The interruption of the "ideological conference" which was held in Moscow between the representatives of the leaders of the Comaunist party of the Soviet Union end of the Chinese Com=unist party opens a new phase in the Sino-Soviet rift and in the crisis of Stalinism, The new phase became clearer from the publication on June 14, 1963, of the "Twenty-Five Points" concerning the general line of the international communist movement issued by the Central Committee of the CCP and the "Open tenes in revly civen by the Central Committee of the CPSU a sonth later. :
The Fourth International, the world party of the Socialist Revolution founded by Leon Trotsky, considers it necessary to stete publicly the stand it takes on the questions raised in the discussion between the Communist parties of the Soviet Union anc the Chinese Peoples Republic, ‘This is all the more necessary as the CPSU's "Open Letter" explicitly refers to the positions of the Trotskyist movement and accuses the Chinese Communist party of "acting as real Trotskyists." It also accuses the Chinese representatives in Ceylon of being in "close contact with the faction of Edmund Samarakoddy, which is an instrument of the so-called Fourth International (Trotskyists) ," anc. states thet the Trotskyist Fourth International has sent an Open Letter to the Chinese Comuunist perty "completely approving Feking's activities," .
The position of the Fourth International on the Sino-Soviet rift is embodied in a document adopted at the Reunification Congress of the Fourth International held in Italy from June 21 to June 26, and just published in a special isgue of the nagazine Quatriéme Internationale (No. 1°, 2le annsc), We sunmar— ize the ideas developed in that document, and clarify our stand ‘on the essential problems posed both in the “Twenty-Five Points" of the CCF and the "Open Letter" of the CFS8U.
i.
The Fourth International is of the opinion that the discussion initiated in the world communist movement as a result of the Sino-Soviet rift is a healthy development. Far from "weakening the socialist camp" and "objectively helping imperjalism," a frank anc public debate on all the basic problems and the stratcgy of the world socialist revolution can only contribute to ideological and political clarification in the working-class movement end the anti-imperialist movement of the colonial countries, an¢c thereby strengthen tho struggles of all the anticapitalist and anti-imperialist forces in the world,
It is indeed a step forward that the discussion is now finally taking place out in the open, and that the ridiculous spectacle of Khrushchev concentrating his attacks on Albania
abby
anc Mao directing his ire against Yugoslavia, when the main cebate for years between the CCP and the CPSU is finally over.
Public discussions on ideologicel differences within the world revolutionary movement are far from beins alien to the Marxist-Leninist tradition. All great ideological discussions in Lenin's time, either before the October Revolution or after it, have been wared by Lenin and Bolsheviks in public, for the benefit of all workers and Marxists, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg's :strucvle against the reformist leadership of the German Social~Democratic party before 1914, or for that matter, the struggle of the Left in the Socialist International from 1900 onwards against Bernstein ané liillerandism (regarding participation of socialists in the bourgeois :overnments).
Also all the discussions during the first four congresses of the Comaunist International, in Lenin's lifetime, were concucted publicly, The minutes of these congresses were published, These Ciscussions involved questions concerning the tactics of nass perties in Germany, Itely, France and Czechoslovakia, and also questions concerning many tactical problems posed the process of the buildins of the Soviet State.
If the international communist movement could conduct such public discussions when it was relatively weak and when the first Sovict Stete, encircled by enemies, was involved in a civil war with its economy nearly broken down, surely the internetional movement has nothinz to fear from such ciscussions when it is immensely stronger anc when the Soviet Union is the second industrial power in the world, surrounded by workers states both in Evrope and in Asia. Moreover, the world relationship of forces has decisively changed at the expense of imperialism, in favor of the anticapitalist forces.
The argument that such Giscussions help the imperialists to know what is going on in the socialist camp is not valid. She bourgeois press has kept itself "informed" about the Sino- Soviet differences for many vears. Imperialist powers and the colonial bourgeoisie has freely speculated on the extent of the rift and has tried to profit from it. The only force misled was the international working class which was prevented from intervening in the debate. Once again it has been proved that the méthocs of “secret Giplomacy" within the working-class movement can only help imperialism and capitelisn.
A clear distinction should be drawn between a discussion on the problems of strategy and tactics of the international working class and revolutionary movement on the one hand, and the problems of mutual relations between various workers states on the other. While we favor frank and public discussions between parties, we stress the absolute necessity of maintaining unity of action between the workers states in the militery, diplomatic and economic fields. In order to ensure this it is necessary to establish the relations between workers states
iB
strictly on fhe basis of equality, anc do away with once and for all the €heory of the "state~guide" and the "party-guide.” Common action by the workers states must be attained by mutual consultations anc negotiations without any state having the possibility of dictating to the others,
Secret diplomacy between Communist parties was introduced in the world revolutionary movement by Staelin to defend the narrow interests of the Soviet bureaucracy which had usurped. power in the Soviet Union. Servile submission of the leaderships of all Communist parties to the Sovict bureaucracy wes likewise introduced in the world movement by Staelin, We call upon all communists, and particularly the communists of China who say that they are fighting for equality between Communist parties, end the communists of the Soviet Union who clain that they are "liquidating the consequences of the cult of Stalin's personality," to eradicate these bureaucratic methods once end for all from the international communist movement,
‘ Do not hice differences from your militants and the working class}
Do not replace ideological @iscussion by secret diplomacy!
Fight for an international conference of all organizations which owe allegiance to Merxism—-Leninism! Svch a conference must include all Communist parties, the Fourth International, the fidelista forces in Cuba and Latin America, the Yugoslav League ox Communists, "pro-Chinese" communists expelled from the official Communist parties. It alone can thresh out all the _ probltns-of-stratesy anc tactias-of-ths World revolutionary movement tcday, not in a bureaucratic manner but on the basis: of the rich revolutidnary experience of the last twenty years.
II.
The Khrushchev leadership endeavors to cloud the issues by pretending that the Chinese communists "desire a nuclear war," or “are incifferent to the danger of a nuclear world war breaking out." This is nothing but pure and simple slander, objectively helping the anti-Chinese and anticomaunist propaganda of American imperialisn,
It is true that the Chinese CP in some of its old documents while supporting the Soviet Union in its fight for the destruction and banning of nuclear weapons which constitute a great danger to the working class of the world, sometimes used formulas which implied an underestimation of the destructive power of these weapons. When the CPSII's "Open Letter" in reply to the CCP's "Twenty-Five Points" continues to argue on the assumption that the CCP woulé be "indifferent" to nuclear war or that the Chinese even wanted to unleash such a war, it is clear that the Soviet leadership deliberately distorts and falsifies the CCP's positions clearly stated in points 15, 16 and 17 of the CCP's aocument.
sili.
In reality the discussion in the world revolutionary movenent does not and cannot center acound the "advisability or not" of unleashing the nuclear war, for no one outside a handful of madmen can defend such a suicidal proposal inside the inter~ national working-class movement. Nor does the discussion center around’ the destructive potential of a nuclear war, ‘This again is not a problem of "tactics" but a scientific fact. TH3 RaAL DISCUSSION DOES NOT RELATE TO THE POLICIES OF WORKERS STATES” (neither of the Sovict Union nor of the Chinese IR), B > TOE POLICIES OF THI COMMUNIST PARTIES AND ‘THT REVOLUMIONARY MOVEMENT rcs °°:
Nowhere in their “Twonty-Five Points" have the Chincse asked the Sovict state to initiate an armed intervention in the anti-imperialist struggles of the colonial people. What they do ask is that tho Comaunist parties of the imperialist anc the colonial countries should not use the slogan of "peacoful cocx= tonce" between states as an oxcuse for “peaceful cooxistence" with their own Dourgcoisic and as a cover for their abandonment of revolutionary stratogy and tactics in favor of reformist and revisionist opportunism of the crasscst typo.
The Chineso are absolutocly right in drawing tho attontion of the communist movenent to the woll-!mown fact that all victorious rovolutions so far (not only in the pre-nuclcar cra, but also since the devolopmont of nuclear weapons) had to be fought with arms for tho overthrow of the enemy as was dcmonstrated by the Victnamese, the Cuban, and tho Algerian revolutions.
It is a monstrous slander, therefore, to identify rovolutionists who state these unéoniable truths with people wanting to provoke a nucleoar war, On the contrary, the Chincse are generally justificd whon they state that only the successful -~ including, if necessary, armod ~~ strugglos of the colonial masses against imperialism, and successful prolotarian revolutions in the imporialist countrios can, in the final analysis, disarm world impcrialism, dostroy nucloar weapons and yzuarcantoo definite and lasting peace for mankind.
Inasmuch as tho Chinese Communists more or less advocato the above goncral linc, we support thom acainst the right-wing opportunism of the Khrushchev tendoncy on the question of world revolution, ‘ho Chinese now share the Trotskyist criticism of the oxtrone right-wing degeneration of somo CP's, iscde, the Dango leadership's troacherous support of its own bourgeoisioc against not only the Chinose workers state but oven against the revolutionary worker: and poasants put in jail by Nehru; tho American Communist party's scandalous appeal to the Negrocs and workers te support the Domocratic party of monopoly capitalism onc. of the most rabid sogrogationists; the French Communist party's ignominious passivity curing the Algorian wor; tho Italian Communist party's rovisionist thcory that a, capitalist socicty can be tronsformed into c socialist socicty by "struc~ turel reforms" by parliamcontary moans, without having to ovorthrow the bourgeois stato and without the conquest of powor by workors and poor peasants. To that oxtomt wo support thoir general criticism of thcoso CPF londerships. Wo question at the sane time tho consistency of the COP position when Poking
mointeins silence ovor the Indonesian CP's opportunist support to Sukarno's bourgeois regime,
III,
On the other hand, when the "Twenty-Five Points" of tho CCP contend (point 23) that Yugoslavia has ceased to bo a workers state and has become a capitalist country, or when the Chincse (point 19) say that "some people" exaggerate the problom of a “certain person's role" in the past, when thoy ask for a discussion on "the criticism of Stalin," we certainly cannot approve their positions,
The CCP is correct when it refuscs to attribute too much importance to the role of a single individual, and refuscs to accept the non-Marxist thesis of Khrushchev that the terrible crimes which under Stalin wore committed against communists and workers in the Sovict Union and against the international working class were due to the so-called "personality cult." The Chinese arc also right when they criticize Khrushchev for wanting to "make one person responsible for all faults and glorifying himsclf with o11 merits" (point 19). This criticism of the Khrushchev leadecrship is valid only ‘if it is uscd to push the so-called "de- Stalinization" process further than Khrushchev has. This criticism becomes irresponsible ond incorrect if it is used for combatting the process of de-Stalinization as such,
The crimes committed against the entire old-guard leadership of the Soviet Communist party, the majority of whom were physically liquidated by Stalin; the crimes committed against the international working class by the Stalinist leadership which tried to sabotage and prevent revolutionary struggles in mony countries (as it tried in 1946 to prevont Mao Tse-tung from making a turn toward the conquest of power in China) are very real and very‘concrete. And these crimes live today in the consciousness of millions of communists, revolutionary workers and peasants in many countries, above all in the Soviet Union and in the workers states of Europe.
When we criticize Khrushchev's policies on these problems, we must say: these crimes were not the personal responsibility of Stalin alone but wore the collective responsibility of the entire leadership of the CPSU of that period. These crimes can be explained in a Marxist way only if we see them as the expression of the interests of a bureaucratic caste which had usurped the power of the workers and poor peasants and had suppressed Soviet democracy as a real instrument of proletarian powers In order to prevent a revival of such crimes, it is not enough to denounce Stalin as a person. It is neccessary to destroy the political, social and economic privileges of the bureaucracy, to restore real Soviet democracy on the basis of elected workers councils, to restore the zap of communists to form tendencies within the CP (for, as the Chinese CP itself has stated, a minority can be right within a CP), and to restore the right of workers to form new working-class parties within the framework of Soviet legality and on the basis cof the socialist constitution. It is necessary to re-establish the rule that the "party maximun" (maximum income of a party member in alninietsation) be not higher than the average income of skilled workers, as under Lenin, Above
oman
all it is necessary to entrust the workers with real power in the euler tas by establishing workers self-management through workers councils.
Such a criticism of Khrushchev would be very welcome and very popular among the Communists and workers in the Soviet Union and other workers states, The CPSU's Open Letter correctly states that the mass of the Soviet people certainly support de-Staliniza~ tion. Any attempt by the Chinese to fight de-Stalinization will only cut them off completely from the rank-and-file workers and Communists in all workers states.
The Fourth International can under no circumstances support the position of the Chinese CP on de-Stalinization, We seek to develop our criticism of the Khrushchev leadership in’ the opposite direction. We firmly maintain that only a political revolution will restore real Soviet power in the Soviet Union. The liquidation of the abuses and privileges of the bureaucracy will immensely strengthen the Soviet Union and international communisn.
We also reject the Chinese campaign against the Yugoslav communists and their characterization of the Yugoslav state as a capitalist state. The Chinese are correct in their denunciation of the extreme right-wing deviation of Yugoslavia in her foreign policy. But the nature of the state in Yugoslavia as elsewhere is determined by the property relations. The property relations in Yugoslavia are those of a workers state as much if not more 80 than in 1948 when the Chinese CP also considered Yugoslavia a "socialist country."
The Chinese communists are of course justified in their denunciation of Khrushchev's non~-Marxist theory of "the state of the people" as a substitute for the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union. They are right in denying the validity of Khrushchev's -- also Stalin's! ~- theory that a classless society hcs already been established in the Soviet Union, They ‘ point out correctly that there are still two classes in the Soviet Union, thereby exploding the theory that the building of secialism has already been accomplished in thet country. But when the Chinese quote extensively from Lenin's "State and Revolution" in order to prove that as long as classes exist, the state will also exist, they seem to "forget" the other dialectical part of this fundamental truth, also developed by Lenin in "State and’ Revolution": the dictatorship of the proletariat is a "state of a special type," a "state which begins to wither away," because more and more state functions should be exercised collectively by the mass of the working people. The Chinese do not seem to insist, as was done by Lenin, on the necessity of a constant development and increase of socialist democracy, on the necessity of fighting again and again against bureaucratic deformation and degeneration by placing real power in the hands of the mass of the workers. Why? Perhaps because it is the Yugoslav "revisionists" who have made the greatest progress in this field? Or is it because in China itself there are powerful bureaucratic deformations and the mass of the workers do not exercise direct state power as elaborated in the "State and Revolution"?
-?-
IV.
This in brief represents the Trotskyist position in the present "erand debate" within the world communist movenent,
The Trotskyists extend wholehearted but critical support to the Chinese and the left-wing tendencies within the various CFP's which fight against right-wing opportunism of their pro-Khirushchev leaderships in the colonial countries as well as in the imperislist countries,
We critically support the Chinese call for a revolutionary orientation of the CP's in the capitalist countries es the only means of effectively fighting imperialism and imperialist preparations for a nuclear war,
But contrary to the tendencies of Khrushchev and Mao the Trotskyists defend the principles of Marxism-Leninism against any attempt to revise them to suit the immediate interests of any bureaucratic group or caste, or to distort them to reflect the temporary advantages of any workers state. We strive to develop the theory of Marxism-Leninism so that it can reflect within the great revolutionary upheaval mankind is passing through in the present epoch, the general historical aspirations of the international working class and of mankind as a whole. We repeat, the only way out for mankind from the present crisis is a successful international socialist revolution.
The present crisis reflects the urgent necessity for the world communist movement to come out of the morass in which Stalinism had sought to drown it in order to answer the demands of the present period. We repeat our concrete proposal to all communists throughout the world:
Forward to an international conference of all organizations owing allegiance to Marxism-Leninism:
' Forward toward revival of Marxism-Leninism through workers democracy and international debate.
The United Secretariat of the
Fourth International
July 25, 1963.