QUOTABLE QUOTES

Moscow, Peking Argue Over Means, Not Ends “It is permissible to ask the Chinese comrades: what

means do they propose for the destruction of impe- rialism?

‘&We stand fully for the destruction of imperialism and capitalism. We not only believe in the inevitable destruction of capitalism but are doing everything for this to be accomplished by class struggle, and as soon as possible. Who should decide this historic question? First of all, the working class, guided by its vanguard -the Marxist-Leninist Party-the working people of each country.

“The Chinese comrades propose another thing. They openly say: ‘On the ruins of destroyed imperialism,’ in other words, as a result of the unleashing of war, ‘a bright future will be built.’ If one is to agree with this, then indeed there is no need for the principle of peaceful coexistence, for the struggle for strengthening peace. We cannot agree to such an adventurist path; it contradicts the essence of Marxism-Leninism.”

-From “Open Letter of CPSU Central Commit- tee to all Party Organizations and all Commu- nists of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963.”

lzvestiia Article Equates Maoism With Trotskyism Maoism is equated with Trotskyism in an article in

the official Soviet daily, Zzvestiia, of Oct. 13. The article, entitled “Not Even One Step Back From Leninism!” is interesting also because it bears the by-line of an Old Bolshevik, Elena Dmitrievna Stasova-who antedates her membership in the CPSU to 1898 and who was always a faithful disciple of Lenin, an alternate mem- ber of the Central Committee of the Party when it seized power in Russia in 1917, and who disappeared from view during the purges of the middle 30’s. Stasova, given the Order of Lenin on her goth birthday, wrote:

“At all the stages in the struggle for the victory of the proletarian revolution and the construction of so- cialism, the principal danger to the Communist Party of the USSR was Trotskyism-one of the manifestations of international reformism. V. I. Lenin and the Cen- tral Committee of our Party waged a constant, irnpla- cable struggle against all shades of Trotskyists, ex- posing their hypocrisy and pharisaism . . . The present position of the leadership of the Communist Party of China on all the main issues . . . in many ways coin- cides with the position of the Trotskyists . . . V. I. Lenin wrote: ‘Not all is gold that glitters. There is a lot of lustre and hubbub in Trotsky’s phrases, but there is no content in them.’ The present leadership of the CPC [Communist Party of China], as evident from its nu- merous official declarations, has well mastered the whole uncomplicated arsenal of Trotskyist modes and methods . . .

“It, too, has pretensions to a special position in the international communist movement, proposing its own ‘general line’ exactly as Trotsky used to do while in-

venting Lcentrism’ [Trotsky’s derogatory characteriza- tion of Stalin’s position, maneuvering for power be- tween the ideas of Right and Left oppositions and can- nibalizing now one, now the other. The Editors] . . . . The leadership of the CPC apparently needs the ‘gen- eral line’ to cover its anti-party struggle with the in- ternational Communist movement, unde solidarity and unity . . . .

r-mining [our] I am convinced that the Com-

munists of all countries and the peoples of the entire world will not let themselves be seduced by the clamor- ous appeals of the Chinese revisionists. Too enormous for that is the distinction of Leninist revolutionary Marxism from their meaningless and demagogic loose talk. For us Leninism is a sacred cause. We will not take even one step back from Leninism!”

(The ideological vacuum created by dropping the slogan ‘Stalin is Lenin today’ is being replaced with the notion that Khrushchev is Lenin today. This logi- cally makes Khrushchev the ideological heir of Stalin. A cardinal tenet of Stalinism was irreconcilable oppo- sition to Trotskyism in all its manifestations. In this, too, Khrushchevism seems to be the continuation of Stalinism. The Editors.)

Red China Sums Up Its Ideological Case The editorial departments of Peking’s People’s Daily

and Red Flag, the Red Chinese theoretical journal, pub- lished a long article entitled “The Origin and Develop- ment of the Differences between the Leadership of the CPSU and Ourselves” on Sept. 6, 1963. The article, appearing in the Communist daily, reads in part as follows:

“Now Moscow, Washington, New Delhi and Belgrade are joined in a love feast and the Soviet press is run- ning an endless assortment of fantastic stories and theories attacking China. The leadership of the CPSU has allied itself with U.S. imperialism, the Indian re- actionaries and the renegade Tito clique against social- ist China and against all Marxist-Leninist parties . . . .

“The 20th Congress of the CPSU was the first step along the road of revisionism taken by the leadership of the CPSU . . . . In particular, the complete negation of Stalin on the pretext of ‘combating’ the ‘personality cult’ and the thesis of peaceful transition to socialism by ‘the parliamentary road’ are gross errors of prin- ciple. . . . As a result of the common efforts of the dele- gations of the CPC and the other fraternal parties, the meeting [ 19571 finally adopted the present version of the Declaration, which contains two major changes on the question of the transition from capitalism to social- ism compared with the first draft put forward by the leadership of the CPSU . . . .

“After the Moscow meeting of 1957 . . . the revision- ism of the leadership of the CPSU grew. . . . In 1958 the leadership of the CPSU put forward unreasonable de- mands designed to bring China under Soviet military

17