The Bankruptcy of China's "Devotee Of Parliamentarianism"
The Bankruptcy of China's "Devotee Of Parliamentarianism"
The Bankruptcy of China's "Devotee Of Parliamentarianism"
Criticizing and Repudiating China's Khrushchov:
The Bankruptcy of China's "Devotee Of Parliamentarianism"
Source: Peking Review, No. 36, September 1. 1967
Whether the proletariat is to seize power through armed struggle or by taking the "parliamentary road" is the fundamental difference between Marxist-Leninism and revisionism. The entire history of the international communist movement teaches us that all revisionists, big and small, have been "devotees of parliamentarianism." Without exception they have all denied that involution by force is the universal law of the proletarian revolution; they have all along taken the bourgeois parliament as a stock exchange, where they conduct transactions selling out the fundamental interests of the proletariat. They have turned themselves into the most despicable renegades of the working class.
Their most outstanding representative in China is the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road. He has all along been the biggest "devotee of parliamentarianism" in China and in the contemporary world.
In 1945, after victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan, the question put sharply to the whole Chinese people was, "Whither China?" "To build a new-democratic country of the broad masses of the people under the leadership of the proletariat? Or to build a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country under the dictatorship of the big landlords and the big bourgeoisie? This will be a most complicated struggle." This most acute struggle is a decisive battle in the choice between the two destinies and the two futures facing China.
Upon final victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan, our great leader Chairman Mao pointed out: ". . . It is necessary to be soberly aware that the danger of civil war is extremely serious because Chiang Kai-shek's policy is already set. Chiang Kai-shek's policy is civil war" and that in order to defend the fruits of victory, "our policy is to give him tit for tat and to fight for every inch of land."
It was precisely at this crucial moment that China's Khrushchov, on February 1, 1946, came out with his "Report on Problems in the Current Situation." In this report he flagrantly opposed Chairman Mac's revolutionary line, put forward the absurd, reactionary trash of "a new stage of peace and democracy" and clamoured for the "parliamentary road," saying that "the main form of struggle in the Chinese revolution has become peaceful and parliamentary; it will be legal mass struggle and parliamentary struggle." He also stated that "the whole work of the Party will undergo a change; all our organizations have to change, change to the point that non-armed struggle will be predominant . . . you must be capable of doing propaganda, making speeches and holding election campaigns so that people will vote for you."
In a word, he wanted to engage in legal struggle, and take the "parliamentary road."
This was the sinister programme mapped out by China's Khrushchov in his futile attempt to pursue the "parliamentary road" in China. This was another great exposure of his features as a renegade in promoting class capitulationism and national capitulationism.
Did "a new stage of peace and democracy" occur in China at that time as China's Khrushchov claimed? No, not at all.
At the time when China's Khrushchov was cherishing fond dreams of the "parliamentary road," Chiang Kai-shek was sharpening his sword, holding peace talks while fighting the civil war. lie used U.S. planes and warships to dispatch large numbers of troops to the civil war front. The danger of an all-out national civil war was imminent and it would break out at any moment. This counter-revolutionary action of Chiang Kai-shek's was a slap in the face to China's Khrushchov who was singing the shopworn tune of the "parliamentary road."
What is a parliament? In capitalist countries it is only an ornament or a screen for bourgeois rule. The main pillar of the bourgeois state apparatus is armed force, not parliament. Whether the bourgeoisie carries out the parliamentary system or abolishes it, or what amount of power it gives parliament is always decided by the requirements of bourgeois rule. It is purely a vicious fraud to aspire to make the transition to socialism peacefully through the "parliamentary road" when the bourgeoisie controls the powerful state apparatus. In the present-day world we have only the tragic lesson of socialist countries which have peacefully evolved into capitalist countries and not a single precedent of a capitalist country making a peaceful transition to socialism. Of course, under certain conditions the proletariat can utilize the parliamentary platform to expose the festering sores of bourgeois society, to educate the masses and to accumulate revolutionary strength so as to prepare to seize political power by armed force. But it is absolutely impossible to use parliamentary struggle to replace revolution by violence. Lenin pointed out long ago that "limiting the class struggle to the parliamentary struggle, or regarding the latter as the highest and decisive form, to which all the other forms of struggle are subordinate, is actually desertion to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat." The "legal mass struggle and parliamentary struggle" publicized by China's Khrushchov is precisely "actually desertion to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat."
In capitalist countries the "parliamentary road" is a blind alley. In semi-feudal and semi-colonial China, especially in China after the victory of the War of Resistance Against Japan, the "parliamentary road" was even more of an impasse. Quite early, Chairman Mao pointed out the following about old China under Chiang Kai-shek's rule: "that internally she has no democracy hut is under feudal oppression and that in her external relations she has no national independence but is oppressed by imperialism. It follows (hat we have no parliament to make use of and no legal right to organize the workers to strike. Basically, the task of the Communist Party here is not to go through a long period of legal struggle before launching insurrection and war. and not lo seize the big cities first and then occupy the countryside, but the reverse." The objective law for the triumph of the Chinese revolution was to use armed revolution to oppose armed counter-revolution. This was the only road to victory for the Chinese revolution.
But after the victory of the War of Resistance Against Japan, China's Khrushchov had the impudence to negate this objective law. Therefore, we would like to ask:
Could it be said that the characteristics of the Chinese revolution disappeared after the victory of the War of Resistance Against Japan? Did the basic law or the Chinese revolution cease to operate from then on?
Could it be said that the gang of butchers, headed by Chiang Kai-shek, who killed without batting an eyelid, became angels of peace and democracy after the victory of the War of Resistance Against Japan?
Could it be said that in dealing with the Chiang Kai-shek brigand clique who were armed to the teeth, One could bring about peace and democracy in China just by making a speech and winning a few votes in parliament?
If we had followed the "parliamentary road" advocated by China's Khrushchov at a time when the Kuo-mintang Chiang Kai-shek was sharpening his sword, cleaning his rifle and preparing to kill us, and had entered the cities on the strength of a few ballots, we would never have won the basic success of the democratic revolution, we would never have been able to enter Chiang Kai-shek's cities, but would only have lost our own cities instead, millions of people would have been killed and the future of the Chinese revolution would have been thrown away.
While China's Khrushchov advocated the ''parliamentary road," he also openly opposed armed struggle and urged handing our weapons over to the Kuomin-tang. He openly put forth the view that 'the army should also be reorganized,’ intending to reorganize our army "to become units of the national army, national defence army, security troops and self-defence forces." He wanted "to liquidate Party organizations" in the army, . . stop [the Communist Party's] direct leadership and command of the armed forces which should be placed under the unified command of the Ministry of National Defence." China's Khrushchov even had the eifrontery to say that such "compromise" "makes no change in the nature of the army but gives it legality. . . . This is a worthwhile and profitable deal."
This is the logic of a renegade, pure and simple.
Actually, such "compromise" was the equivalent to putting one's fingerprints on a confession in the enemy's prison. To obtain such "legality" can only mean to be legal according to the law of Chiang Kai-shek and to the law of the Kuomintang. To realize such "unification" is to "unify" the Communist Party into the Kuomintang.
"It makes no change in the nature of the army" is the equivocation of a renegade. We would like to ask, without the leadership of the Communist Party whose army would it become? Whom would the guns point at? Once the nature of the army changes, the direction the muzzles point will change. Without the army there can be no revolution, much less victory in the revolution.
In the ten whole years from 1936 to 1916, China's Khrushchov never gave up the idea of handing over military power to the Kuomintang- Early in May 1936 while he was in the North China Bureau in charge of work in the enemy-controlled area, he wrote in a reactionary bourgeois journal under the pen name Tuo Shang-hsing "A letter Concerning the Communist Party." This venomous article advocated handing over the people's armed forces to the Kuomintang and making a "unified army with the same system and same organization." This was entirely in keeping with Wang Ming's capitulationism. If we compare what China's Khrushchov said in 1946 with what he said in 1936. we will find that the only difference is that he was even more determined to hand over the army and to hand it over more thoroughly. It was simply to curry favour with the U.S.-Chiang reactionaries so as to get a lucrative job in the Kuomintang government that China's Khrushchov chose the sharpest moment of class snuggle hastily to betray the people's armed forces. This man had absolutely no sense of shame.
In the international communist movement, to hand over rifles to the enemy in exchange for a few seats in parliament and to gain the post of vice-premier or minister is no invention of China's Khrushchov After World War II, Thorez handed over weapons, Togliatti handed over weapons, and the Greek Communist Party, though Athens was almost in its hands, also handed over its weapons. And the result? After the guns were handed over the "legality" was abolished; large numbers of true revolutionary Party members were slaughtered and the blood of revolutionary martyrs became the wine in the cups of the enemy. What sort of "profitable" transaction was this? It was clearly a cheap sell-out of the cause of revolution and a monstrous betrayal of the people's interests.
Lenin said: "A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest, fundamental arid cardinal facts of modern capitalist society. And in face of (his fact, revolutionary Social-Democrats are urged to 'demand' 'disarmament'! That is tantamount to complete abandonment of the class-struggle point of view, to renunciation of all thought of revolution." China's Khrushchov is just such an old-line opportunist who abandons all thought of revolution.
At that time, only our great leader Chairman Mao Stood firmly against this adverse revisionist current in the international communist movement. Giving lit for tat, he pointed out: "The arms of the people, every gun and every bullet, must all be kept, must not be handed over." This is a summation of the experience of the Chinese revolution and the international communist movement, a strategic concept of tremendous world significance, a wise policy in opposing Right Capitulationism, and a fundamental guarantee of complete victory for the Chinese revolution and world revolution.
The Khrushchov of China advocated the "parliamentary road" and opposed the seizure of political power by force of arms with such frenzy because he Feared revolution and war and the jaws of death; all he was Interested in was winning promotion and filling his Coffers in a comfortable way. When in jail, a man like this is bound to give himself over to the enemy and betray the revolution; in the face of violent revolution, he inevitably becomes terror-stricken and shouts himself hoarse for legal struggle. The needs of U.S. imperialism and Chiang Kai-shek, autocrat and traitor to the people, to dissolve and destroy the Communist Party, exterminate the proletarian revolution and maintain the reactionary rule of the U.S.-Chiang Kai-shek clique have been fully served by the ignominious traitorous activities of China's Khrushchov.
In his all-out advertisement of the "parliamentary road," China's Khrushchov used another argument This was the emergence, according to him, of "historically unprecedented conditions" in China at that time. These conditions were said to be: three countries (Britain, the United Slates and the Soviet Union) were helping China's democratic movement; three political parties (the Kuomintang, the Communist Party and the Democratic League) in China favoured co-operation to bring about democracy; and the three principal classes of China (the working people, middle-of-the-roaders of the middle bourgeoisie and part of the big bourgeoisie) demanded democracy in China. He wanted to take the "parliamentary road' precisely on the strength of this argument.
What nonsense! Under the pen of China's Khrushchov, the U.S. and British imperialists had become Buddhas and were going so far as to help the "democratic movement" of China. Was this a fact? No! It was then the set policy of U.S. imperialism to help Chiang Kai-shek fight the civil war and turn China into a dependency of the United States. Under the signboard of promoting democracy in China, the U.S. Government was reinforcing Chiang Kai-shek's military strength in every possible way and was suppressing the Chinese people's revolution through Chiang Kai-shek’s policy of massacring the people. When he described U.S. and British imperialism as helping China's democratic movement, was this Khrushchov of China not clasping an enemy to his bosom and completely and unreservedly standing on the side of U.S. imperialism?
Three political parties "favoured co-operation" and three classes "demanded democracy in China" — this was yet more nonsense! There never can be demand common to the big bourgeoisie and the working people. To wrest every ounce of power and every ounce of gain was the principle of the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek in dealing with the people. On August of 1943, in his essay "On a Statement by Chiang Kai-shek's Spokesman/1 Chairman Mao pointed out explicitly that Chiang Kai-shek was the enemy of the people. However, half a year later, China's Khrushchov went so far as to openly stand on the side of the people's enemy, reversing the verdict on Chiang Kai-shek, taking the enemy as people and describing the bloodthirsty butcher to be an ang-1 who was "promoting peace and democracy." Was he no| wholly serving in the capacity of a spokesman for Chiang Kai-shek?
The practice of the Chinese revolution has exploded the dream of China's Khrushchov. Rejecting all his nonsense, the Chinese people, under the guidance of Chairman Mao's revolutionary line, finally overthrew the reactionary rule of the Kuominhmg after three years' heroic battle, won great victory in the Liberation War and founded the People's Republic of China.
After the founding of New China, China's Khrushchov, his ambition undiminished, still obstinately advertised his capitulationism and vainly attempted to spread it throughout the world. In 1962 he wanted the Communist Party of Burma to "bury the weapons, reorganise its army into the 'defence forces' [Ne Win's reactionary army]; and co-operate with Ne Win in the building of socialism." During his visit to Indonesia in April 1963, he shamelessly lauded the road of "NASAKOM"' and in an unofficial conversation he uttered such drivel as. "It will do good" for the Communist Party of Indonesia "to have more Party members in positions of minister in the government, to accumulate more experience in governing the country."
This is China's Khrushchov's big betrayal of the Chinese people, the Asian people and people the world over. China's Khrushchov is the common enemy of the Chinese people and people throughout the world.
The "devotee of parliamentarianism" in China has gone completely bankrupt. All the "devotees of parliamentarianism" in the world, big or small, have met a rebuff everywhere. With each passing day. the great truth of Chairman Mao that "political power prows out of the barrel of a gun" is being grasped by the proletariat, the oppressed people and oppressed nations throughout the world. The flames of armed struggle are burning vigorously in Burma, India, Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America and other regions. The people are criticizing the old world with the gun. This in itself constitutes the most powerful criticism of China's Khrushchov. Let us hold still higher the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung's thought, thoroughly refute and discredit China's top "devotee of parliamentarianism" and the whole set of capitulationist nonsense he has advertised, and sweep it into the garbage bin of history.
(By the editorial departments of the “Renmin Ribao." the "Jiefang Junbao" and the "Life of the Party Branch," Aug. 10.)
Posted: 2009-02-22 03:44 |
|- CR STUDIES
|- CR DOCUMENTS
Total 0.019991(s) query 3, Time now is:04-26 14:04, Gzip enabled