is personified by hypocrites like
    Bobby Kennedy, a sophisticated huckster and charlatan of the first magnitude
    who struts and sways into the hotbed of African white supremacy and colonialism,
    hugging and kissing black babies and masquerading as a great white father
    and savior of the black Africans. Mr. Kennedy's actions in racist America
    are quite a contrast to his deceitful conduct in Africa. When Mr. Kennedy
    served as the attorney general of the U.S.A. he was sworn to uphold the
    right of equal protection under law, yet he collaborated with the most
    barbaric racists in the nation. He entered into a "white gentleman's agreement"
    with the notorious racist governor of Mississippi, Ross Barnett. Defenseless
    and helpless black women and children were bombed, gassed, clubbed, raped,
    and murdered on the main streets of racist America and Mr. Kennedy is yet
    to punish a single white supremacist heathen transgressor. As attorney
    general he did nothing about the fact that Africans were being beaten in
    the United States, even the diplomats assigned to the United Nations.

    It is strange indeed how Mr. Kennedy can perform in the racist chorus
    of those who chant slogans of hatred, vilification, and dehumanization
    for black people in America while proclaiming his pretended great love
    for black humanity in Africa. Such is the nature of a deceptive and barbaric
    Yankee.

    In America, Mr. Kennedy publicly proclaims himself to be opposed to
    black nationalism. In his white supremacy logic, he calls it racism in
    reverse. Black nationalism is a survival reaction to white nationalism.
    White nationalism transcends religious, class, social, and political lines.
    The reason that no massive black-white unity on a national scale exists
    today is that the white supremacy ruling class has poisoned the minds of
    white workers. Most white workers identify with their white imperialist
    rulers. White liberals insist on paternalism. Even bourgeois minded so-called
    socialists are more and more identifying and grouping on a racial basis
    rather than on a class basis. We Afro-American revolutionaries have discovered
    that some so-called socialists, we thought to be our comrades and class
    brothers have joined the international Ku Klux Klan fraternity for white
    supremacy and world domination. To our consternation, we have discovered
    that the bourgeois orientated power structure of some socialist states,
    even one with a black and white population, would prefer to preserve the
    white reactionary anticommunist power structure in racist America, their
    natural national enemy, than to see a just, democratic, fraternal socialist
    state brought about by the revolutionary action of oppressed blacks that
    would serve the best interests of all peoples and races. Like their Yankee
    counterparts that they love to ape so well, even to the point of emulating
    their racism, they are moving might and main to frustrate and defeat the
    revolutionary movements of the oppressed peoples throughout the world.

    We of the Afro-American liberation movement resolutely condemn and oppose
    all counterrevolutionaries and purveyors of white supremacy whether they
    cloak their treachery in the garb of Marxist-Leninist phraseology or the
    hideous bed sheets of the Ku Klux Klan and its phoney Christian doctrine.

    We who are engaged in the struggle for liberation and survival vehemently
    condemn the use of black dehumanized troops as cannon fodder in a white
    man's war of imperialism in Vietnam. We oppose Johnson's vicious crusade
    to dehumanize, emasculate, and enslave the great Vietnamese people.

    Black boys -- from the slum housing of black ghettoes, ill-educated
    in segregated schools, emasculated and dehumanized by police brutality
    and a savage white power structure -- yes, black, boys who cannot find
    employment, black boys who are victims of white racists who hate them because
    of the color of their skin -- black boys who mothers, sisters, and loved
    ones are being savagely clubbed, gassed, raped, maimed, lynched, and railroaded
    to prison in racist kangaroo courts simply for begging and praying for
    elementary justice are forced to share foxholes and and shed their blood
    alongside racist Negro haters in Vietnam, who like in racist America refuse
    to fraternize with them in places of amusement in Tokyo and Saigon. Even
    out of proportion to the self-styled master race, vast numbers of black
    soldiers are forced to suffer and die in that vain effort to prolong and
    extend the brutal racist white man's imperialism. They are forced to suffer
    and die in the cause of a racist power structure that is as much the enemy
    of black people in America as it is the people of peace and freedom loving
    Vietnam.

    And why od we call the massive Ku Klux Klan type action in Vietnam a
    racist white man's war of imperialism while many black men are fighting
    there? It is because in racist America no black man is part of Johnson's
    policy-making clique. The United State is governed by white power. The
    Pentagon is a white-dominated repressive arm of a ruthless elite white
    power structure. Wall Street is an exclusive club of the great white chiefs
    of business and industry. Black Americans are resisting the racist and
    imperialist lily-white power structure. How can a people who are fighting
    and dying simply to wrest the most basic of human rights from an intransigent
    and tyrannical power structure be said to be partners of that power structure
    and willing participants in its racist and imperialist ventures and crimes
    against humanity?

    The United States today is a fascist society more brutal than any the
    world has ever known. It has all but exterminated a whole people. It has
    robbed and raped an entire continent with impunity. It has divided the
    peoples of the world into national factions and set them against themselves
    and their brothers. With no more authority than the wave of its bloody
    imperialist hand it has abrogated the right of self-determination of small
    nations. It has appointed and crowned itself both king and armoured knight
    of the whole universe. It threatens the globe with annihilation. It is
    a super colonial power that is colonializing the colonials.

    The world famed and brilliant philosopher, Lord Bertrand Russell has
    justifiably stated that racist America has exterminated more black people
    than Hitler exterminated Jews in Nazi Germany. Lord Russell and many other
    fair-minded humanists throughout the world have justifiably stated that
    the U.S. military aggression in Vietnam is executed in a more cruel and
    barbarous manner than even the horrible campaigns of aggression, genocide,
    and conquest carried out by Hitler's fascist Germany.

    Yet, there is a mighty tendency, promoted by the sinister American devil
    himself, to engender more sympathy and fraternalism for the so-called "good
    reasonable Americans" than for the wretched victims of vicious and brutal
    U.S. imperialism. The U.S. constitutes one of the greatest fascist threats
    ever to cast its ugly shadow across the face of the earth. When the butchers
    of Nazi Germany were on the plunder, the world cry was "Crush Nazism!"
    "Crush the Fascist Power Structure!" "Crush Germany!" Total war was unleashed
    without deference to any who may been considered "good Germans" inside
    Nazi Germany. No sane person opposed to fascism pleaded for a soft policy
    toward Nazi Germany or pleaded for victims to wait for deliverance through
    the benevolence of "good German workers and liberals." Racist America didn't
    give a damn about sparing the good Japanese people when they dropped their
    horrible and devastating atom bombs.

    What is the motive of those who plead for the exemption of liberal Americans,
    whose feigned liberalism merely serves as a cloak and shield around the
    naked power of savage and racist U.S. imperialism? The time is fast approaching
    when the so-called good reasonable American must make a decision either
    to overtly side with American chauvinism and jingoism or to take a resolute
    anti-imperialist and antiracist stand that will be a firm basis for a just
    and lasting world peace.

    We who are brutally oppressed and victimized cannot forever afford to
    spare the fortress of social reaction and tyranny because there are allegedly
    silent dissenters within its gates. Those who are without righteous cause
    of the oppressed must be prepared to suffer the consequences of the gathering
    storm of the violent and turbulent winds of retribution. A good man who
    is silent and inactive in times of great injustice and oppression is no
    good man at all. He is no ally to freedom and justice but is a silent partner
    to tyranny and condemnation. He does not deserve exemption from the condemnation
    and the vengeance of those whom his silence allows to be victimized. The
    myth of the good reasonable American who is yet to be heard is a ruse perpetrated
    by the psychological arm of the imperialist forces of tyranny. It is one
    minute to zero in racist America. Four hundred bloody and gruesome years
    have passed. For 400 years, our good silent partners have remained silent
    and inactive. Time is running out and they stand at the dividing line still
    beseeching patience, still beseeching the slave to leave his fate to his
    silent friends ever infected with inertia. They plead for deference on
    behalf of the good people who yet stand at one camp. We call to them to
    separate themselves from the devil's legions. We inform them that they
    have not 400 more years to make a decision but one minute before the hour
    of zero, before the Armageddon between the slavemaster and the slave.

    Once again, in closing, let me thank our great leader and teacher, the
    architect of people's warfare, Chairman Mao Tse-tung, for his great and
    inspiring statement in support of our struggle. And to our great Chinese
    brothers and true revolutionaries throughout the world, we revolutionary
    Afro-Americans vow that we shall take the torch of freedom and justice
    into the streets of racist America and we shall set the last great stronghold
    of Yankee imperialism ablaze with our battle cry of Black Power! FREEDOM!
    FREEDOM! FREEDOM! NOW OR DEATH! For our people, for our country, and for
    our compatriots throughout the world, we shall reclaim the nobility of
    the American Revolution. We shall raise our flag in honor, true peace,
    and brotherhood to all the world!

    Long live the People's Republic of China!
    Long live Chairman Mao Tse-tung!
    Long live the people's resistance to imperialism, racism, and tyranny!
    Long live the militant friendship between the Chinese and revolutionary
    American people!

    -----------------------

              The Week
        Mali’s National Day

        [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, Vol. 9, #40, Sept. 30,
        1966, p. 6. ]

              Malian Ambassador to China Guisse Tidiani gave a reception on September 22 to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Mali. Among those who attended were Tung Pi-wu, Vice-Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, and Vice-Premier Li Hsien-nien. Ambassador Guisse Tidiani and Vice-Premier Li Hsien-nien spoke at the reception.

              Referring to the situation in Africa, Ambassador Guisse Tidiani condemned the overt interference by imperialism against the African peoples. He pointed out that some puppet governments in Africa were working servilely for the benefit of imperialism.

              The Ambassador warmly congratulated the Chinese people who, led by the Chinese Communist Party and Chairman Mao Tse-tung, had built China into a great, powerful country. He said that the people and Government of Mali supported the just struggle of the Chinese people for the liberation of Taiwan.

              The Ambassador hailed the rapid development of friendly co-operation between Mali and China. He also expressed support for the heroic Vietnamese people, victims of imperialist intervention and aggression. He said that the Vietnamese people’s struggle had won widespread support because it was a just one and because it was closely linked with the revolutionary struggle of the world’s people and with the cause of national liberation, socialism and peace.

              Vice-Premier Li Hsien-nien, in his speech, praised the Malian people for their unremitting struggles and great successes in safeguarding their national independence and developing their national economy and culture. He said that the Chinese people regarded the achievements of the Malian people as their own.

              Vice-Premier Li Hsien-nien went on to say that the Chinese people, under the personal leadership of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, had launched a vigorous and unprecedented great proletarian cultural revolution. He said that the situation with regard to this revolution was becoming increasingly favourable and hundreds of millions of people had further armed themselves with Mao Tse-tung’s thought. The Chinese people were transforming this great spiritual force into a great material force to achieve greater, faster, better and more economical results in all fields of work. Taking firm hold of the revolution while promoting production, the masses of workers and peasants were at present giving a powerful impetus to China’s socialist revolution and socialist construction which were advancing in big strides. Unified by Mao Tse-tung’s thought, China would become an impregnable state of the people.

              The Vice-Premier added: “The revolutionary people of the whole world are elated and inspired by the great proletarian cultural revolution in China. The imperialists, modern revisionists and reactionaries of all countries, however, are mortally afraid of it and are directing shameless attacks and slanders against us. But their outcries cannot do us the slightest harm; they only prove that we have done well and done the right thing in carrying on the great proletarian cultural revolution. We will certainly hold high the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung’s thought and carry this revolution through to the end.”

              Vice-Premier Li Hsien-nien said that there was a traditional militant friendship between the Chinese and Malian peoples. He stressed that the Chinese people firmly supported the Malian people in their struggle against imperialism and new and old colonialism, and for defending their national independence and developing their national economy.




        Contents page for this Peking Review issue.

        Peking Review article list (in date order).

        Peking Review article list (by subject).

        MASSLINE.ORG Home Page



    ---------------

    Bankruptcy of "Peaceful Transition" Fraud: "Non-Congress Governments" —Instruments of Reactionary Rule in India

    Peking Review, No. 51, 15th December, 1967.


    [Nepal is not the first country in history where communist party accomplished a victory in parliamentary election. It happened in Chile, Indonesia and India before. The following article depicts the view of the Communist Party of China, under the leadership of Comrade Mao over the parliamentary line adopted by so called Indian communists. It is important to mention that in India the “non-congress” government, whose deputy chief minister was Jyoti Basu, the leader of Communist Party of India (Marxist), the major partner of the government did not hesitate to use brutal state repression to combat peasant uprising in Naxalbari.

    The parliamentary line to change an existing society is the direct corollary of the “peaceful transition”, the revisionist line promoted by Khrushchev. Therefore, in order to understand the recent development in Nepal, the following article has immense importance. The history of international communist movement is the history of two line struggle. We have to decide which side we are on.

    The article is collected from “Spring Thunder Over India--anthology of articles on Naxalbari”, published (1985) by Radical Impression, Kolkata, India. Emphasis is added over some section of the article.--Editorial Board]


    The regime in the State of West Bengal which was dissolved by order of the New Delhi Government on 21.11.67 was one of the nine so-called "non-Congress State Governments" set up following the fourth general elections in India last February. These "non-Congress State Governments" were brought into existence with a great deal of ballyhoo, and the traitor Dange clique and the revisionists in the Indian Communist Party boosted them as "democratic" and "people's" regimes established through parliamen­tary election. But like the rest of the State Governments., in India, they were nothing but instruments of reactionary rule.

    The fourth general elections were held at a time when the Congress Party, the chief instrument of the Indian landlords and bureaucrat-comprador bourgeoisie, was beset with difficulties both at home and abroad. In the course of its 20 years rule, the Congress Party, having fully revealed itself before the Indian people as reac­tionary and traitorous, has lost the magic of its deception. During the election campaign, Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, K. Kamraj and many other Congress leading figures were on many an occasion given a rough reception by angry masses who attacked them with stones, bricks, shoes and flower pots. Indira Gandhi herself got a bleeding nose. These were the "votes" cast by the Indian people for the Congress Party.

    The Indian reactionaries and their bosses, US imperialism and Soviet revisionism, had realised for some time that it was next to impossible for them to rely on Congress alone to keep firm hold over the entire country. So, in those States where Congress control had been seriously weakened, they propped up the Swatantra, Jan Sangh and other reactionary parties, rajas and politicians as well to form "non-Congress Governments". By giving an appearance of "democratic" multi-party rule, they hoped that the reactionary rule could be preserved. In areas where the people's movement was in high tide, the Indian reactionaries especially felt the need for revisionists of the Indian Communist Party to hoodwink the people.

    The reactionary government therefore released a number of Indian revisionists from prison before the polling date so that they could take part in the elections and become MPs or ministers. The Indian Communist Party revisionists on their part badly needed a few post, in the "non-Congress State Governments" to demonstrate the "feasibility" of "peaceful transition"

    Thus after the "general elections" while the Congress Party remained in control of the Central Government, by the end of July, "non-Congress Governments" were established in 8 out of the total 16 ( Kashmir not included ).

    Since assumption of office, the officials of these "non-Congress State Governments" pretending to be concerned with the welfare of the people, have pat forward slogans designed to deceive and have adopted reformist measures for winning popular favour and stabilizing their rule.

    US imperialism and Soviet revisionism, the bosses of the Indian landlords and bureaucrat comprador capitalists, loudly applauded this farce of "democracy". US Ambassador Chester Bowles praised the result of the elections as testifying to the vitality of Indian "democracy". US grain continued to be supplied to the "Communist Government" of Kerala State. New Times, a mouth­piece of the Soviet revisionists, extolled the State Governments of West Bengal and Kerala as comprising "Leftist and Democratic Parties".

    Official circles in New Delhi have revealed that it is the inten­tion of US imperialism and Indian monopoly capital to form a "multi-party government", in New Delhi, too, for the purpose of deceiving the people if the Congress Party can no longer maintain its rule from the Centre.

    Our great leader Chairman Mao penetratingly pointed out in 1947 that Chiang Kai-Shek's "reorganising the one-party govern­ment into a multi-party government" only showed the bankruptcy of Chiang's political trick which were failing as fast as he played them. The trick played by the Indian reactionaries at present are no less despicable and clumsy than those of Chiang Kai-Shek.

    All the parties and politicians taking part in the "non-Congress State Governments" speak for the interests of the Indian landlords and bureaucrat-comprador capitalists. Although these reactionary parties display such words as "freedom" and "people" on their signboards, every one of them is pro-US and anti-China to the bone and rabidly against the people.

    West Bengal where US and British capital in India is most concentrated reveals the fraudulent character of the "non-Congress State Governments". Harsh feudal exploitation exists to this day in the rural areas. However, in the working programme of the West Bengal "non-Congress State Governments", not a single word is said about countering or restricting the forces of foreign imperial­ism or the domestic monopolies and feudal forces. It only speaks vaguely of "working for the welfare of the people".

    While mouthing fine words in its programme about "fighting unemployment" and creating new "employment opportunities" for the workers, the State Government encourages the domestic and foreign capitalists to ruthlessly exploit and enslave the workers and connives at their summary dismissal.

    From early March to May 1, the workers, who have a rich revolutionary tradition, held 144 "besieging" (gherao) actions, and encircled the officer and homes of the capitalists. The State Government repeatedly sent police to suppress the workers with guns and tear-gas bombs. Openly clamouring for the right of the capitalists to receive "due police protection", deputy Chief Minister Jyoti Basu, went in person to conduct so-called "mediation" between the capitalists and the workers' and by suppression and deception helped the capitalists put down the workers' strikes. The bloody suppression of the peasants' revolutionary armed struggle in Naxalbari and other places in Darjeeling District exposed even more glaringly the real features of the West Bengal "non-Congress Government".

    In West Bengal and other States where "non-Congress Govern­ments" had been set up, the relation of production have remained the same as under Congress Party rule. Like their Congress predecessor, these State Governments endeavour to preserve and promote the interest of monopoly capital and the landlords. The Indian revisionists, after the elections, sanctimoniously declared that they would see to it that the State Government "protects the interest of the people". But did they strike down the exploiters—the landlords and monopoly capitalists—by force and violence? No. They have instead vilified the armed struggle of the peasants in Naxalbari and tried to assure the peasants that they can well trust the State Government which, so they said, can find a "democratic and peaceful solution" to the agrarian question and solve it "amicably and peacefully", and which can "meet the just demands of the peasantry". This is merely Gandhi's Doctrine of' non-violence plus revisionist hambug. When in power in Kerala in 1957, the Indian revisionists got out an "agrarian reform law" of a reformist character. Now, they do not even raise the slogan of agrarian reform. They are pre-occupied with making contacts with domestic and foreign financial magnates whom they are inviting to invest in Kerala, and this is simply an open license for the ruthless exploitation of the people.

    The Indian revisionists have hypocritically assured the people that "in West Bengal and Kerala our ministers have refused to use the police to crush the workers and people fighting a just battle for their jobs and livelihood". However, when confronted with the people's revolutionary struggle, they could no longer conceal their anti-people and counter-revolutionary nature. Facts show that together with the bureaucrats of the Congress and other reactionary parties, they have piled up one blood debt after another to the Indian people, for which history will mete out to them due punish­ment.

    The Congress Government can no longer fool the people, nor can the "non-Congress Governments"'. The Indian people have learnt from their own experience the real meaning of 'parliamentary democracy", "non-Congress Government" and "peaceful transition" publicized by the Indian reactionaries and revisionists.

    Under the guidance of Mao Tsetung Thought, the revolution­aries of the Indian Communist Party have led the peasants of Naxalbari and other places to wage revolutionary armed struggles. This is an important sign of the awakening of the Indian people. They will eventually cast off the spell of Gandhism and revisionist humbug about "peaceful transition" to socialism. Sooner or later, they will make violent revolution to overthrow and smash the machinery of the reactionary government. This is a law of historical development.

    Our great leader Chairman Mao Tsetung teaches "Revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society and without them, it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrew the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power."

    ------------------------


    Orientation of China’s Socialist Commerce
    by the Revolutionary Mass Criticism Writing
    Group of the Ministry of Commerce

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #50, Dec. 11, 1970, pp. 3-6.]

          SOCIALIST commerce is an important front in China’s socialist revolution and socialist construction.

          By formulating a whole series of the theory, line, principles and policies for commercial work, giving socialist commerce its orientation and solving the fundamental problems in running commerce under the dictatorship of the proletariat, our great leader Chairman Mao has developed Marxism-Leninism creatively and with genius.

          The renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi wildly interfered in and sabotaged Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line in an attempt to lead China’s commerce on to the vile road of capitalism.

          The history of the setting up and development of China’s socialist commerce is one of repeated victories of Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line over Liu Shao-chi’s counter-revolutionary revisionist line.

    “Develop the Economy and Ensure Supplies” Is
    Fundamental Policy Guiding Commercial Work

          Our great leader Chairman Mao wisely pointed out as early as 1942: “The general policy guiding our economic and financial work is to develop the economy and ensure supplies.” This general policy is the fundamental policy guiding commercial work.

          “Develop the economy and ensure supplies” is a brilliant concept which Chairman Mao has consistently advocated. It profoundly reflects objective economic laws, scientifically explains the dialectical relations between production and circulation and creatively develops Marxism-Leninism. Like a radiant beacon, this general policy lights the road forward for socialist commerce.

          The renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi always opposed the great policy “Develop the economy and ensure supplies.” He ballyhooed the fallacy “circulation determines production” and tried to sabotage socialist construction in the field of circulation.

          According to Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, production is the foundation and there can be no circulation without production. Only when production develops can commodity circulation be expanded constantly and the market thrive. Isolated from production, commerce will be like water without a source and a tree without roots. “We must oppose the wrong view which lays one-sided emphasis on finance and commerce and neglects agricultural and industrial production.” Socialist commerce can function better and better only when the general policy “Develop the economy and ensure supplies” is conscientiously implemented and when, proceeding from production, effective support is given to agriculture and industry so as to stimulate the constant development of production. Liu Shao-chi’s fallacy “circulation determines production” makes circulation the starting point and centres on the market. This was a futile effort to use the law of value and supply and demand to regulate and control production. The purpose was to make commercial departments put pressure on production departments and use the market to restrict production and construction in order to sabotage the planned socialist economy.

          Liu Shao-chi is an out-and-out worshipper of profit. In spreading the fallacy “circulation determines production,” he was out to get profits. Under the capitalist system, the capitalists’ sole purpose in engaging in commerce is to make the maximum profit. Market supply and demand under capitalism is the profit indicator. Variations in market supply and demand as well as the amount of profit to be made dictate where capital goes to. Marx made the penetrating point that “the mission of capitalist society is to make money” and that “production of surplus-value is the absolute law of this mode of production.” Our socialist economy is a planned economy. Our principle is to give first place to planning and put prices second. The aim of socialist commerce is not profit but the development of production and the guarantee of supplies. Liu Shao-chi wanted socialist commerce to function the way capitalist commerce is operated, that is, “act in whichever way brings the maximum profit.” The inevitable result will be that you do things in a big way when there will be a big profit, you make little effort when only small margins of profit are expected, and nothing is done when there is no prospect of profit. This will inevitably disrupt market supplies and thwart state planning and sabotage socialism. In other words, socialist commerce is bound to degenerate into capitalist commerce if one “puts profit in command” as Liu Shao-chi advocated.

          The fallacy “put profit in command” must be thoroughly criticized. But this does not mean that socialist commerce can do without profit. Commercial departments should follow Chairman Mao’s great teaching “diligence and frugality should be practised in running ... shops,” give prominence to proletarian politics, improve management, expand commodity circulation, do a better job in business accounting, lower costs and reduce losses, and secure a reasonable profit in order to accumulate funds for socialist construction.

          In a socialist country like China which has a population of 700 million, production should be greatly developed. Keeping production in mind, we should energetically obtain an overall balance, that is, make all-round arrangements as regards the market with due consideration to both city and countryside, peace-time and war-time needs, years of good and bad harvests and the state, the collective and the individual. We must make full use of the characteristics of the commercial departments which have extensive contacts with the customers, and take the initiative in familiarizing production units with market conditions and the masses’ opinions and needs. We should join the production units in working out production and purchasing and marketing plans, and in this way spur the development of socialist construction.

    Question of Domestic Market Is in Essence Question of Peasants

          Our great leader Chairman Mao has taught us: “We have a rural population of over five hundred million, so the situation of our peasants has a most important bearing on the development of our economy and the consolidation of our state power.” The aim of achieving a great development in the production of commodities is not for profit but for the peasants, for the worker-peasant alliance and for socialist construction. In accordance with Chairman Mao’s great teaching, socialist commerce should correctly handle its relations with the peasants in the course of exchanging commodities. Under the unified state plan, abiding by the principle of the exchange of equal values and using the proper forms of purchasing and marketing, socialist commerce promotes the development of both socialist agricultural production and socialist industrial production and consolidates the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

          Chairman Mao pointed out in a clear-cut way: “It is the peasants who constitute the main market for China’s industry. Only they can supply foodstuffs and raw materials in great abundance and absorb manufactured goods in great quantities.” Agriculture is the foundation of the national economy and, of course, the foundation of the domestic market too. The development of industry and the bringing about of a thriving market are inseparably linked with this foundation. Without a developed agriculture it is impossible to ensure that the needs of the people’s livelihood can be met, provide industry with an abundant supply of raw materials and an extensive market and accumulate more funds for construction. “Without industry there can be no solid national defence, no well-being for the people, no prosperity or strength for the nation.” The modernization of agriculture and the large-scale development of agricultural production call for aid from a powerful industry. But, fundamentally speaking, the scale and speed of development of industry and other fields of construction are determined mainly by the amount of marketable grain and industrial raw materials agriculture can supply, the amount of labour power that can be drawn from it and the amount of manufactured goods it can absorb.

          The chief purpose of socialist production and exchange of commodities is to consolidate the worker-peasant alliance. The collective economy of China’s rural people’s communes now still generally retains the three-level system of ownership, with the production team as the basic level. The exchange of commodities is the only form of economic ties between agriculture and industry acceptable to the peasants at the present stage, and the main form of the economic integration of socialist ownership by the whole people and collective ownership. With regard to the peasants, only exchange and not expropriation can be used. This is a basic viewpoint of Mao Tsetung Thought. Apart from the small amount of agricultural tax, the overwhelming amount of agricultural and side-line products needed by the state are obtained through the exchange of commodities. Lenin said: “The economic essence and foundation of socialism is ... exchange of the products of large-scale (‘socialized’) industry for peasant produce.” Socialist commerce follows the policy of stabilizing prices; the policy of making little profit and selling more is carried out as regards industrial products; and the policy of the exchange of equal values or approximately equal values is adopted in exchanging industrial products for agricultural produce. These policies which correctly handle the relationship between the state, the collective and the individual have aroused the peasants’ enthusiasm for socialism, stimulated the urban and rural economy and consolidated the socialist base.

          The renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi advocated “putting a stranglehold on” the peasants, alleging that “the peasants are willing to accept even the exchange of unequal values.” His criminal purpose was to sabotage agricultural production and the vast rural market. Sabotaging socialist agriculture means sabotaging socialist industry, the socialist economic base and the worker-peasant alliance. Liu Shao-chi’s trash was actually a repetition of the reactionary fallacy of Trotsky who had advocated building industry by exploiting the peasant economy.

          Lenin pointed out: “The supreme principle of the dictatorship is the maintenance of the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry.” The economic alliance between the working class and the peasants is realized mainly through the link of commerce. In supporting industry, agriculture promotes socialist industrialization, and in supporting agriculture, industry helps with agricultural co-operation and mechanization: This is the economic base of the worker-peasant alliance in the period of socialism. At the present stage, a considerable part of the means of production and all kinds of consumer goods from industry for agriculture are supplied to the peasants through commerce; the agricultural products of grain, non-staple foodstuffs and industrial raw materials are purchased by the commercial departments for supply to industry and the cities. The role of commerce as the link must be brought into play not only for developing socialist industrial and agricultural production and ensuring the supply of daily necessities for the urban and rural population, but also for strengthening the relations between workers and peasants and consolidating the worker-peasant alliance. The consolidation of this alliance is a basic task of commerce in the historical period of socialist society.

          Chairman Mao has taught us: “If socialism does not occupy the rural front, capitalism assuredly will.” The struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie around the market question is closely connected with the struggle between the two roads in the rural areas. The Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao, while carrying out the socialist transformation of agriculture, energetically established and developed socialist commerce, practising the planned purchase and supply of grain, cotton and edible oil. This cut the economic ties between the bourgeoisie and the peasants in the field of circulation, established the socialist economic ties between the cities and the countryside, promoted the socialist transformation of agriculture and capitalist industry and commerce, and enhanced the consolidation and growth of the rural collective economy which in turn laid a sound foundation for the consolidation and expansion of the socialist planned market. Liu Shao-chi wanted to develop capitalism in the rural areas and always tried to help capitalism occupy the rural market. Shortly after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, he brazenly advocated “freedom of trade,” attempting to pave the way for the development of a rich-peasant economy. During the period of temporary economic difficulties, he stirred up the evil wind of giving free rein to the capitalist free market in a vain attempt to create conditions for undermining the collective economy of the people’s communes and restoring capitalism.

          The correct handling of the relations with the peasants in commodity exchange is by no means exclusively an economic question concerning the exchange of goods. It is, first and foremost, an important political question concerning the consolidation of the worker-peasant alliance and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Socialist Commerce is Commerce of New Type Serving Workers, Peasants and Soldiers

          Chairman Mao has taught us: “This question of ‘for whom?’ is fundamental; it is a question of principle.” Whether it is the workers, peasants and soldiers who are served or a handful of bourgeois people is the watershed between socialist commerce and capitalist commerce.

          The renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi spared no efforts to preach the fallacy of “serving the entire people” in an attempt to change the nature of socialist commerce.

          Where in the world is there such a thing as commerce “serving the entire people”! In class society, commerce belongs to and serves definite classes. The workers, peasants and soldiers are the makers of history, the masters of our era and the main force in socialist revolution and socialist construction. Socialist commerce must serve them. To adhere to the orientation of serving them is to adhere to the political orientation of socialist commerce, otherwise socialist commerce would become capitalist commerce. Liu Shao-chi’s true colours of serving a handful of bourgeois people is exposed when his cloak of “serving the entire people” is stripped off.

          Socialist commerce is commerce of a new type that wholeheartedly serves the people, in the first place the workers, peasants and soldiers. As regards the variety of goods to be handled by socialist commerce, items of service, the form of purchase and sale, business hours, distribution of shops, procedures and stipulations, attitude towards customers and other aspects, the workers, peasants and soldiers should always be kept in mind, and attention should be paid to their needs and conveniences.

          Liu Shao-chi did his utmost to preach bourgeois “kaleidoscopic colourfulness” and wanted socialist commerce to handle trash that has the hallmark of feudalism, capitalism and revisionism in order to satisfy the tastes of the bourgeois overlords and ladies and their pampered offspring. Do the workers, peasants and soldiers need this “kaleidoscopic colourfulness”? No! We resolutely reject such goods and forbid goods poisoned with feudalism, capitalism and revisionism from entering the socialist market to corrupt the minds of the people. We must actively handle commodities which the workers, peasants and soldiers like and which are economical, practical, unpretentious, durable and varied. At the same time, great attention must be given to expanding the repair service in the interest of the workers, peasants and soldiers. We oppose bourgeois “kaleidoscopic colourfulness” but stand for the proletarian richness of variety and colourfulness. The point of departure for a socialist commercial worker must be “his boundless sense of responsibility in his work and his boundless warm-heartedness towards all comrades and the people” and wholehearted service to the workers, peasants and soldiers.

          Socialist commercial workers must study Chairman Mao’s “three constantly read articles” (Serve the People, In Memory of Norman Bethune and The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains) and his philosophical works in connection with the three great revolutionary movements of class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment, destroy self-interest and foster utter devotion to the public interest, remould their world outlook, foster the idea of serving the workers, peasants and soldiers wholeheartedly and become propagandists of Mao Tsetung Thought, fighters in class struggle and servants of the people.

    Party Leadership, Politics in Command and Mass Supervision Are Fundamental
    in Ensuring That Socialist Commerce Will Never Change Its Nature

          We depend essentially on Party leadership, putting politics in command and mass supervision in running socialist commerce well. This has always been a teaching of Chairman Mao’s, and is the basic guarantee that the proletariat has firm leadership over commerce and that socialist commerce will never change its nature.

          Socialist commerce must be put under the leadership of the Party and under the command of Mao Tsetung Thought and geared to the unified principles and policies of the Party Central Committee and to the unified state plan. Special attention should be paid at present to strengthening the leadership of Party committees and revolutionary conunittees at all levels over commerce, and bringing the initiative of the localities into fuller play. Only thus can socialist commerce correctly handle the relations between industry and commerce and between agriculture and commerce, maintain close ties with the masses and play its role better in both socialist revolution and socialist construction. Liu Shao-chi replaced Party leadership by “single-line leadership,” aiming at usurping the leadership over commerce.

          Politics is the commander, the soul in everything. “Political work is the life-blood of all economic work.” Only by persistently putting proletarian politics in command and firmly grasping class struggle can we consolidate proletarian leadership over socialist commerce. The current struggle to strike at the counter-revolutionaries and to oppose corruption and theft, oppose speculation and oppose extravagance and waste is a struggle to consolidate proletarian leadership. Liu Shao-chi peddled “vocational work first”; his aim was to make commercial workers forget class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat and turn them into muddle-headed persons who bury themselves in business and do not care a fig for politics. In practical life, all vocational work is geared to definite politics; it is either proletarian politics in command or bourgeois politics in command. The so-called “vocational work first” means, in fact, putting bourgeois politics in command. Socialist commerce serves proletarian politics, not just doing business. Socialist commercial workers are revolutionary fighters of the proletariat, not capitalist businessmen.

          “Direct reliance on the revolutionary masses is a basic principle of the Communist Party.” Commercial work must wholeheartedly rely on the working class and the poor and lower-middle peasants. It must conscientiously accept supervision by the masses. During the stage of struggle-criticism-transformation in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the poor and lower-middle peasants have managed rural commerce and the worker and peasant masses have supervised and managed urban commerce. This is a concrete application of Chairman Mao’s mass line to commercial work, and is a revolution on the commercial front which has thoroughly smashed Liu Shao-chi’s dream of “relying on capitalists to run the shops.”

          The workers and peasants put Mao Tsetung Thought in command of everything in supervising and managing commerce. They grasp class struggle and raise the consciousness of the commercial workers as regards dass struggle and the struggle between the two lines. They grasp the orientation of commercial work—wholehearted service to the workers, peasants and soldiers. They grasp ideological education in policies to guarantee the implementation of the Party’s principles and policies. All this has played a remarkable part in improving commercial work.

          The revolutionary workers and staff on China’s commercial front, who have been tempered in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, are closely rallying round the Party’s Central Committee with Chairman Mao as its leader and Vice-Chairman Lin as its deputy leader. They are determined to respond to the call of the Second Plenary Session of the Party’s Ninth Central Committee, hold the great red banner of Mao Tsetung Thought still higher and ensure that commercial work will always triumphantly advance along the socialist road.

    ---------------------------------------

    Japanese Monopoly Capital Steps Up Economic Expansion in Southeast Asia

    [This unsigned article is reprinted from Peking Review, #41, Oct. 8, 1971, pp. 18-19.]


        

          Japanese monopoly capital has rapidly recovered under the wing of U.S. imperialism in the 26 years since the war. It is stepping up its expansion in Southeast Asia which is rich in natural resources in an effort to make the area a Japanese colony again.
        

          PARALYSED after World War II, the Japanese war economy regained its strength with the support of U.S. imperialism. From September 1945 to April 1952, the United States provided Japan with economic aid totalling 2,100 million U.S. dollars, enabling her to restore production swiftly in such basic industries as power, iron and steel and coal mining. When the United States launched the war of aggression against Korea in 1950 and expanded the war of aggression against Viet Nam in 1965, Japan received innumerable military orders from U.S. imperialism, which enabled Japanese monopoly capital to amass big war fortunes and stimulated the abnormal development of the economy. By 1968, Japan’s gross national product ranked second in the capitalist world, exceeding that of West Germany. A complete war industry network was built up. With the lop-sided development of the Japanese economy, the contradictions between productive forces on the one hand and meagre domestic resources as well as a limited home market on the other were sharpened. Looking for an outlet, Japanese monopoly capital has always regarded Southeast Asia the major area for large-scale economic expansion abroad.

    Important Way for Exploiting People of Southeast Asia

          An important way for Japanese monopoly capital to ruthlessly exploit the people of Southeast Asia and plunder their resources is to buy agricultural produce and other natural resources, particularly strategic materials, from Southeast Asia at low prices and sell its industrial goods to the area at high prices. About one-third of Japan’s total exports now goes to Southeast Asia. The reactionary Sato government plans to increase its exports in the coming five years from 19,300 million U.S. dollars in 1970 to 37,400 million in 1975 and has declared that “by fiscal 1975, nearly half of the markets in Asia will be overrun by Japanese goods.” Japanese exports to Southeast Asia are mainly industrial products, while Japan’s imports from Southeast Asia, apart from agricultural produce, are mostly such strategic materials as petroleum, copper, rubber, iron ore, bauxite, coal and uranium ore. The 1970 “White Paper on International Trade” published by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry revealed that in the past ten years, 70 to 100 per cent of the major strategic materials needed by Japan were imported, making Japan the world’s biggest raw material importer. Up to 1969, 99.7 per cent of the natural rubber and over 45 per cent of the copper ore and bauxite needed by Japan were imported from Southeast Asia.

          Japan has a big favourable balance of trade with Southeast Asian countries. According to Japan’s official statistics, she had a favourable balance of 2,080 million U.S. dollars in her trade with 11 countries and areas in Southeast Asia in 1969, a rise of 600 million U.S. dollars over that of 1968, or double that of 1965. This predatory trade of Japanese monopoly capital has brought serious disaster to the Southeast Asian countries. Not only has it undermined national industries in Southeast Asia, it also put a number of countries there heavily in debt to Japan. It was reported that Thailand’s trade deficit with Japan amounted to over 250 million U.S. dollars every year from 1968 on, and the three-year deficit exceeds Thailand’s total foreign exchange reserves. In 1969, Thailand’s trade deficit with Japan was seven times that of 1957.

    Export of Capital Accelerated

          Japan ruthlessly plunders the riches of Southeast Asia by means of intensive exporting of capital in addition to commodity exports. It exports capital to Southeast Asia mainly by two forms, “economic aid” by the government and direct investment by monopoly capital. According to Japan’s official statistics, from 1955 to September 1970, 94 per cent of the government’s overseas “economic aid” was concentrated in Southeast Asia. At present, 60 per cent of the foreign investments in the Philippines is Japanese. Japan is now in first place among foreign investors in Thailand, with the United States far behind. She is the second biggest investor in Indonesia after the United States. By exporting capital, Japanese monopoly capital further controls the economic lifeline of some Southeast Asian countries and by “economic aid,” compels the recipient countries to buy Japanese goods at high prices so as to fleece the Southeast Asian people. It was reported that in the five years up to 1968, Japan took in more than 5,000 million U.S. dollars in profits from Southeast Asia through private investments, government “loans” and other channels.

          The Japanese reactionaries repeatedly clamoured in recent years that “guaranteeing the growing need for overseas resources is a question of life and death for the Japanese economy,” and to secure bases for steady supplies of raw materials, Japan “must develop overseas resources independently.” The Japanese monopoly capitalist groups have now obtained the rights to prospect and exploit petroleum, bauxite, nickel, copper and timber in Indonesia and the rights to exploit oil in Singapore and North Kalimantan. They have “co-operated” with Malaysia in developing copper mining in Sabah, and an agreement has been reached with the Philippines on shipping all the copper ore mined there to Japan for 10 years beginning in 1970. By granting loans to India, the pro-U.S. monopoly capitalists of Japan also obtained iron ore mining rights in India. These Japanese capitalists are now planning to invest in the exploitation of oil resources under the sea-bed near the Mekong Delta in the Indochina Peninsula.

    Spectre of Colonialism

          Following intensified economic expansion by the lapanese reactionaries, signs of Japanese colonization can now be seen in some Southeast Asian countries. The June 1970 issue of the Japanese magazine, Chuo Koron, stated in an article entitled “Invisible Economic Empire” that “the existence of the Japanese economy in Asia casts a big shadow over the politics and economy of the Asian countries.” In Bangkok, the people “ride in Toyota or Nissan motor cars, wear clothes made from synthetic fibres of the Toyo Jinken or Teikoku Jinken companies, and carry transistor radios turned out by the Sony or Hitachi companies.” In Indonesia, “established everywhere, with Djakarta as the centre, were manufacturing enterprises (owned by Japanese monopoly capital) ranging from the processing of rolled steel to instant noodles.”

    Dream of “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere”

          Japan’s postwar cabinets, from Yoshida’s to Sato’s have cast covetous eyes on the rich resources of Southeast Asia. In his book Oiso Reminiscences published in 1962, Shigeru Yoshida wailed that “after the war, Japan lost its overseas territories in Manchuria and Korea and lost the sources of supplies of raw materials. I hope that Southeast Asia can replace Manchuria, Korea and other places....” Sato and his ilk also cried out frantically that “Japan cannot live without Southeast Asia,” and that one of the “targets of Japan in the 1970s is to start setting up ‘an Asian economic development community’.... The form of the independence and division of rights and duties among the members of the community will be similar to the relations between the federal government and the state governments in the United States,” and so on. It can be seen easily from this frantic clamouring that following its economic expansion, ambitious Japanese militarism is trying to realize its fond dream of a “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.” Quoting public opinion in Southeast Asian countries, Chuo Koron said in June 1970: “The presence of Japan in Southeast Asia ... means she will act as the ‘police’ and ‘troops’ in the Asian countries”; the countries in Southeast Asia “will be swallowed by Japan politically and economically”; “seeing the extension of Japan’s economic strength in Asia, one cannot help but feel that this economic strength will turn overnight into the same military expansion as in the past.”

          Today, the political consciousness of the people of various Southeast Asian countries has risen steadily in the protracted struggle against imperialism. They will never allow Japanese militarism to put the shackles of colonialism around their necks again. Japan’s economic aggression or military aggression can only serve as lessons by negative example to the peoples of Southeast Asia. Awaiting Japanese militarism is ignominious failure.




    Return to Peking Review article list

    MASSLINE.ORG Home Page



    In a Regiment Party Committee
    A Discussion on Party Democratic Centralism

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #43, Oct. 22, 1971, pp. 10-12.]

          Democratic centralism is our Party’s organizational principle. Correct handling of relations between the individual and the collective in the Party committees at different levels is an important question in carrying out democratic centralism and an important guarantee for maintaining Party collective leadership. The following discussion by a regiment Party committee in the P.L.A. Tsinan Units explains this question theoretically as well as their experience on it. —Ed.

          NOT long ago, the standing committee of a regiment Party comxnittee in the P.L.A. Tsinan Units arrived at a decision after collective study and in the light of the ideological level of the regiment’s cadres. But when the decision was sent for approval by the secretary who was away at a meeting, it was held up because he did not agree to it. The committee members did not altogether approve of the secretary’s action. But they thought that they could do nothing but obey because the Party committee secretary was the one to make final decision.

          Later when the Party committee was studying the question of democratic centralism, somebody brought up the matter and a debate took place. Some comrades said: The secretary was wrong because he should not negate a decision of the collective simply by his individual opinion. Other comrades argued: The secretary’s opinion was decisive. Since he did not agree to the decision, there was a reason for his holding it up. With this problem in mind, the secretary and the committee members studied Chairman Mao’s relevant teachings and analysed it in the light of the experience and lessons drawn from practice.

    How Should the Secretary View His Own Opinion

          At the beginning, Comrade Li Tseng-hai, the secretary, thought that his opinion was correct because although the content of the decision was all right, it was not the right time to release it to the lower levels for it would impede other work. As a Party secretary, he had the responsibility to hold it up.

          The secretary had the responsibility not to approve something which was incorrect, but should he personally negate a decision by the majority without the Party committee discussing it? After analysis and discussion, they agreed: The secretary was the main responsible member in the Party committee. He had to “guard the pass” with Mao Tsetung Thought. But guarding the pass and the practice of democratic centralism should be unified. “The relation between the secretary and the committee members is one in which the minority must obey the majority.” The secretary should not, on the pretext that he was responsible for guarding the pass, violate the Party’s principle of democratic centralism and negate the decision by the majority. He should resolutely carry out democratic centralism, maintain Party collective leadership and rely on the “squad members” to guard the pass instead of relying on himself.

          Some comrades cited the following incident: At the end of last year, the regiment decided that the first company should try out on manoeuvres. Having been entrusted with the task, the first company made a detailed plan and submitted it to the Party committee for approval. Many members on the standing committee thought it was good and could be put into effect. Comrade Li Tseng-hai, however, felt that the guiding ideology was not so correct for the plan did not pay enough attention to political and ideological education and emphasized too much on technical training. This time he did not simply turn down the opinions of other comrades but submitted the two different views to the stanaing committee to be studied. After full discussion, they all agreed with Comrade Li Tseng-hai and corrected the training plan. In addition, the Party committee sent a cadre to the company to help in the work. Implementing Chairman Mao’s instructions conscientiously, the first company turned the manoeuvres into a vivid political education and successfully fulfilled the training task. All of the committee members thought that the secretary had done very well that time because he used his correct view to overcome the incorrect views of some standing committee members and raised the understanding of the “squad members” on this question. Democratic centralism was practised while the secretary guarded the pass well.

          Then somebody said: The aim in practising democratic centralism is to concentrate correct opinions. If the secretary’s opinion was correct, could he himself negate the majority’s opinions? Careful analysis made them agree that this should not be done. The reason was: First, “the minority must obey the majority” is one of the fundamental principles of democratic centralism. If the opinion of most members was incorrect while the secretary’s was correct, he could only make them accept his view by reasoning instead of negating their views simply on his own. Secondly, of course the secretary would think that his own opinion was, correct. But whether it was correct or not depended on the judgment of all the members of the Party committee. Practice showed that the secretary’s views, were sometimes incomplete and unsound and even wrong because he did not listen modestly to others’ opinions or he was not good at concentrating correct views. If he just simply negated most of the committee members’ opinions, there would be the danger of negating correct views by an incorrect one.

    How Should the Members Treat the Secretary’s Opinion

          As the discussion went deeper, some comrades raised another question: Quite a number felt that it was not so good for the secretary to hold up a decision by the collective. But why had no one raised any objection on time. It was because these comrades thought that the secretary was the one who was mainly responsible for Party committee work, and his views were decisive. It was only natural for him to make the final decision. So, although they held a different view, they did not raise their objection any more, thinking that this was a way of showing respect and support for the secretary.

          What was the correct attitude towards the secretary’s views? After analysing it, they all agreed that members should respect and support the secretary. Without this, the Party committee could not be a strong leading nucleus. On the other hand, committee members and the secretary should first of all respect and support the collective leadership of the Party committee. Without this, the collective leadership might become the personal leadership of the secretary. Thus by cutting themselves off from maintaining the principle of collective leadership by the Party committee, there would be no true respect and support for the secretary. The result would be violating Party democratic centralism and weakening the collective leadership of the Party committee. They should respect and support the secretary and at the same time maintain Party collective leadership.

          One incident gave the whole Party committee’s lot to think about. In training last winter, the committee decided to have an exercise on attacking by laying an ambush. When the Party conunittee was working out the plan, most of the comrades based themselves on their last experience in manoeuvres in night attack by ambush and suggested that the troops should make their ambush near the front by a highway. They thought that the nearer the better, for that meant training in close range fighting. Both secretary Li Tseng-hai and deputy secretary Feng Teh-yueh felt that the suggestion was good, so they decided that, a plan should be drawn up accordingly.

          However, when the plan was nearly completed, one committee member, after careful consideration, raised an objection. He pointed out that to attack properly by laying an ambush, the troops should cover themselves very well. The previous manoeuvres had been at night and it was easy to find cover because of poor visibility. Thus they could set their ambush near the enemy. But this time the attack was to be made in the day time although the troops entered the field at night. Visibility woutd be good when they attacked. The nearer the highway, the easier for them to be uncovered. Thus the troops could not achieve their aim by an ambush. This committee member suggested that the Party committee once again talk over these two different views. Both the secretary and deputy secretary took his opinion seriously into account and organized the Party committee to discuss it again. Finally all of them agreed that this member’s thinking was correct and revised the plan. The manoeuvres were successful. This incident made them understand that the committee member had combined respect and support for the secretary with maintaining Party collective leadership. Departure from this principle would not be a responsible attitude towards the Party’s cause and there would be no true, respect and support for the secretary.

    How Secretary’s Opinions Become Opinions of Majority of Committee Members

          Some comrades again asked: As we all know, the relation between the secretary and the committee members is one in which the minority must obey the majority, but why cannot this sometimes be achieved in practical work?

          With this specific problem in mind they studied Chairman Mao’s teaching: “A secretary or deputy secretary will find it difficult to direct his ‘squad’ well if he does not take care to do propaganda and organizational work among his own ‘squad members’, is not good at handling his relations with committee members or does not study how to run meetings successfully.” Through study, they came to clearly understand the general conception: At a Party committee meeting, sometimes the secretary is in the minority at first but later becomes one of the majority after work is done among the committee members. This is absolutely normal and in accord with the principle of democratic centralism. Without doing such work, a unity of understanding within the Party committee will not be attained, the “squad members” will not march in step and democratic centralism will not be established. The committee members recalled how the Party committee dealt with the question concerning the fourth company in the process of making an appraisal of model companies last year, and made a concrete analysis of the work twice done by the Party committee secretary in this process.

          The fourth company had been a model company nine years in a raw. But in the tenth year, because it had the moods of arrogance and self-complacency and relaxed its efforts in doing ideological and political education among the fighters, some problems occurred in its work. At first, most of the committee members did not agree that the company should be commended as a model company, but the secretary and the deputy secretary thought that the fourth company had long been a model company and feared that its failure this time to be appraised as such a company would bring disgrace on themselves and they would find it difficult to explain the situation to their superiors. So without giving serious thought to the opinions of the committee members, they insisted on getting things done their own way. They first persuaded the standing committee members to agree to their opinions and then asked the latter to do the same among the committee members. Although most of the committee members dissented in their hearts, they abandoned principle and reluctantly agreed to the secretaries’ opinions for fear that disapproval would affect the procedure of the entire work. In the light of opinions sent in by the masses and the fourth company’s actual conditions, the Party committee at a higher level vetoed the Party committee’s resolution. This greatly shook the committee members.

          At a Party committee meeting at which the question of how to carry out the instruction of the Party committee at a higher level was discussed, comrades holding dissenting views were full of complaints while those who stood for citing the company as a model company could not change their minds at once. Having re-studied Chairman Mao’s instructions, secretary Li Tseng-hai at the meeting criticized the selfish ideas in his mind and his erroneous guiding thought of “defending” the fourth company. After that, he went to comrades with dissenting views to have heart-to-heart talks with them. He first listened to their criticism of himself and, while affirming that their opinions were correct, encouraged them to overcome their grievances. Then he helped those who stood for citing the fourth company to change their minds. He thus quickly unified the thinking of the “squad members.”

          After comparing the work done twice by the secretary, the committee members found that results had been quite different. The first time he only wanted others to agree to his opinions, without ideological preparation for listening to others’ opinions. As a result, he made a wrong concentration and unity of the opinions. In a disguised form, such a work method is in essence deciding things on one person’s say-so. The work method he followed the second time was to “listen to differing opinions carefully and make a serious analysis of the complicated circumstances and differing opinions.” In this way, both the “squad members” and himself were educated and he was therefore able to achieve a correct concentration and unity of the opinions.

    Secretary’s Summary

          Through discussions, both the secretary and the committee members arrived at a deeper understanding of the concept of the Party’s democratic centralism. Finally, the secretary made a summary in all earnestness. He said: Though the present discussion proceeded from some concrete problems, it was around the central topic, that is, the question of how to put the relation between the individual and the collective among the committee members in the right place. This is the key question deciding whether democratic centralism can be satisfactorily carried out. The committee members’ discussions show that the relation between the secretary and the Party committee should first be put in the right place. Though the secretary holds the position of “squad leader,” he should be placed under the collective leadership of the Party committee and must never lord it over the latter. Why are relations between the secretary and the committee members sometimes not well handled? One reason is that this question has not been successfully settled. A Party committee is made up of committee members. If a secretary stands high above the committee members, he is in essence placing himself above the Party committee. Ordinary committee members do not handle the day-to-day work of the Party committee, but they should not seclude themselves from the Party committee. Instead, they should place themselves inside it, take an active part in collective leadership and consciously safeguard the Party’s democratic centralism.

          The “secretary is wise” theory existing among us is opposed to the proletarian Party spirit. When a secretary is affected by this theory, he thinks of himself as having a good command of the whole situation, knowing the superior’s instructions earlier than others, understanding more about the conditions prevailing at lower levels and so it seems that he is superior to others in everything. Such a theory is in essence a refurbished version of the theory that “the masses are backward.” It is a reflection of the idealist conception of history and a manifestation of the impurity of Party spirit. When one is influenced by this theory, he will inevitably place himself above others, transpose the individual and the Party committee and to a varying extent will invariably want others to “do as he says.”

          Among the “squad members” of the Party committee, there are the “squad leader” and the committee members; some of them are old, others are new. The Party committee should, in accordance with the principle of democratic centralism, give full play to the initiative and creativeness of every committee member. It should actively support what conforms to Mao Tsetung Thought and consciously resist what does not. It should not think that the secretary’s opinions must be better than those of the committee members and that old committee members’ ideas must be better than those of new members. To assert that it is a matter of course for the secretary to guarantee there will not be any mistakes of a political nature and to make decisions is a reflection of such an erroneous conception.




    Return to Peking Review article list

    MASSLINE.ORG Home Page






    In a Regiment Party Committee
    A Discussion on Party Democratic Centralism

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #43, Oct. 22, 1971, pp. 10-12.]

          Democratic centralism is our Party’s organizational principle. Correct handling of relations between the individual and the collective in the Party committees at different levels is an important question in carrying out democratic centralism and an important guarantee for maintaining Party collective leadership. The following discussion by a regiment Party committee in the P.L.A. Tsinan Units explains this question theoretically as well as their experience on it. —Ed.

          NOT long ago, the standing committee of a regiment Party comxnittee in the P.L.A. Tsinan Units arrived at a decision after collective study and in the light of the ideological level of the regiment’s cadres. But when the decision was sent for approval by the secretary who was away at a meeting, it was held up because he did not agree to it. The committee members did not altogether approve of the secretary’s action. But they thought that they could do nothing but obey because the Party committee secretary was the one to make final decision.

          Later when the Party committee was studying the question of democratic centralism, somebody brought up the matter and a debate took place. Some comrades said: The secretary was wrong because he should not negate a decision of the collective simply by his individual opinion. Other comrades argued: The secretary’s opinion was decisive. Since he did not agree to the decision, there was a reason for his holding it up. With this problem in mind, the secretary and the committee members studied Chairman Mao’s relevant teachings and analysed it in the light of the experience and lessons drawn from practice.

    How Should the Secretary View His Own Opinion

          At the beginning, Comrade Li Tseng-hai, the secretary, thought that his opinion was correct because although the content of the decision was all right, it was not the right time to release it to the lower levels for it would impede other work. As a Party secretary, he had the responsibility to hold it up.

          The secretary had the responsibility not to approve something which was incorrect, but should he personally negate a decision by the majority without the Party committee discussing it? After analysis and discussion, they agreed: The secretary was the main responsible member in the Party committee. He had to “guard the pass” with Mao Tsetung Thought. But guarding the pass and the practice of democratic centralism should be unified. “The relation between the secretary and the committee members is one in which the minority must obey the majority.” The secretary should not, on the pretext that he was responsible for guarding the pass, violate the Party’s principle of democratic centralism and negate the decision by the majority. He should resolutely carry out democratic centralism, maintain Party collective leadership and rely on the “squad members” to guard the pass instead of relying on himself.

          Some comrades cited the following incident: At the end of last year, the regiment decided that the first company should try out on manoeuvres. Having been entrusted with the task, the first company made a detailed plan and submitted it to the Party committee for approval. Many members on the standing committee thought it was good and could be put into effect. Comrade Li Tseng-hai, however, felt that the guiding ideology was not so correct for the plan did not pay enough attention to political and ideological education and emphasized too much on technical training. This time he did not simply turn down the opinions of other comrades but submitted the two different views to the stanaing committee to be studied. After full discussion, they all agreed with Comrade Li Tseng-hai and corrected the training plan. In addition, the Party committee sent a cadre to the company to help in the work. Implementing Chairman Mao’s instructions conscientiously, the first company turned the manoeuvres into a vivid political education and successfully fulfilled the training task. All of the committee members thought that the secretary had done very well that time because he used his correct view to overcome the incorrect views of some standing committee members and raised the understanding of the “squad members” on this question. Democratic centralism was practised while the secretary guarded the pass well.

          Then somebody said: The aim in practising democratic centralism is to concentrate correct opinions. If the secretary’s opinion was correct, could he himself negate the majority’s opinions? Careful analysis made them agree that this should not be done. The reason was: First, “the minority must obey the majority” is one of the fundamental principles of democratic centralism. If the opinion of most members was incorrect while the secretary’s was correct, he could only make them accept his view by reasoning instead of negating their views simply on his own. Secondly, of course the secretary would think that his own opinion was, correct. But whether it was correct or not depended on the judgment of all the members of the Party committee. Practice showed that the secretary’s views, were sometimes incomplete and unsound and even wrong because he did not listen modestly to others’ opinions or he was not good at concentrating correct views. If he just simply negated most of the committee members’ opinions, there would be the danger of negating correct views by an incorrect one.

    How Should the Members Treat the Secretary’s Opinion

          As the discussion went deeper, some comrades raised another question: Quite a number felt that it was not so good for the secretary to hold up a decision by the collective. But why had no one raised any objection on time. It was because these comrades thought that the secretary was the one who was mainly responsible for Party committee work, and his views were decisive. It was only natural for him to make the final decision. So, although they held a different view, they did not raise their objection any more, thinking that this was a way of showing respect and support for the secretary.

          What was the correct attitude towards the secretary’s views? After analysing it, they all agreed that members should respect and support the secretary. Without this, the Party committee could not be a strong leading nucleus. On the other hand, committee members and the secretary should first of all respect and support the collective leadership of the Party committee. Without this, the collective leadership might become the personal leadership of the secretary. Thus by cutting themselves off from maintaining the principle of collective leadership by the Party committee, there would be no true respect and support for the secretary. The result would be violating Party democratic centralism and weakening the collective leadership of the Party committee. They should respect and support the secretary and at the same time maintain Party collective leadership.

          One incident gave the whole Party committee’s lot to think about. In training last winter, the committee decided to have an exercise on attacking by laying an ambush. When the Party conunittee was working out the plan, most of the comrades based themselves on their last experience in manoeuvres in night attack by ambush and suggested that the troops should make their ambush near the front by a highway. They thought that the nearer the better, for that meant training in close range fighting. Both secretary Li Tseng-hai and deputy secretary Feng Teh-yueh felt that the suggestion was good, so they decided that, a plan should be drawn up accordingly.

          However, when the plan was nearly completed, one committee member, after careful consideration, raised an objection. He pointed out that to attack properly by laying an ambush, the troops should cover themselves very well. The previous manoeuvres had been at night and it was easy to find cover because of poor visibility. Thus they could set their ambush near the enemy. But this time the attack was to be made in the day time although the troops entered the field at night. Visibility woutd be good when they attacked. The nearer the highway, the easier for them to be uncovered. Thus the troops could not achieve their aim by an ambush. This committee member suggested that the Party committee once again talk over these two different views. Both the secretary and deputy secretary took his opinion seriously into account and organized the Party committee to discuss it again. Finally all of them agreed that this member’s thinking was correct and revised the plan. The manoeuvres were successful. This incident made them understand that the committee member had combined respect and support for the secretary with maintaining Party collective leadership. Departure from this principle would not be a responsible attitude towards the Party’s cause and there would be no true, respect and support for the secretary.

    How Secretary’s Opinions Become Opinions of Majority of Committee Members

          Some comrades again asked: As we all know, the relation between the secretary and the committee members is one in which the minority must obey the majority, but why cannot this sometimes be achieved in practical work?

          With this specific problem in mind they studied Chairman Mao’s teaching: “A secretary or deputy secretary will find it difficult to direct his ‘squad’ well if he does not take care to do propaganda and organizational work among his own ‘squad members’, is not good at handling his relations with committee members or does not study how to run meetings successfully.” Through study, they came to clearly understand the general conception: At a Party committee meeting, sometimes the secretary is in the minority at first but later becomes one of the majority after work is done among the committee members. This is absolutely normal and in accord with the principle of democratic centralism. Without doing such work, a unity of understanding within the Party committee will not be attained, the “squad members” will not march in step and democratic centralism will not be established. The committee members recalled how the Party committee dealt with the question concerning the fourth company in the process of making an appraisal of model companies last year, and made a concrete analysis of the work twice done by the Party committee secretary in this process.

          The fourth company had been a model company nine years in a raw. But in the tenth year, because it had the moods of arrogance and self-complacency and relaxed its efforts in doing ideological and political education among the fighters, some problems occurred in its work. At first, most of the committee members did not agree that the company should be commended as a model company, but the secretary and the deputy secretary thought that the fourth company had long been a model company and feared that its failure this time to be appraised as such a company would bring disgrace on themselves and they would find it difficult to explain the situation to their superiors. So without giving serious thought to the opinions of the committee members, they insisted on getting things done their own way. They first persuaded the standing committee members to agree to their opinions and then asked the latter to do the same among the committee members. Although most of the committee members dissented in their hearts, they abandoned principle and reluctantly agreed to the secretaries’ opinions for fear that disapproval would affect the procedure of the entire work. In the light of opinions sent in by the masses and the fourth company’s actual conditions, the Party committee at a higher level vetoed the Party committee’s resolution. This greatly shook the committee members.

          At a Party committee meeting at which the question of how to carry out the instruction of the Party committee at a higher level was discussed, comrades holding dissenting views were full of complaints while those who stood for citing the company as a model company could not change their minds at once. Having re-studied Chairman Mao’s instructions, secretary Li Tseng-hai at the meeting criticized the selfish ideas in his mind and his erroneous guiding thought of “defending” the fourth company. After that, he went to comrades with dissenting views to have heart-to-heart talks with them. He first listened to their criticism of himself and, while affirming that their opinions were correct, encouraged them to overcome their grievances. Then he helped those who stood for citing the fourth company to change their minds. He thus quickly unified the thinking of the “squad members.”

          After comparing the work done twice by the secretary, the committee members found that results had been quite different. The first time he only wanted others to agree to his opinions, without ideological preparation for listening to others’ opinions. As a result, he made a wrong concentration and unity of the opinions. In a disguised form, such a work method is in essence deciding things on one person’s say-so. The work method he followed the second time was to “listen to differing opinions carefully and make a serious analysis of the complicated circumstances and differing opinions.” In this way, both the “squad members” and himself were educated and he was therefore able to achieve a correct concentration and unity of the opinions.

    Secretary’s Summary

          Through discussions, both the secretary and the committee members arrived at a deeper understanding of the concept of the Party’s democratic centralism. Finally, the secretary made a summary in all earnestness. He said: Though the present discussion proceeded from some concrete problems, it was around the central topic, that is, the question of how to put the relation between the individual and the collective among the committee members in the right place. This is the key question deciding whether democratic centralism can be satisfactorily carried out. The committee members’ discussions show that the relation between the secretary and the Party committee should first be put in the right place. Though the secretary holds the position of “squad leader,” he should be placed under the collective leadership of the Party committee and must never lord it over the latter. Why are relations between the secretary and the committee members sometimes not well handled? One reason is that this question has not been successfully settled. A Party committee is made up of committee members. If a secretary stands high above the committee members, he is in essence placing himself above the Party committee. Ordinary committee members do not handle the day-to-day work of the Party committee, but they should not seclude themselves from the Party committee. Instead, they should place themselves inside it, take an active part in collective leadership and consciously safeguard the Party’s democratic centralism.

          The “secretary is wise” theory existing among us is opposed to the proletarian Party spirit. When a secretary is affected by this theory, he thinks of himself as having a good command of the whole situation, knowing the superior’s instructions earlier than others, understanding more about the conditions prevailing at lower levels and so it seems that he is superior to others in everything. Such a theory is in essence a refurbished version of the theory that “the masses are backward.” It is a reflection of the idealist conception of history and a manifestation of the impurity of Party spirit. When one is influenced by this theory, he will inevitably place himself above others, transpose the individual and the Party committee and to a varying extent will invariably want others to “do as he says.”

          Among the “squad members” of the Party committee, there are the “squad leader” and the committee members; some of them are old, others are new. The Party committee should, in accordance with the principle of democratic centralism, give full play to the initiative and creativeness of every committee member. It should actively support what conforms to Mao Tsetung Thought and consciously resist what does not. It should not think that the secretary’s opinions must be better than those of the committee members and that old committee members’ ideas must be better than those of new members. To assert that it is a matter of course for the secretary to guarantee there will not be any mistakes of a political nature and to make decisions is a reflection of such an erroneous conception.


    -----------------------

    Sum Up Experience in Strengthening Party Leadership
    Editorial by “Renmin Ribao,” “Hongqi” and “Jiefangjun Bao”

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #50, Dec. 10, 1971, pp. 4-5.]

          IN line with the great leader Chairman Mao’s instructions “Read and study seriously and have a good grasp of Marxism” and “Carry out education in ideology and political line,” the whole Party has unfolded a movement for criticizing revisionism and rectifying the style of work and deepened it step by step since the Second Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee of the Party. The movement has attained marked results and achieved great victory. By seriously reading works by Marx, Lenin and Chairman Mao, the masses of Party members, and particularly senior Party cadres, have heightened their consciousness of class struggle and the struggle between the two lines and of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and have gone a step further in exposing and criticizing such swindlers as Liu Shao-chi. New Party committees at various levels have generally been established and the struggle-criticism-transformation in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is developing in depth. Rallying all the more closely round the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao and advancing along the line of unity for victory of the Ninth National Congress of the Party, the whole Party, the whole army and the people of the whole country have continued to win new successes in the socialist revolution and socialist construction.

          The Communique of the Second Plenary Session of the Party’s Ninth Central Committee called for strengthening Party building and “giving further play to the leading role of the vanguard of the proletariat.” In the past year and more, the whole Party has done a great deal of work in accordance with Chairman Mao’s line for Party building. The present domestic and international situation is very fine. In order to fulfil our Party’s glorious tasks still better the Party committees at all levels must sum up their experience in earnest so as to continue to strengthen Party leadership over all kinds of work.

          What are the main questions to be stressed in strengthening Party leadership?

          It is imperative to strengthen Party concept. Chairman Mao teaches us: “The Chinese Communist Party is the core of leadership of the whole Chinese people. Without this core, the cause of socialism cannot he victorious.” Our Party is the vanguard of the proletariat it is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat. Of the seven—industry, agriculture, commerce, culture and education, the army, the government and the Party—the Party gives leadership to the first six. Party conunittees at all levels should exercise centralized leadership in all fields of work in accordance with the Party’s line and policies and, for the purpose of consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, strive to unite the revolutionary masses and unite all the forces that can be united so as to give fuller play to the role of the vanguard of the proletariat as the core. Chairman Mao regards Party building as one of the three principal magic weapons for the Chinese revolution and helping to strengthen, and not discard or weaken, the leadership of the Communist Party as one of the most important political criteria for distinguishing fragrant flowers from poisonous weeds. In the complicated class struggle and the struggle between the two lines, every Party member and every revolutionary must firmly bear in mind Chairman Mao’s teaching: “We must have faith in the masses and we must have faith in the Party. These are two cardinal principles. If we doubt these principles, we shall accomplish nothing.” It is especially necessary for members of Party committees at all levels to strengthen Party concept and place themselves within the Party committee and not outside it, still less above it.

          It is imperative to carry on education in ideology and political line in a deep-going way. Chairman Mao has pointed out on many occasions: The correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line decides everything. Policies are the concrete embodiment of a political line. Fundamentally, strengthening Party leadership means the firm implementation of Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line and policies. The history of inner-Party struggle between the two lines shows that the representatives of the bourgeoisie always change their tactics in an attempt to substitute their opportunist line and policies for the Party’s Marxist-Leninist line and policies and substitute their bourgeois programme for the Party’s proletarian programme, and thus to bring about a change in the character of the Party, turning it from a proletarian into a bourgeois Party, and achieve their criminal aim of liquidating Party leadership and undermining the Chinese revolution. This is an inevitable reflection of the class struggle in society. Under the guidance of Chairman Mao’s correct line and proletarian policies, our Party is growing more consolidated and stronger in the storms of class struggle. Neither imperialism, nor social-imperialism, nor revisionism within our Party has been able to defeat us. On the contrary, every triumph of the correct line over the incorrect line has dealt heavy blows at the enemies at home and abroad, brought about still greater victories in the revolutionary cause and enabled our Party to become stronger, more united and thriving. This is the conclusion drawn by history.

          It is imperative to strengthen the unity of the Party. Chairman Mao has all along stressed the importance of being able at uniting with the great majority and regarded the unity of the Party as the most essential factor in winning victory in the revolution and construction. Had it not been for the correct principle of unity of the Seventh Party Congress, the new democratic revolution could not have achieved victory. And had it not been for the line of unity for victory of the Ninth Party Congress, the fruits of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution could not have been consolidated and developed. Opportunism in politics is, organizationally, inevitably accompanied by the mountain-stronghold mentality, sectarianism and splittism. History does not lack such lessons. Chen Tu-hsiu’s patriarchism, Chu Chiu-pai’s punitiveness, Li Li-san’s “my word is law,” Wang Ming’s “ruthless struggles and merciless blows,” Chang Kuo-tao’s splittism and warlordism, and the “striking at many in order to protect a handful” practised by Liu Shao-chi and other swindlers like him have all caused tremendous harm to the unity and unification of the Party. In his struggle against opportunist lines, Chairman Mao set forth the principles of “unity, criticism, unity” and “learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones and cure the sickness to save the patient.” Only by implementing these principles is it possible to educate the cadres and strengthen the unity of the Party on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. Hidden anti-Party and anti-socialist counterrevolutionaries are very few in number. The overwhelming majority of good people who committed mistakes in political line are able to return to the correct line through criticism and self-criticism.

          Be open and above-board. Chairman Mao pointed out long ago: “We Communists have always disdained to conceal our views.” All Party comrades, and it goes without saying for senior Party cadres, must be frank and forthright politically. At all times one ought to state one’s political views openly and, on every important political issue, express one’s position, either for or against, adhering to what is right and correcting what is wrong. This is a question of the Party’s style of work and of Party spirit. As chieftains of opportunist lines are engaged in splitting activities, they are bound to resort to conspiracies, and intrigues. In his famous talk in 1964 on bringing up successors, Chairman Mao pointed out: “Beware of those who engage in intrigue and conspiracy. For instance, men like Kao Kang, Jao Shu-shih, Peng Teh-huai and Huang Ke-cheng were to be found in the Central Committee. Everything divides into two. Some persons are dead set on conspiring. They want to do this, so that’s that—even now there are such persons at it! That there are persons conspiring is an objective fact and not a question of whether we like it or not.” In our Party’s history, those bourgeois careerists, conspirators and persons having illicit relations with foreign countries, who clung to opportunist lines and engaged in conspiracies, could not but bring ruin, disgrace and destruction upon themselves in the end.

          It is imperative to strengthen the sense of discipline. Discipline is the guarantee for the implementation of the line. In summing up our Party’s struggle against Chang Kuo-tao’s opportunist line, Chairman Mao pointed out: “Some people violate Party discipline through not knowing what it is, while others, like Chang Kuo-tao, violate it knowingly and take advantage of many Party members’ ignorance to achieve their treacherous purposes. Hence it is necessary to educate members in Party discipline so that the rank and file will not only observe discipline themselves, but will exercise supervision over the leaders so that they, too, observe it, thus preventing the recurrence of cases like Chang Kuo-tao’s.” We must bear firmly in mind this historical experience, resolutely carry out the Party’s unified discipline stipulated in the Party Constitution and resolutely carry out “The Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention” formulated by Chairman Mao. It is necessary to learn and sing well The Internationale and the song The Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention and “educate the cadres, the masses, the Party members and the people in the Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention.”

          It is imperative to practise Marxism-Leninism, and not revisionism. To practise Marxism or to practise revisionism? The struggles between the two lines within our Party in the final analysis, boil down to this question. Why is it that some people are fooled and taken in during the struggle between the two lines? The fundamental reason is that they do not read and study seriously and cannot distinguish materialism from idealism and the Marxist line from the opportunist line. This is an extremely profound lesson. Comrades throughout the Party, senior Party cadres in particular, must follow Chairman Mao’s teachings, continuously persist in reading and studying seriously, have a good grasp of Marxism, consciously remould their world outlook, combine study with revolutionary mass criticism, constantly raise their ability to distinguish between genuine and sham Marxism and carry out Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line ever more consciously.

          The Chinese Communist Party with Comrade Mao Tsetung as its leader is a great, glorious and correct Party. Through positive and negative examples, the previous struggles between the two lines have enabled us to understand ever more deeply that Chairman Mao’s leadership means the greatest happiness for the whole Party, the whole army and the people of the whole country, and that Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line is the life-blood of the whole Party, the whole army and the people of the whole country. Under the leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao and along Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line, let us unite to win still greater victories!

    (December 1)



    ---------------------------



    Sum Up Experience in Strengthening Party Leadership
    Editorial by “Renmin Ribao,” “Hongqi” and “Jiefangjun Bao”

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #50, Dec. 10, 1971, pp. 4-5.]

          IN line with the great leader Chairman Mao’s instructions “Read and study seriously and have a good grasp of Marxism” and “Carry out education in ideology and political line,” the whole Party has unfolded a movement for criticizing revisionism and rectifying the style of work and deepened it step by step since the Second Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee of the Party. The movement has attained marked results and achieved great victory. By seriously reading works by Marx, Lenin and Chairman Mao, the masses of Party members, and particularly senior Party cadres, have heightened their consciousness of class struggle and the struggle between the two lines and of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and have gone a step further in exposing and criticizing such swindlers as Liu Shao-chi. New Party committees at various levels have generally been established and the struggle-criticism-transformation in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is developing in depth. Rallying all the more closely round the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao and advancing along the line of unity for victory of the Ninth National Congress of the Party, the whole Party, the whole army and the people of the whole country have continued to win new successes in the socialist revolution and socialist construction.

          The Communique of the Second Plenary Session of the Party’s Ninth Central Committee called for strengthening Party building and “giving further play to the leading role of the vanguard of the proletariat.” In the past year and more, the whole Party has done a great deal of work in accordance with Chairman Mao’s line for Party building. The present domestic and international situation is very fine. In order to fulfil our Party’s glorious tasks still better the Party committees at all levels must sum up their experience in earnest so as to continue to strengthen Party leadership over all kinds of work.

          What are the main questions to be stressed in strengthening Party leadership?

          It is imperative to strengthen Party concept. Chairman Mao teaches us: “The Chinese Communist Party is the core of leadership of the whole Chinese people. Without this core, the cause of socialism cannot he victorious.” Our Party is the vanguard of the proletariat it is the highest form of class organization of the proletariat. Of the seven—industry, agriculture, commerce, culture and education, the army, the government and the Party—the Party gives leadership to the first six. Party conunittees at all levels should exercise centralized leadership in all fields of work in accordance with the Party’s line and policies and, for the purpose of consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, strive to unite the revolutionary masses and unite all the forces that can be united so as to give fuller play to the role of the vanguard of the proletariat as the core. Chairman Mao regards Party building as one of the three principal magic weapons for the Chinese revolution and helping to strengthen, and not discard or weaken, the leadership of the Communist Party as one of the most important political criteria for distinguishing fragrant flowers from poisonous weeds. In the complicated class struggle and the struggle between the two lines, every Party member and every revolutionary must firmly bear in mind Chairman Mao’s teaching: “We must have faith in the masses and we must have faith in the Party. These are two cardinal principles. If we doubt these principles, we shall accomplish nothing.” It is especially necessary for members of Party committees at all levels to strengthen Party concept and place themselves within the Party committee and not outside it, still less above it.

          It is imperative to carry on education in ideology and political line in a deep-going way. Chairman Mao has pointed out on many occasions: The correctness or incorrectness of the ideological and political line decides everything. Policies are the concrete embodiment of a political line. Fundamentally, strengthening Party leadership means the firm implementation of Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line and policies. The history of inner-Party struggle between the two lines shows that the representatives of the bourgeoisie always change their tactics in an attempt to substitute their opportunist line and policies for the Party’s Marxist-Leninist line and policies and substitute their bourgeois programme for the Party’s proletarian programme, and thus to bring about a change in the character of the Party, turning it from a proletarian into a bourgeois Party, and achieve their criminal aim of liquidating Party leadership and undermining the Chinese revolution. This is an inevitable reflection of the class struggle in society. Under the guidance of Chairman Mao’s correct line and proletarian policies, our Party is growing more consolidated and stronger in the storms of class struggle. Neither imperialism, nor social-imperialism, nor revisionism within our Party has been able to defeat us. On the contrary, every triumph of the correct line over the incorrect line has dealt heavy blows at the enemies at home and abroad, brought about still greater victories in the revolutionary cause and enabled our Party to become stronger, more united and thriving. This is the conclusion drawn by history.

          It is imperative to strengthen the unity of the Party. Chairman Mao has all along stressed the importance of being able at uniting with the great majority and regarded the unity of the Party as the most essential factor in winning victory in the revolution and construction. Had it not been for the correct principle of unity of the Seventh Party Congress, the new democratic revolution could not have achieved victory. And had it not been for the line of unity for victory of the Ninth Party Congress, the fruits of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution could not have been consolidated and developed. Opportunism in politics is, organizationally, inevitably accompanied by the mountain-stronghold mentality, sectarianism and splittism. History does not lack such lessons. Chen Tu-hsiu’s patriarchism, Chu Chiu-pai’s punitiveness, Li Li-san’s “my word is law,” Wang Ming’s “ruthless struggles and merciless blows,” Chang Kuo-tao’s splittism and warlordism, and the “striking at many in order to protect a handful” practised by Liu Shao-chi and other swindlers like him have all caused tremendous harm to the unity and unification of the Party. In his struggle against opportunist lines, Chairman Mao set forth the principles of “unity, criticism, unity” and “learn from past mistakes to avoid future ones and cure the sickness to save the patient.” Only by implementing these principles is it possible to educate the cadres and strengthen the unity of the Party on the basis of the principles of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought. Hidden anti-Party and anti-socialist counterrevolutionaries are very few in number. The overwhelming majority of good people who committed mistakes in political line are able to return to the correct line through criticism and self-criticism.

          Be open and above-board. Chairman Mao pointed out long ago: “We Communists have always disdained to conceal our views.” All Party comrades, and it goes without saying for senior Party cadres, must be frank and forthright politically. At all times one ought to state one’s political views openly and, on every important political issue, express one’s position, either for or against, adhering to what is right and correcting what is wrong. This is a question of the Party’s style of work and of Party spirit. As chieftains of opportunist lines are engaged in splitting activities, they are bound to resort to conspiracies, and intrigues. In his famous talk in 1964 on bringing up successors, Chairman Mao pointed out: “Beware of those who engage in intrigue and conspiracy. For instance, men like Kao Kang, Jao Shu-shih, Peng Teh-huai and Huang Ke-cheng were to be found in the Central Committee. Everything divides into two. Some persons are dead set on conspiring. They want to do this, so that’s that—even now there are such persons at it! That there are persons conspiring is an objective fact and not a question of whether we like it or not.” In our Party’s history, those bourgeois careerists, conspirators and persons having illicit relations with foreign countries, who clung to opportunist lines and engaged in conspiracies, could not but bring ruin, disgrace and destruction upon themselves in the end.

          It is imperative to strengthen the sense of discipline. Discipline is the guarantee for the implementation of the line. In summing up our Party’s struggle against Chang Kuo-tao’s opportunist line, Chairman Mao pointed out: “Some people violate Party discipline through not knowing what it is, while others, like Chang Kuo-tao, violate it knowingly and take advantage of many Party members’ ignorance to achieve their treacherous purposes. Hence it is necessary to educate members in Party discipline so that the rank and file will not only observe discipline themselves, but will exercise supervision over the leaders so that they, too, observe it, thus preventing the recurrence of cases like Chang Kuo-tao’s.” We must bear firmly in mind this historical experience, resolutely carry out the Party’s unified discipline stipulated in the Party Constitution and resolutely carry out “The Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention” formulated by Chairman Mao. It is necessary to learn and sing well The Internationale and the song The Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention and “educate the cadres, the masses, the Party members and the people in the Three Main Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention.”

          It is imperative to practise Marxism-Leninism, and not revisionism. To practise Marxism or to practise revisionism? The struggles between the two lines within our Party in the final analysis, boil down to this question. Why is it that some people are fooled and taken in during the struggle between the two lines? The fundamental reason is that they do not read and study seriously and cannot distinguish materialism from idealism and the Marxist line from the opportunist line. This is an extremely profound lesson. Comrades throughout the Party, senior Party cadres in particular, must follow Chairman Mao’s teachings, continuously persist in reading and studying seriously, have a good grasp of Marxism, consciously remould their world outlook, combine study with revolutionary mass criticism, constantly raise their ability to distinguish between genuine and sham Marxism and carry out Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line ever more consciously.

          The Chinese Communist Party with Comrade Mao Tsetung as its leader is a great, glorious and correct Party. Through positive and negative examples, the previous struggles between the two lines have enabled us to understand ever more deeply that Chairman Mao’s leadership means the greatest happiness for the whole Party, the whole army and the people of the whole country, and that Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line is the life-blood of the whole Party, the whole army and the people of the whole country. Under the leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Chairman Mao and along Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line, let us unite to win still greater victories!

    (December 1)




    Return to Peking Review article list

    MASSLINE.ORG Home Page



    Bankruptcy of Renegade Philosophy
    by Ko Chun

    [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #52, Dec. 24, 1971, pp. 13-16.]

          CHINA’S Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has ferreted out a handful of renegades, enemy agents and absolutely unrepentant capitalist roaders represented by Liu Shao-chi, smashed their plot to usurp Party and state leadership and restore capitalism and thus greatly strengthened and consolidated the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a great victory for Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line.

          The Communique of the Second Plenary Session of the Ninth Central Committee of the Party points out: It is imperative to continue to “deepen revolutionary mass criticism and eliminate the remnant pernicious influence of Liu Shao-chi’s counter-revolutionary revisionist line.” To meet the needs of the imperialists and the Kuomintang reactionaries, he and other renegades turned traitor to the Party and succumbed to the enemy. Later they sneaked into the Party and collaborated with each other to usurp Party leadership. They also tried to work out a collection of extremely reactionary renegade philosophy to cover up their counter-revolutionary crimes and realize their counter-revolutionary ambitions. Deep-going criticism of their renegade philosophy is of primary importance in further strengthening the building of our Party and consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Anti-Communist Philosophy

          The proletarian revolution is aimed at thoroughly eliminating all exploiting classes. It goes deeper than any previous revolution in history and involves sharper and more intense struggles. Numerous heroes and heroines who are not afraid of hardship or death have come forward in the course of the great revolutionary struggle led by our Party. Victories in our revolution were won at the cost of the blood and lives of many revolutionary martyrs. But as the revolution rolled ahead, there was also such debris of history as Liu Shao-chi and company.

          Panic-stricken in the face of the enemy’s white terror, Liu Shao-chi fled from Shanghai to Hunan after the “May 30” movement in 1925. Arrested by the enemy, he shamelessly accepted their conditions, surrendered to them and betrayed the revolution. In 1936, he instigated a bunch of renegades under detention in the “Peiping Militarymen’s Branch Reformatory Prison” to publish open “anti-Communist statements,” thus giving in to the Kuomintang and betraying the Communist Party.

          At every critical moment of the revolution, Liu Shao-chi defected and surrendered to the enemy. He instigated a handful of cronies to betray the Party. He babbled that he had done so in order to “meet the needs of work.” This line of action is not required by revolutionary work but by counter-revolutionary work. What the enemy fears most are unyielding Communist Party members and what he “needs” most are shameless renegades. The enemy can use renegades to “find the clue” to undermine Party organizations; he can use them to publish “anti-Communist statements” so as to lower the Party’s prestige among the people and sap their revolutionary will. In betraying the Party, Liu Shao-chi and company tried to sabotage the revolution from within so as to meet the enemy’s counter-revolutionary “needs” in opposing communism and the people.

          Nineteen-thirty-six was the year before the outbreak of the full-scale war of aggression by Japanese imperialism against China. At this crucial juncture when the fate of the Chinese nation was at stake, Chairman Mao led the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army in smashing the Kuomintang’s counter-revolutionary encirclement, pursuit, obstruction and interception and carrying out the world-known 25,000-li Long March. After triumphantly arriving at the anti-Japanese forefront in the northwest, he led the entire people in a large-scale movement to resist Japanese aggression and save the nation.

          In the face of the Japanese aggressors’ attack, the Kuomintang reactionaries adopted a policy of opposing communism and-selling out the nation, trying desperately to eliminate the Chinese Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army led by the Chinese Communist Party. The most urgent demand of the revolutionary situation at that time was that every Party member show his enthusiasm, be far-sighted, have the spirit of self-sacrifice and resolutely fight the Kuomintang. Many Communist Party members heroically laid down their lives. Chairman Mao pointed out: “By its arduous struggles and by the martyrdom of hundreds of thousands of its heroic members and tens of thousands of its heroic cadres, the Communist Party of China has played a great educative role among hundreds of millions of people throughout the country.” The historical experience of the eight years of the War of Resistance Against Japan especially proved that without the heroic struggle and the martyrdom of the Chinese Communist Party members and without the Chinese Communist Party as the mainstay of the Chinese people, victory in the war would have been impossible.

          Liu Shao-chi and his gang went so far as to blurt out that their betrayal was for the purpose of “preserving revolutionary strength.” This was deceitful. It is only natural that revolutionary strength should be preserved but not by bowing and surrendering to the enemy. He and his cronies surrendered to the enemy and betrayed the Party organizations. As a result, many Communist Party members were killed in cold blood and revolutionary strength was greatly weakened. It is indeed the height of impudence to describe this as “preserving revolutionary strength.”

          After his defection, Liu Shao-chi on many occasions gave the enemy information, wrecking underground Party organizations. It is all the more deceitful to talk about this as a “false confession” to the enemy. Some renegades signed their “confessions,” went through a “procedure to indicate their intention to turn over a new leaf” and published “anti-Communist statements” viciously maligning the revolution in the enemy press. This was clearly a downright betrayal, but was misrepresented as a “false confession.” With a guilty conscience, one renegade said “Such terms as confession and betrayal should be used as seldom as possible and better not call it a confession if possible because a confession is discrediting.” They had thus unwittingly let the cat out of the bag.

          It is likewise deceptive nonsense to describe confessing to the enemy as being for the purpose of “coping with the enemy.” There is no doubt that proletarians and Communists should learn to grasp all forms of struggle against the enemy. But at no time should they be allowed to lose the Party stand or trade in revolutionary principle with the enemy under the pretext of “coping with the enemy.” So-called “coping with the enemy” babbled about by Liu Shao-chi and company actually means meeting the enemy’s needs and a tactic they used to carry out counter-revolutionary sabotage within the Party. The renegade philosophy they spread is out-and-out anti-Conununist philosophy.

    Plot to Usurp Party Leadership

          Liu Shao-chi’s criminal aim in instigating his gang to betray the Party, making up all kinds of lies and energetically spreading their renegade philosophy was plotting to usurp Party leadership and undermine proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

          In 1936 Liu Shao-chi incited his crew of renegades to crawl out from the enemy prisons. Immediately afterwards, he recruited them as his confidants and entrusted them with important tasks. Moved to tears of gratitude, this bunch were bent on working for him. For long years, they frenziedly pushed an organizational line to serve their counter-revolutionary political line, recruited deserters and turncoats and set up cliques for their own selfish interests and carried out conspiratorial activities to usurp Party leadership, thus committing unforgivable crimes against the Party and the people.

          To cover up their renegade features and create public opinion for usurping Party leadership, in 1937 they worked out a so-called “decision,” openly declaring that those released from prison after having written their voluntary anti-Communist statements and fulfilled all formalities for making confessions with the permission of the Party organizations could regain their membership. This was a vain attempt to whitewash their crimes of betraying the Party under the pretext of having obtained the permission of the Party organizations.

          Our Party is a vigorous vanguard organization leading the proletariat and the revolutionary masses in the fight against the class enemy. It has a clear-cut programme for struggle and a lofty goal. In his The Tasks of the Chinese Communist Party in the Period of Resistance to Japan, Chairman Mao pointed out: “Communists will never abandon their ideal of socialism and communism.” Communist Party members are ready at all times to give their all for the cause. Our Party organizations will never allow their members to make confessions, nor allow renegades to worm their way into the Party. At no time and under no circumstances should one relinquish the stand of the Party and abandon Party principles to meet the enemy’s needs because this can only disintegrate the revolutionary ranks, harm the interests of the revolution and lead to its failure. For Liu Shao-chi and company to advocate betrayal of the Party with the “permission of the Party organizations” is itself a betrayal of the Party’s Marxist-Leninist principles and a complete sell-out of the Party’s fundamental interests.

          In 1942 Chairman Mao personally led the most significant movement launched in Yenan for rectifying the style of work and examining the cadres’ personal records. This prepared conditions for our Party in winning complete victories in the War of Resistance Against Japan and the War of Liberation. Liu Shao-chi and the handful of other renegades in the movement worked hand in glove to cover up the truth about their confessions and defections.

          After nationwide liberation, mass movements such as suppression and cleaning out of counter-revolutionaries were launched in accordance with Chairman Mao’s brilliant policy. This dealt the handful of class enemies a telling blow and greatly strengthened the dictatorship of the proletariat in China. But Liu Shao-chi, a deeply-hidden enemy, clandestinely did everything he could to cover himself up and shield his henchmen. Fearing that the revolutionary masses would expose them as renegades, a group of traitors asked him for help. He immediately instructed them: “Give me a list of your names. I’ll write a few words on it and it will be all right just to keep it in the files.” Shielded by Liu Shao-chi, they slipped through and remained hidden.

          To realize their scheme of usurping Party leadership, Liu Shao-chi and company not only did their utmost to let renegades sneak back into the Party but desperately tried to thrust them into the Party’s central leading organs. On the eve of the Seventh Party Congress, Liu Shao-chi asserted that those who had once defected and made confessions “could still be appointed Central Committee Members,” and vainly tried to include this in the documents. His plot failed.

          Before the Eighth Party Congress, Liu Shao-chi again directed one renegade to “absolve some people from their past misdeeds” and let him carefully work out a “method” for “using” those who had once defected and surrendered—a method whereby confessions and defections were lightly dismissed as “erroneous deeds” and “vacillating at one time,” and he shouted that renegades “should be given full trust.” He and his agents absolved this handful of their crimes in accordance with this “method,” and entrenched them in some important national and local posts.

          Chairman Mao has taught us: “They must especially watch out for careerists and conspirators, like Khrushchov and prevent such bad elements from usurping the leadership of the Party and the state at any level.” Liu Shao-chi and his handful of agents are people like Khrushchov who conspire to usurp the leadership of the Party and the state at every level.

          Acting as the exploiting classes’ agents, they tried to subvert the proletarian regime and restore the lost “paradise” of the exploiting classes. For many years, they recruited deserters and turncoats and gathered together a gang of renegades, enemy agents and absolutely unrepentant capitalist roaders in power. They covered up their counter-revolutionary political records, shielded each other, colluded in doing evil, usurped important Party and state posts and controlled the leadership of many units. They formed an underground bourgeois headquarters against the proletarian headquarters headed by Chairman Mao. They collaborated with the imperialists, modern revisionists and Kuomintang reactionaries in frantically undermining China’s socialist revolution and socialist construction, playing a role the U.S. imperialists, Soviet revisionists and reactionaries of various countries could not play.

    Big Exposure of Reactionary Nature

          The betrayal of the Party and revolution by Liu Shao-chi and his gang was decided by their reactionary class nature. But they shamelessly preached that betrayal and making voluntary confessions to the enemy resulted from “a moment of erroneous thinking.” Liu Shao-chi babbled: “If a representative of the proletariat becomes reactionary, it is only the result of ‘a moment of erroneous thinking.’ A shift of stand is easy. Communists—proletarian fighters—may very easily shift to the other side and therefore other classes may also shift to our side very quickly.” He tried to convince people that it was completely accidental for someone to turn into a renegade and that there was no fundamental difference in stand and world outlook between renegades and revolutionaries. This is shameless sophistry.

          Chairman Mao has taught us: “This change in world outlook is something fundamental.” From the very day a revolutionary starts to take part in revolution, he must make up his mind to thoroughly remould his non-proletarian world outlook and gradually foster his proletarian world outlook. Only in this way can he become a staunch proletarian fighter. A Communist can heroically dedicate his life to the communist cause at the crucial moment of life and death because through revolutionary practice he has conscientiously studied Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and continuously remoulded his world outlook. A renegade’s betrayal of the revolution in a critical moment is simply a big exposure of his bourgeois world outlook.

          Lenin has pointed out: “It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is at its height, when everybody is joining the revolution just because they are carried away, because it is the fashion, and sometimes even out of carcerist motives. After its victory, the proletariat has to make most strenuous efforts, to suffer the pains of martyrdom, one might say, to ‘liberate’ itself from such pseudo revolutionaries.”

          Never having been revolutionaries, Liu Shao-chi and his crew are conspirators, careerists and counter-revolutionary double-dealers who pretended to support the revolution and make revolution and at its high tide wormed their way into the revolutionary ranks. Their criminal history and activities precisely are the ugly demonstrations of their reactionary class nature.

          While studying in middle school, Liu Shao-chi told his landlord relatives: “Support me to study a little longer and you will be rewarded later. I will make lots of money and pay you back.” In a poem to one of his sworn brothers, in 1921, he said: “When in my life will I be wealthy and hold high positions? Why not enjoy myself right now!” He was preoccupied with nothing but such exploiting-class decadence as these. After they had sneaked into the revolutionary ranks, these renegades persisted in their reactionary stand, harboured wild ambitions and sought high official positions. Their thoughts were of “becoming the No. 1 or No. 2 man”; they advocated “losing a little to gain much,” taking up things that were “worth-while” and never going into anything that “does not pay.” They did what was in their own interests, no matter how despicable. This is their philosophy of life.

          Liu Shao-chi and his like also trumpeted the “philosophy of survival” and spread such fallacies as “the first thing is self-preservation.” Thus everything is done to preserve one’s life and preserving life is everything. As long as they can preserve their vile lives, they will sell their souls and the revolution. Their betrayal has its ideological, social and historical roots and has nothing to do with an accidental “moment of erroneous thinking.”

          Liu Shao-chi and political swindlers like him also babbled: “When someone couldn’t withstand torture after being arrested, admitted who he was and even recanted in the newspapers, it is still a good thing as long as he assumed full responsibility and never revealed any other person to the enemy.” What impudence! Is it justified to give away one’s identity and surrender to the enemy only because one has been tortured by the latter? A genuine communist fighter will never succumb to the enemy even at the cost of his life.

          Chairman Mao has taught us: “We Chinese Communists, who base all our actions on the highest interests of the broadest masses of the Chinese people and who are fully convinced of the justice of our cause, never balk at any personal sacrifice and are ready at all times to give our lives for the cause.” A Communist should fight for the cause of communism throughout his life and dedicate it to that cause. He can give up his life but should never abandon the great ideal of communism or surrender his revolutionary integrity. He should strive to serve the people until his dying day. If he sacrifices his life to protect the cause of the Party and revolution, he dies with glory. When one man falls, thousands of revolutionaries will stand up to continue the fight and in this sense he is still alive. Many revolutionary martyrs have made all kinds of sacrifices and even given their lives for the communist ideal. They preferred death to giving in to the enemy. Compared with this lofty and shining revolutionary heroism, that pathetic gang—Liu Shao-chi and his kind—fearing death and clinging to life are despicable and insignificant.

          Proceeding from their reactionary landlord and capitalist class world outlook, Liu Shao-chi and his band did their utmost to deceive and spread their fallacious reasoning. While preaching their renegade philosophy, they tried to justify their own behaviour in betraying the revolution, corrupt Communists’ revolutionary will, destroy Communists’ revolutionary integrity, sabotage the proletarian revolution and subvert the dictatorship of the proletariat. But history is merciless. All renegades, traitors, careerists and conspirators cannot escape the punishment they deserve. Having rid itself of a handful of renegades, our Party has become purer and stronger than ever.




    Return to Peking Review article list

    MASSLINE.ORG Home Page
      
      
      

     
     
    顶端 Posted: 2007-12-18 01:49 | 2 楼
    weihong2
    级别: 论坛版主


    精华: 0
    发帖: 1693
    威望: 1694 点
    红花: 16930 朵
    贡献值: 0 点
    在线时间:406(小时)
    注册时间:2007-05-31
    最后登录:2009-08-25

     

    ................................
      
      
      

     
     
    顶端 Posted: 2007-12-18 01:49 | 3 楼
    weihong2
    级别: <