MORE ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMRADE TOGLIATTI AND US – Some Important Problems of Leninism in the Contemporary World FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS P E K I N G From Marx to Mao M L © Digital Reprints 2007 MORE ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMRADE TOGLIATTI AND US — Some Important Problems of Leninism in the Contemporary World by The Editorial Department of Hongqi (Red Flag) FOREIGN LANGUAGES PRESS PEKING 1963 The original article, of which this is the English translation, appeared in Hongqi (Red Flag), Nos. 3-4, March 4, 1963. Printed in the People’s Republic of China C O N T E N T S I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE NATURE OF THE PRESENT GREAT DEBATE AMONG COMMUNISTS 4 III. CONTRADICTIONS IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD 11 Comrade Togliatti’s New Ideas 11 A Prescription for Changing the World in Which the Prescriber Himself Scarcely Believes 15 Two Fundamentally Different Views on Contradic- tions in the World 18 The Focus of Contradictions in the World After World War II 24 Has the Focus of World Contradictions Changed? 32 Workers and Oppressed Nations of the World, Unite! 38 Some Brief Conclusions 49 IV. WAR AND PEACE 53 The Question Is Not One of Subjective Imagination but of the Laws of Social Development 53 Is the Axiom “War Is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means” Out of Date? 58 What Has Experience Past and Present to Teach Us? 64 Historical Materialism, or the Theory That “Weap- ons Decide Everything”? 69 A Strange Formulation 78 The Chinese Communists’ Basic Theses on the Question of War and Peace 80 V. THE STATE AND REVOLUTION 89 What Is the “Positive Contribution” of Comrade Togliatti’s “Theory of Structural Reform”? 89 Compare This with Leninism 93 A Most Marvellous Constitution 102 Contemporary “Parliamentary Cretinism” 109 Can State-Monopoly Capital Become “a More Effec- tive Instrument for Opposing Monopolistic De- velopment”? 117 Remember What the Great Lenin Taught 129 VI. DESPISE THE ENEMY STRATEGICALLY, TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY TACTICALLY 138 An Analysis of History 138 The Watershed Between Revolutionaries and Re- formists 141 Magnificent Models 147 The Strategic and Tactical Thinking of the Chinese Communists 156 A Mirror 160 VII. A STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTS 162 Modern Revisionism Is the Main Danger in the International Working-Class Movement 162 “Our Theory Is Not a Dogma, but a Guide to Action” 169 Integrating the Universal Truth of Marxism- Leninism with the Concrete Practice of the Rev- olution in One’s Own Country 175 Principle and Flexibility 183 VIII. WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! 190 I. INTRODUCTION At the Tenth Congress of the Communist Party of Italy Comrade Togliatti launched an open attack on the Chinese Communist Party and provoked a public debate. For many years, he and certain other comrades of the C.P.I. have madeFROM many fallacious MARX statements violating fundamental tenets of Marxism-Leninism on a whole series of vital issuesTO of MAOprinciple concerning the in- ternational communist movement. From the very outset we have disagreed with these statements. However, we did not enter into public debate with Togliatti and the other comrades, nor did we intend to do so. We have always stood for strengthening the unity of the inter- national communist movement. We have always stood for handling relations between fraternal Parties in ac- cordance with theNOT principles FORof independence, equality and the attainment of unanimity through consultation as laid down in the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement. COMMERCIALWe have always held that differences be- tween fraternal Parties should be resolved through inter-Party DISTRIBUTIONconsultation by means of bilateral or multilateral talks or conferences of fraternal Parties. We have always maintained that no Party should make unilateral public charges against a fraternal Party, let alone level slanders or attacks against it. We have been firm and unshakable in thus standing for unity. It was contrary to our expectations that Togliatti and the other comrades should have utilized their Party Congress to 1 launch public attacks against the Chinese Communist Party. But since they directly challenged us to a public debate in this way, what were we to do? Were we to keep silent as we had done before? Were the “magis- trates to be allowed to burn down houses, while the common people were forbidden even to light lamps”? No and again no! We absolutely had to reply. They left us no alternative but to make a public reply. Con- sequently, our paper Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) carried an editorial on December 31, 1962, entitled “The Differences Between Comrade Togliatti and Us”. Togliatti and certain other comrades of the C.P.I. were not at all happy about this editorial and they published another series of articles attacking us. They declared that our article “often lacked explicit clarity”, was “highly abstract and formal” and “lacked a sense of reality”.1 They also said that we were “not accurately informed”1 on the situation in Italy and on the work of the C.P.I. and had committed an “obvious falsification”2 of the views of the C.P.I. They accused us of being “dogmatists and sectarians who hide their opportunism behind an ultra-revolutionary phraseology”,2 and so on and so forth. Togliatti and the other comrades are bent on continuing the public debate. Well then, let it con- tinue! In the present article we shall make a more detailed analysis and criticism of the fallacious statements made by Togliatti and the other comrades over a number of years, as a reply to their continued attacks against us. 1 Togliatti, “Let Us Lead the Discussion Back to Its Real Limit”, L’Unita, January 10, 1963. 2 Luigi Longo, “The Question of Power”, L’Unita, January 16, 1963. 2 When Togliatti and the other comrades have read our reply, we shall see what attitude they will take — whether they will still say that we “often lack explicit clarity”, that we are “highly abstract and formal” and “lack a sense of reality”, that we are “not accurately informed” on the situation in Italy and on the work of the C.P.I., that we are committing an “obvious falsifica- tion” of the views of the C.P.I., and that we are “dogma- tists and sectarians who hide their opportunism behind an ultra-revolutionary phraseology”. We shall wait and see. In a word, it will not do for certain persons to behave like the magistrate who ordered the burning down of people’s houses while forbidding the people so much as to light a lamp. From time immemorial the public has never sanctioned any such unfairness. Furthermore, differences between us Communists can only be settled by setting forth the facts and discussing them rationally, and absolutely not by adopting the attitude of masters to their servants. The workers and Communists of all countries must unite, but they can be united only on the basis of the Moscow Declaration and the Moscow Statement, on the basis of setting forth the facts and discussing them rationally, on the basis of consultations on an equal footing and reciprocity, and on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. If it is a case of masters wielding batons over the heads of servants, incanting “Unity! Unity!”, then what is actually meant is “Split! Split!” The workers of all countries will not accept such splittism. We desire unity, and we will never allow a handful of people to keep on with their splitting activities. 3 II. THE NATURE OF THE PRESENT GREAT DEBATE AMONG COMMUNISTS As a result of the challenge the modern revisionists have thrown out to Marxist-Leninists, a widespread debate on issues of theory, fundamental line and policy is now unfolding in the international communist move- ment. This debate has a vital bearing on the success or failure of the whole cause of the proletariat and the working people throughout the world and on the fate of mankind. In the last analysis, one ideological trend in this debate is genuine proletarian ideology, that is, revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, and the other is bourgeois ideology which has infiltrated into the ranks of the workers, that is, an anti-Marxist-Leninist ideology. Ever since the birth of the working-class movement, the bourgeoisie has tried its utmost to corrupt the working class ideologically in order to subordinate the movement to its own funda- mental interests, weaken the revolutionary struggles of the people of all countries and lead the people astray. For this purpose, bourgeois ideological trends assume different forms at different times, now taking a Rightist form and now a “Leftist” form. The history of the growth of Marxism-Leninism is one of struggle against bourgeois ideological trends, whether from the Right or the “Left”. The duty of Marxist-Leninists is to act as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin did, not to run away from the challenge presented by any bourgeois ideological trend, but to smash attacks in the fields of theory, fundamental line and policy whenever they are made and to chart the correct road to victory for the prole- 4 tariat and the oppressed people and nations in their struggles. Since Marxism became predominant in the working- class movement, a number of struggles have taken place between Marxists on the one hand and revisionists and opportunists on the other. Among them there were two debates of the greatest historic significance, and now a third great debate is in progress. Of these the first was the great debate which Lenin had with Kautsky and Bernstein and the other revisionists and opportunists of the Second International; it advanced Marxism to a new stage of development, the stage of Leninism, which is Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution.