Sino-Soviet Split Document Archive
Date: August 15, 1963.
Source: MARXIST - LENINISTS, UNITE!
Resolution of the Brussels Federal Committee of the Belgian Communist Party.
A Reply to the "Open Letter" of July 14, 1963. Foreign Languages
Press, Beijing, 1963.
Transcription: Juan Fajardo, 2024.
The “open letter” attacks the Belgian Marxist-Leninists in the following terms:
“The C.P.C. leadership organizes and supports various anti-Party groups of dissenters who oppose the Communist Parties in the United States, Brazil, Italy, Belgium, Australia, and India. For instance, in Belgium the C.P.C. leadership is rendering support to the Grippa group which was expelled from the Party at the last congress. . . .
“Glorifying the dissenters and renegades who have found themselves outside the ranks of the communist movement, the Chinese leaders reprint in their newspapers and magazines slanderous articles from the publications of these renegade groups against the policy of the C.P.S.U., against the course of the entire world communist movement.”
It is worth noting that Drapeau Rouge, temporarily in the hands of the Belgian revisionists, has distorted this passage by omitting the sentence specifically referring to Belgium:
“For instance, in Belgium the C.P.C. leadership is rendering support to the Grippa group which was expelled from the Party at the last congress.”
Why? Because in Belgium to describe as anti-Party renegades Marxist-Leninists whose activities and devotion to service in the vanguard of the working class are well known, is an infamy which will perpetually disgrace its authors.
The “open letter” refers to Comrade Grippa by name. In Belgium there is no need to recall the fact that Comrade Grippa, a Party member since 1930, has always been an irreproachable and militant activist. This has always been So particularly in the most difficult circumstances — in the great prewar struggles; under the Hitlerite occupation, during which he was chief of staff of the Belgian Partisan Army and later a political prisoner at Breendonck and at Buchenwald; in 1950 during the activities against the return of Leopold III; during the great strike of December 1960-January 1061; and at the present time in the face of the joint attacks of the reformists of the Right wing of the Belgian Socialist Party and of the revisionists who usurp the name of Communists.
The attack on the Belgian Marxist-Leninists by the Khrushchov group constitutes an unjustifiable interference in the affairs of our Party.
Birds of a feather flock together.
Khrushchov has long supported the revisionist splittists of the type of Burnelle, Moulin, Terfve and others just as he supports the traitor Dange, the lackey of the Indian reactionary bourgeoisie.
Khrushchov now proclaims this support openly. He approves the anti-democratic and splittist measures de creed in violation of the constitution of our Party, re fusing even to hear the militants in the case. He praises the so-called “expulsions” of the Communists who firmly maintain the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary positions of the “Statement of the 81 Parties.”
He stands together with the revisionists in the Party leadership who have openly attacked the “Statement of the 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties,” the guide of the world communist movement.
He stands at the side of the revisionists who have betrayed proletarian internationalism, in particular during the counter-revolution in Hungary and with regard to socialist Albania, China and Cuba, and to the Con golese people struggling for their national liberation.
Khrushchov has been covered with praise by the representatives of U.S. imperialism, the principal force of aggression and war in the world. Spaak, that brilliant servant of the bourgeoisie, the man who stood for the recognition of Franco, the man of Munich, of the cold war and of NATO, also praises him.
The Belgian comrades who still have illusions about the true nature of the Khrushchov group will understand the true situation even if it is only by looking at the attacks on us in the “open letter.”
What is the meaning of the phrase “the C.P.C. leader ship organizes and supports various anti-Party groups of dissenters. . . .”?
The reactionary and Right-wing social democrat press has, of course, seized on these provocative remarks.
They are the same as those which the bourgeoisie has always used against revolutionaries.
For how many years have we not heard slanders from the bourgeoisie and its lackeys about “the hand of Moscow,” “under Moscow’s eye” and “Moscow gold” in tended to further repression of Communists?
It was, in particular, beginning with just such lying accusations as these that the police of the capital staged in 1923 a fake “plot” and imprisoned the leadership of our Party, which included Comrades Joseph Jacquemotte and Henri Glineur among others.
The revisionists are using the same methods today against the Chinese Communist Party and other Marxist- Leninists.
The revisionists even seek the help of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state. According to a press report which has not been denied, Polianov, an editor of Izvestia and an envoy of Khrushchov to Spaak, asked the latter to close the Brussels office of the New China News Agency.
In Belgium the revisionist leaders are marching in step with Khrushchov. They go in for blackmail, publishing in their press lying accusations against specifically named comrades, thus exposing them to repression by their employers and the government.
In Drapeau Rouge of July 16, 1963, Burnelle attacked the editors of the IRCE radio station for broadcasting communiques issued by the Brussels Federation of the Party: this was asking for government intervention to end such information.
The attitude of the revisionists is purely and simply tantamount to police provocation. These facts show the degree of degeneration which they have reached: the workers will judge them.
In order to discredit revolutionary action and the struggle of the working class the revisionists, like the bourgeoisie, pretend to see foreign influence in them.
Class struggle is the result of the existence of antagonistic classes. It makes the socialist revolution a historical necessity.
Social life and class struggle create class consciousness. The most highly conscious workers organize themselves into a vanguard party directed, in our age, by the teachings of Marxism-Leninism. Such a party is essential for leading the working class to final victory.
Class struggle is- developing all over the world. This has given birth to international solidarity, to that proletarian internationalism which unites all the oppressed against the oppressors. Class struggle is thus also inter national.
As for revisionism, it is a product of imperialism.
“Bourgeois influence is the internal source of revision ism, and capitulation to imperialism is the external source.” (Moscow Declaration, 1957.)
It is therefore not at all surprising that revisionism, the main danger to the international communist movement at the present time, should be an international phenomenon.
However, since revisionism is the result of bourgeois influence there is no true unity among the revisionists. This phenomenon is well known. The corrupt parties of reformism of the Second International took the side of their own bourgeoisie on each occasion when the sharp contradictions among the imperialists set them against each other.
But one bond unites the reformists and the revisionists of every land: the hostility and hate they have for revolutionary movements, for Marxist-Leninists, and in the last analysis, for the struggles of the working class and the national-liberation movements.
In Belgium, the Communists have led several struggles against various deviations. Since 1945, for example, the chief dangers for our Party have been in turn: Right opportunism, “Left” opportunism, and finally revisionism.
In the last few years revisionism has threatened and is threatening the very existence of the Party. There have always been comrades who fought it on the basis of Marxism-Leninism.
After the 13th Congress in 1960, the disruptive efforts of the revisionists were redoubled. They unmasked them selves more and more. It is well known that from that time onwards more and more comrades took their stand against revisionism. From then on the majority of the Brussels Federation was opposed to the Political Bureau. From then on there was no meeting of the Central Committee where the revisionist line of the Political Bureau was not opposed by the Marxist-Leninist position.
For a long time the Political Bureau has been taking its inspiration from the revisionist Yugoslavs.
The conference of the 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties at the end of 1960 once again categorically and unanimously condemned the treachery of the Yugoslav revisionists. The Central Committee of the Belgian Communist Party approved this “Statement of the 81.”
Some months later, a national secretary and a member of the Political Bureau of the Belgian Communist Party went to Yugoslavia at the invitation of the Yugoslav authorities and with the agreement of the Political Bureau. These journeys were kept secret from the Party and the Central Committee.
It became clear later that Khrushchov was making less and less of a secret of his collusion with the Yugoslav revisionists. Thus the Political Bureau of the Belgian Communist Party found itself getting more and more support from the Khrushchov group.
What followed is well known.
The revisionists have gone so far in their arrogance as to “expel” or “exclude” hundreds of comrades from the ranks of the Party in flagrant violation of the Party constitution and the most elementary rules of democratic centralism.
The Brussels Federation of the Belgian Communist Party held an extraordinary congress at the end of June in accordance with the constitution of the Party and achieved a Marxist-Leninist unity. The principal decisions of the congress were as follows:
1) The arbitrary and unconstitutional measures, the four expulsions at the congress at Anvers, the suspensions, the dissolutions of organizations, and the decisions which excluded from the ranks of the Party comrades and organizations who maintained Marxist-Leninist positions, were all declared null and void.
2) The Federal Committee which was formed at the Federal Congress in March was declared invalid because it failed in its duty and participated actively in the revisionist and splittist policies of the Political Bureau.
3) The present extraordinary Congress of the Brussels Federation of the Belgian Communist Party, which was being held in accordance with the Leninist rules on the running of the Party, elected a new Federal Committee, a new Federal Party Control Commission and Federal Financial Control Commission.
4) The Federal Congress demanded, and called on other federations to demand, a National Extraordinary Congress — a Congress of Marxist-Leninist Unity.
The activities of the Marxist-Leninists developed in other federations as well despite the threats of the Political Bureau, the bans put on information and the other sanctions which were heaped on them.
The truth of Marxism-Leninism will triumph over the lies of the revisionists. Such is the situation in Belgium.
Revisionism has also been pressing ahead with its schemings in other Communist Parties. At first it was through the actions of the Tito group which openly be trayed Marxism-Leninism that revisionism began its work of undermining. When the debate became public as a result of the unspeakable attacks of the revisionists, the Belgian Communists declared that the decisive forces of the international communist movement stood firm on Marxist-Leninist positions. We never had any doubts about this: the facts confirmed a Marxist-Leninist analysis.
Guided individually by the universal truth of Marx ism-Leninism and on the basis of our own experiences of class struggle in our country and on the world scale we arrived at the same conclusions.
Faced with the splitting activity of the revisionists, we act and will act according to the precept:
“Marxist-Leninists, Unite!”
The “open letter” asks the following questions:
“At first glance many theses contained in the letter (of the Chinese comrades) may give rise to astonishment: whom are the Chinese comrades really arguing with? Are there Communists who object, for instance, to socialist revolution, or who do not regard as their duty to fight against imperialism, and to support the national liberation movement? Why does the C.P.C. leadership set forth such ideas so insistently?”
Yes, there are people who claim to be Communists and who are against the socialist revolution, who hinder the struggle against imperialism, who prettify it, and who betray solidarity with the national-liberation movement.
In Belgium we do not have to seek very far to find them: they are Khrushchov’s revisionist spokesmen.
Their “theories” and their practice have amply demonstrated this. They declare to be anti-Party the conception of the Communist Party as the vanguard of the working class guided in its actions by Marxism-Leninism, and having as its final aim communism achieved through socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Their theses and amendments to the Constitution for the 14th Congress constituted a completely revisionist platform. Let us take this simple fact from the many we could choose: in these texts there was not a word of condemnation for American imperialism, the principal force of aggression and war in the world.
These revisionists claim that resolute organization of the actions of the working masses to claim their rights and to defend threatened democratic liberties against the Lefevre-Spaak government is adventurism.
Calling upon the working masses to oppose foreign bases in Belgium, the introduction of atomic weapons in our country and the presence of submarines equipped with Polaris missiles in the North Sea is, for them, mere “bluster.”
They vent their spleen on those who denounce their betrayal of the national-liberation struggle of the Congolese people. The Political Bureau has the sorry dis tinction of having been the first body in the world to demand U.N. intervention in the Congo and it continued to support this warmly even when it had led to the liquidation of the legal government, to the assassination of Lumumba and to reinforced neo-colonialist penetration by U.S. imperialism.
At the height of the colonialist terror in the Congo on October 13, 1960, Drapeau Rouge which was in the hands of the revisionists, wrote:
“Belgium and the Congo, common interests.”
“. . . while discussion is going on elsewhere there is no fighting and this is in itself a worthwhile result. . . .”
Gaston Moulin, a revisionist deputy, flew to the aid of the worst colonialists in proposing to the Chamber, on December 12, 1961, a motion calling for the ceasefire demanded by the “extremists” of Katanga.
These neo-reformists call those comrades “provocateurs” who practise proletarian internationalism and who would not say like Jean Terfve, Member of the Political Bureau of the Belgian Communist Party, that:
“Kennedy plays a key role in the struggle for peace.”
“Those who defend socialist Cuba and affirm solidarity with the People’s Republic of China commit acts of typical diversion.” (Burnelle at the 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Belgium, Drapeau Rouge, April 16, 1963.)
They “expel” from the Party by administrative measures of schism the comrades who apply the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and who hold firmly to the revolutionary positions of the Statement of the 81.
This is the true nature of those whom Khrushchov supports.
On the other hand, the “open letter” demonstrates that the Khrushchov group is anti-Marxist-Leninist.
The workers of our country understand best from events which are known to them the role of the revisionist spokesmen of Khrushchov and of Khrushchov himself.
From its very first lines, the “open letter” perpetrates a real swindle. It isn’t true that, as it says, it is a matter of “. . . the C.P.C. on one hand and the C.P.S.U. and the other fraternal Parties on the other.”
There are Marxist-Leninists on one side and the revisionists on the other.
Among the former the Chinese Communist Party is outstanding, with its Central Committee and Comrade Mao Tse-tung as well as many other Communist Parties — among the revisionists, the Khrushchov group is outstanding.
The vigilance of Communists must be redoubled against the principal danger for the international communist movement: revisionism. This threatens to subvert several Communist Parties, and has managed to establish itself in the leadership of these Parties.
Communists are anxious about the liquidation by the revisionists of certain Communist Parties as revolutionary vanguards of the working class.
The Chinese Communist Party which holds high the banner of proletarian internationalism, of the socialist revolution and of Marxism-Leninism has the sympathy of revolutionaries all over the world.
Only petty-bourgeois conformists, opportunists and the timid can agree to selling out principles for the sake of winning the sympathy of temporary so-called cheap majorities.
The universal truth of Marxism-Leninism will triumph and so will the world socialist revolution, which is a historical necessity.
The action of the Marxist-Leninist vanguard of the working class leads the unconquerable force made up of 90 per cent of humanity to victory.
The lies and the manoeuvres of a handful of revisionists cannot hide the fact that Marxism-Leninism has been and remains the guide of Communists.
Moreover, the attacks, the bluffing and the manipulations of the revisionists cannot hide the fact that the majority of Communists in the world have clearly sup ported the positions that hold to Marxism-Leninism and condemn revisionism.
Even in the Parties where for the moment unworthy leaders pretend to speak in the name of the Party and subject Marxist-Leninists to persecution and inadmissible repression, it is these latter who represent the revolutionary will of the great majority of militants and the revolutionary will of the working masses. This is why the revisionists have to resort to lying in their attempts to cut off news about the militants.
This is why the revisionists do not want an honest and serious debate as it would lead to their total defeat.
The authors of the “open letter” identify themselves with the Party of the great Lenin, with the first socialist country, with the Great October Socialist Revolution and with the Soviet people.
Our complaint against the Khrushchov group is precisely that they fight against the teachings of Lenin, deny the deep significance of the Great October Socialist Revolution and want the C.P.S.U. to abandon its role as the vanguard of the international communist movement.
We cannot agree that the Khrushchov group should put the first socialist country in such danger or that they should bring to ruin the achievements gained by the Soviet people at the cost of so much heroism and self denial.
We accuse the Khrushchov group of practising collaboration with imperialism instead of socialist internationalism between the fraternal countries and proletarian internationalism with regard to the revolutionary movement in the capitalist countries and the national liberation movement. We accuse it of dividing the international communist movement.
The Khrushchov group is betraying the Party of Lenin, the October Revolution and the Soviet people. It has no right at all to lay claim to that which it has betrayed.
The existence of the Soviet Union and the formation of the world socialist camp are the principal achievements of the world’s working class.
The victory of the October Revolution played an outstanding role at the time of the formation of our Belgian Communist Party, which was born in the flames of the struggle against imperialist war, against capitalism and against the opportunism and reformism of the leaders of the Belgian Workers’ Party (P.O.B.).
The October Socialist Revolution showed the road to be followed. In return, the Belgian Communists have never spared their efforts in defending the Soviet Union against the attacks of the bourgeoisie of our country and of imperialism in general.
The working class of our country has frequently shown such active solidarity despite the manoeuvres of the agents of the bourgeoisie.
In 1920 the dockers of Anvers opposed the dispatch of arms against the Soviet Union.
From Munich to the beginning of the great war against Hitlerism Communists made a stand against the anti- Soviet outburst in which the bourgeois politicians, from the Right-wing of the Belgian Workers’ Party to the fascists, took part.
During the occupation the resistance fighters made the greatest sacrifices.
Proletarian internationalism, and especially solidarity with the Soviet Union, which was bearing the brunt of the struggle against Hitlerism, inspired most of them, the Communists at their head. It strengthened their fighting spirit with the knowledge of the greatness of the cause they were defending: that of everyone oppressed or menaced by the fascist dictatorship of finance capital. Some Soviet prisoners, freed by our armed partisans, fought in our ranks.
The victory of the glorious fighters of Stalingrad, led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union with Comrade Stalin at its head, was greeted with enthusiasm by our resistance fighters as the beginning of the end of Hitlerism.
Many times after World War II, despite the opportunist errors of the Right and the “Left” in the Party’s leadership and then its unbridled revisionism, Belgian Communists defended the Soviet Union, a socialist country, against the intrigues and aggressive threats of American imperialism.
This contribution, however modest, of the Communists and of the working class to active solidarity with the Soviet Union, was great-hearted and selfless: it was an elementary duty.
If we recall this, we do so in order to illustrate what that proletarian internationalism so despised by the revisionists really is: it is mutual aid in which each gives according to his abilities.
The class struggle is international. Our brothers’ successes are our successes and vice versa. We share their difficulties.
This is why no Communist can be indifferent when faced with an attempt to split the international communist movement and with liquidationist revisionism.
The C.P.S.U. is the Party of Lenin. The Soviet Union was the first socialist country. That explains how much the serious events of the last few years resulting from Khrushchov’s policy, affect us.
“Every Party is responsible to the working class, to the working people of its country, to the international working-class and communist movement as a whole.” (Statement of the 81 Parties.)
To give our opinion today on certain aspects of the policy of the Khrushchov group does not mean that we are meddling in the affairs of another Party.
The attitude of Khrushchov and of the other revisionists has already done considerable harm to the working class of all countries, and to the international communist movement. Their actions and their public attacks on Marxist-Leninists warrant a reply from us.
This is our duty to the workers of our country, to the international communist movement and also to the Soviet people, victims of the consequences of revisionist policy, and to the Marxist-Leninists of the U.S.S.R. who are exposed to the manoeuvres of the Khrushchov group, and its threats and persecutions.
Resolute defence of the whole socialist camp and of all the countries forming this camp and safeguarding the Marxist-Leninist unity of the socialist camp, are today the touch-stone of the proletarian internationalism of each Communist Party.
Instead of relations of equality between Parties, the Khrushchov group has set up relations of subordination.
Their about-turns, their disavowals, their fickle talk and their revisionism must, according to them, be the law for everyone. Those leaders who, through political affinity, weakness, threat of blackmail or other reasons bow down before their arbitrary decisions, are trans formed into puppets, condemned to reject today what they supported yesterday.
These leaders lose all their prestige in following for good or ill the unpredictable fluctuations of a revisionist policy which is contrary to the very essence of Marxism- Leninism and which unceasingly leads from capitulations to disavowals, from about-turns to lies and ends up in class collaboration with capitalist imperialism.
This anti-Marxist-Leninist practice of the Khrushchov group has had particularly serious repercussions in relations between socialist countries.
In saying at the 22nd Congress that the general line of the Soviet Union’s foreign policy was peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, Khrushchov consecrated, ideologically and terminologically, his abandonment of a socialist foreign policy, which must necessarily comprise different aspects, namely:
— solidarity and mutual aid between socialist countries on the basis of equality, according to the principles of proletarian internationalism;
— struggle against the export of counter-revolution and against aggression;
— aid to the working people of all countries and to all oppressed nations;
— support of the working people of all countries in the class struggle on an international scale for the common aim;
— peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems.
In setting aside the first four aspects, which were reaffirmed in the Moscow Declaration of 1957 and the Moscow Statement of 1960, Khrushchov confirmed that he does not intend to follow a socialist foreign policy. In so doing he gives the term peaceful coexistence a meaning quite different from the Leninist concept. In this respect he applies the revisionist precept of only pro posing what is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Facts have demonstrated that this has been the case.
But let us look at the question of relations between the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist camp in more detail.
It is certainly not a socialist concept to sell things, principally industrial products, at a high price to fra ternal countries, or to buy things cheaply, principally raw materials, from them, thus making profits out of trade transactions between socialist countries.
Relations between socialist countries which, on the pretext of co-ordination and international division of labour, deny some countries necessary industrial equipment and thus keep them on the level of agricultural producers and suppliers of raw materials, cannot be considered as normal.
Does this not also create the economic basis for ties of subjection?
This practice is, after all, against the interests of the whole socialist camp and consequently of the working class of the world. In the last analysis, it constitutes a negative factor in the development of the Soviet Union. It holds back the development of productive forces, whose rapid development is precisely one of the characteristics of a socialist economy.
But the Khrushchov group went further; they took serious economic steps against the People’s Republic of China and against socialist Albania: the unilateral recall without notice of experts, refusal to supply the spare parts required for machines of Soviet origin and breaking of trade contracts.
What is the aim of these measures?
Is this not giving pledges to imperialism?
Is this not trying to cause serious economic difficulties in these two socialist countries?
Is this not wanting to create objective conditions favourable to imperialist aggression against socialist Albania and China at a particularly difficult time when natural calamities had reduced agricultural production in 1960?
Is this not to weaken the whole socialist camp?
The “open letter” not only shamelessly denies these facts which are now widely known, but accuses the victims!
Must one recall that, as long ago as the summer of 1960, Burnelle informed our Comrade Grippa in an ex change of views of the steps taken by the Soviet Government towards China, and approved them, cynically calculating the grave consequences of these steps for the Chinese economy? It goes without saying that with such an attitude we consider Burnelle as no longer being a Communist in any sense.
But what should one say about the person who actually took these steps? Is it by such a procedure that the revisionists hope to bring to their knees the peoples and militants of a socialist country?
But the joint blockade of the revisionists and imperialists can no more bring down socialism in China or Albania than the imperialists’ blockade in the past could break the young Russian revolution.
Thanks to their tenacity, heroism and steadfast work, the Chinese people, guided by the Chinese Communist Party, and the Albanian people, guided by the Albanian Party of Labour, have not only overcome all the difficulties but have gone forward, basing themselves on their own efforts.
When Khrushchov slanders and maltreats the brave Albanian people building socialism and the Albanian Party of Labour, is that showing concern for the unity of the socialist camp?
When he gives assistance to the reactionary national bourgeoisie of India in its aggression by supplying it with arms against socialist China, is that socialist inter nationalism?
When Khrushchov suddenly and unilaterally decided to break contracts for the supply of cereals to Albania, threatening the courageous Albanian people with a terrible famine, is that the humanism which he so highly praises?
In trying to steal from socialist Albania its military fleet, by causing destruction to be carried out on the ships of the base of Vlora, did he not spectacularly show imperialism his goodwill, and has he not thus weakened the whole socialist camp and jeopardized the safety of the Soviet Union herself?
These facts, among many others, throw a harsh light on the nature of Khrushchov’s acts.
Faced with this situation, neither Communists nor the peoples of the world can remain indifferent.
The “open letter” defends, in an incoherent way, more over, the notion of the state of the whole people adopted at the 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U.
For a Marxist-Leninist, this concept is untenable. Marx, Engels, and Lenin made a profound analysis of what the state is: This concerns the basic concepts of Marxism- Leninism.
In State and Revolution Lenin recalled that Marx had already “ridiculed all the nonsense about ‘the people’s state.’ ” He quoted the judgement made by Marx in The Critique of the Gotha Programme:
“Between capitalist society and communist society comes a period of revolutionary change from the first to the second. Corresponding with this is a period of political transition during which the state cannot but be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Now no one maintains that there is a communist society in the Soviet Union. To declare, as does the “open letter,” “that there is no need for proletarian dictatorship” is false and anti-Marxist-Leninist.
The “open letter” interprets Marx in its own way in the following manner: “But saying this Marx had in mind communism as a whole, as a single socio-economic formation (of which socialism is the first stage). ...” No, Marx and Lenin do not need “interpretation” of this kind. Their teachings on the state, based on a scientific analysis, are perfectly clear and explicit in their works. “The replacement of the bourgeois by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of all states, is only possible through ‘withering away.’ ” (Lenin: State and Revolution.)
In The Question of Housing Engels laid down the “necessity for political action and dictatorship by the proletariat as a transitional stage to the abolition of classes and, with them, of the state.”
There is only one possible form of state in the period between the seizure of power by the working class and communist society, which implies the “extinction” of the state and the “withering away” of the state: the proletarian state. This is the proletariat organized as the ruling class and ensuring its political supremacy.
“The withering away refers to what is left of the pro Letarian state after the socialist revolution.” (Lenin: State and Revolution.)
In fact “the people’s state” or “the state of the whole people” as Khrushchov’s group call it is opposed to the conception of the proletarian state and proletarian dictatorship and is, to put it clearly, the liquidation of the power of “the proletariat organized as the ruling class.”
This means imperilling socialist achievements.
“Only those who have understood that the dictatorship of one class is necessary, not only in all class societies, not only for the proletariat when it will have overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from ‘the classless society’ of communism, have assimilated the essence of Marx’s teaching on the state. . . .
“The transition from capitalism to communism will clearly and inevitably produce a great number and a great variety of political forms but they are bound to be in essence the proletarian dictatorship.” (Lenin: State and Revolution.)
Let us also point out that in the Soviet Union all the means of production are not yet the property of all the people: it is therefore not a case of a full-blown socialist society.
The “open letter” itself acknowledges the existence of classes in the Soviet Union. About a third of the work ing population works on the basis of the kolkhoz type of ownership which is “group ownership.” This is not yet the common ownership of the means of production or ownership by all the people of which Lenin spoke.
The private plot of land plays an important economic role just as the “kolkhoz market” forms a non-socialist means of exchange of goods between town and country side.
Moreover, the means of production belonging to the “machine and tractor stations” have been entrusted to the kolkhozes, thus passing from the level of ownership by all the people to that of “group ownership.” This is a case of a step backwards under the pressure of non proletarian social forces.
The “open letter” is ironic about “idlers,” “hooligans,” “embezzlers” and “parasites.”
They are, it says, “survivals of capitalism.” “Survivals” indeed which persist and actually develop 46 years after the victory of the October Revolution.
Is not the existence of these “survivals” proof of the necessity of proletarian dictatorship?
The emergence of degenerate elements, as has occurred in considerable numbers in the Soviet Union in the past few years, can only be a reflection of a larger social process resulting from bourgeois influence, from a petty- bourgeois environment, and from the corruption practised by it, particularly among state officials.
Moreover, the existence of capitalism in the world, the threats, the plots and the attempts at penetration by the imperialists are not just myths.
Proletarian dictatorship is also necessary in order to be able to lead the whole people to a classless society and to guide the peasantry, including the peasantry in the kolkhozes, and non-proletarian strata in developing a socialist economy.
To reject this concept is opportunism — capitulation before non-proletarian ideology and the threat of degeneration.
Finally, the socialist revolution in each country is an integral part of the world revolution. Only proletarian dictatorship can entirely guarantee this. That is to say that each socialist country must establish and strictly maintain a socialist foreign policy consisting principally in mutual assistance with other socialist countries, support to the revolutionary movement of the working class throughout the world, and support to the national liberation movements.
The wish expressed by the Khrushchov group to abolish proletarian dictatorship, and also its use of bourgeois democratic phraseology and terminology, are the results of the ideology and the actions of non-proletarian strata and the peasantry on the one hand, and capitulation under imperialist pressure on the other.
It is extremely important to show the similarity be tween the revisionist ideas of the Khrushchov group with regard to socialist revolution in the U.S.S.R., the role of the Communist Party and proletarian dictatorship and the anti-Marxist-Leninist ideas which have been developed by Khrushchov’s spokesmen in the capitalist coun tries.
In Belgium the revisionists of the Political Bureau deny, in effect, the class nature of the state, “celebrating the beauties of bourgeois democracy” and of bourgeois parliamentarianism.
The comrades who wanted the constitution of the Belgian Communist Party to proclaim the necessity of proletarian dictatorship for bringing about socialist revolution and wanted the idea of the Communist Party as the vanguard of the working class with communism as its final goal to be upheld in it, have been declared anti Party.
The Khrushchov group does likewise in the “open letter.” There can be no argument about the link between the revisionism of the Khrushchov group and the revisionism of the Political Bureau of the Belgian Communist Party.
Here also the “open letter” indulges in fabrications on the subject of the position of Marxist-Leninists.
They use the same old routine. Those who denounce the aggressive nature of imperialism and collaboration with it are accused of being warmongers. Those who condemn revisionism are accused of wanting a so-called “personality cult” and of being “anti-Soviet.”
When an evil-doer calls his actions virtuous and praises them as good this does not change facts. When a rogue accuses those who have exposed his evil deeds of being criminals he is slandering them in order to create a diversion.
It is necessary and useful to make a Marxist-Leninist analysis of the lessons of the struggle of the working class, principally of the experience of proletarian dictatorship, its achievements and difficulties, and of the merits and the mistakes of Communist Parties and their leaders. By this means their activities improve, their ideological level is raised and their theories are perfected. To act in this way is also to increase the awareness of the working class and to educate the masses with a view to achieving socialist revolution.
This is a task that Marxist-Leninists must always carry out; and in the future too they will not be able to avoid this responsibility.
But there can be no question of Communists discussing the lessons to be learned from their actions on the basis of bourgeois ideology and revisionist conceptions.
Marx made a profound analysis of the immense and positive historical experience of the Paris Commune, including its mistakes. He was completely and without any reservation on the side of the communards who were “storming heaven.”
But those who, under the pretext that they too are denouncing mistakes, treat the heroic communards as criminals behave as accomplices of the butchers of Versailles.
What does Khrushchov do?
He attacks the achievements of the Soviet people from 1924-53 when they were led by the C.P.S.U. with Comrade Stalin at the head. Listening to him, one would think that the Soviet Union had not practised a policy of peaceful coexistence before 1953.
One would think that it was Stalin and not the Hitlerite fascists who was responsible for the death and destruction brought about by the war in the Soviet Union.
The current difficulties in Soviet agriculture are made out to have resulted not from the mistakes and revisionism of Khrushchov but from Stalin.
On the other hand the current technical triumphs of the Soviet Union are said to be the result of the “wise” leadership since 1956, and to have nothing to do with the earlier period when there was apparently only chaos, confusion and bad leadership.
One could go on like this.
This is what is really anti-Sovietism and anti-communism. What right has Khrushchov to lay claim to the motherland of socialism and to the first people in the world to make a socialist revolution, a people who have protected their great achievements in bloody combat with international imperialism and internal counter-revolution?
Khrushchov chimes in and adds to the worst anti- Soviet slanders by all the lackeys of the bourgeoisie. The Trotskyites are rejoicing. They highly value what they call “the positive contribution of Khrushchov.” Thanks to the situation thus created they try to launch once again their pernicious ideology which is, however, quite correctly, totally discredited amongst the working class.
The bourgeois press quotes with enthusiasm Khrushchov’s disruptive and disparaging remarks, his speeches and declarations. It has even received large sums of money for the publication of one of his speeches accompanied by a huge photo of the author.
It is with good reason that Khrushchov has not made any political analysis of the 1924-53 period. His attacks are gross and unfounded slanders. It is not Stalin’s mistakes but his merits he finds fault with. In attacking Stalin, Leninism is Khrushchov’s target.
But what about his contradictory remarks on this subject?
Before 1953 Khrushchov praised Stalin in a way that Stalin himself condemned.
What were his motives then and what are his motives now?
When was he sincere?
Is he ever sincere?
Was he afraid of Stalin?
Isn’t he afraid of imperialism today?
Why was he afraid of Stalin?
His current policies allow one to give an easy reply.
Was he not still saying in 1957:
“When it was a question of revolution, of the defence of the interests of the proletarian class in the revolution or struggle against our class enemies, Stalin courageously and intransigently defended the cause of Marxism- Leninism. . . .
“For what is essential and fundamental — and what is essential and fundamental for Marxist-Leninists is the defence of the interests of the working class and of the cause of socialism and the struggle against the enemies of Marxism-Leninism — may God grant, as the saying goes, that all Marxist-Leninists know how to fight for what is essential and fundamental as Stalin fought.”
The noisy “struggle against the personality cult” is also a method of demagogic distraction when difficulties appear. It is an accusation levelled unceasingly and with out proof in order to stifle all serious political discussion.
Who inside or outside the Soviet Union knows the political position of Molotov, Kaganovitch and so many others? Since Khrushchov has been First Secretary of the C.P.S.U. how many names have disappeared from the leadership for no known reason?
At the same time Khrushchov has concentrated excessive power in his own hands. His every move is glorified. While he glibly talks about democracy he increasingly goes in for using force and “palace revolutions.”
His mythical “struggle against the cult of personality” also serves as an excuse for ruthless interference in the running of fraternal Parties and for slanderous attacks on Marxist-Leninist leaders in an attempt to discredit them in the eyes of the masses.
At the same time he covers the Pope with praise as well as the traitor Tito and the “great men” of imperial ism, such as Eisenhower and Kennedy.
The so-called “struggle against the personality cult” is only a screen to hide his revisionist policies.
The scheming of the Political Bureau of the Belgian Communist Party affords full proof that this is a general tactic used by the revisionists.
Communists must enlighten the working class and the labouring masses on this deception by the Khrushchov group and its spokesmen.
War is one of the worst scourges which afflict the peoples. It is the working masses who pay for war preparations, who bear the consequences of war and who shed their blood.
With imperialism came world wars, which technical developments make more and more murderous.
To fight disease one must know its symptoms, its development. its nature and, above all, its causes, so as to decide upon means to fight it at any time and to get rid of it once and for all.
It is imperialism which is the cause of wars. As long as imperialism exists there remains the possibility of a war of one kind or another breaking out. It is impossible to abolish wars without abolishing classes and establishing socialism.
This indisputable fact constitutes one of the basic teachings of Marxism-Leninism, and it has been thoroughly confirmed by experience. The great mass of the people in the world are convinced of it.
It is because we know the defects of the capitalist system and of imperialism, that, as supporters of socialist revolution and as Communists, we fight it.
The achievement of our final aim will mean that, together with the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and of all forms of oppression, humanity will be freed from wars once and for all.
In repeating, with Lenin, that war is not inevitable, we mean that the masses must not accept it passively as the result of a supernatural force and as the consequence of inescapable fate. We also mean by this that we are organizing our actions from now on with the aim of eliminating the very root of war, which is imperialism.
In the daily struggles between the oppressed and their oppressors, we decide our tactical aims with a view to defeating the plans of capital and safeguarding the interests of the working masses, so as to prepare the working class ideologically, organizationally and materially to carry out its historical mission — the socialist revolution.
On this basis, we make a distinction between just wars and unjust wars.
We support civil wars waged by the exploited against capital, and national-liberation wars of colonialized peoples against colonialist imperialism. These wars are the counter-measure to the permanent aggression of the exploiters.
We fight against the aggressive wars of imperialism and against the export of counter-revolution.
The maintenance and consolidation of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems are aims which can be realized. Today it is possible to avert world war, thanks to the strength of the world socialist camp, the struggles of the revolutionary movements for national liberation, the actions of the working class and the great masses of the people, and the fight of all the peace forces opposing imperialism undermined by its contradictions.
The realization of this aim implies constant vigilance on the part of all peoples with respect to imperialism’s aggressive intrigues, the strengthening of unity of action of all the peace forces, the unity of the world socialist camp, and the maintenance of its defensive strength at a level capable of discouraging aggression.
To prevent aggression, it is also necessary to be pre pared to counter it.
We are convinced that the peace forces can impose the complete and total banning and destruction of nuclear weapons, thus dealing a real blow at imperialism, at its aggressive potential and at its blackmail, as well as at the revisionists who use the same blackmail procedure against the socialist countries and all the peoples of the world.
For our country, the main objectives of the current struggle against the war danger and imperialism’s aggressive plots are thus clearly determined as:
— denunciation of imperialism’s aggressive plots;
— support for the statement of the Government of the People’s Republic of China, dated July 31, 1963 seeking the complete, thorough, total and resolute prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons;
— adoption of real steps for international detente, notably:
— the signing of a peace treaty with the German Democratic Republic;
— recognition of the People’s Republic of China and of the German Democratic Republic;
— approval of the Rapacki plan for a denuclearized zone in Europe;
— in the context of the fight for withdrawal from NATO, repudiation of allegiance to this pact’s aggressive policy and rejection of its consequences;
— no foreign bases, arms or atomic air force wing in Belgium;
— no increase in the length of military service;
— a 10,000 million [Belgian francs] reduction in military expenses;
— no participation in NATO forces;
— solidarity with the peoples who are victims of aggression, support for anti-imperialist revolutionary movements.
What is the revisionists’ attitude to the threat of an imperialist war of aggression?
In place of a Marxist-Leninist analysis and aims which they disown and disapprove of — they substitute views which are not conceived in terms of class struggle or of anti-imperialist struggle. They tend to lull the workers’ vigilance and even condemn it. In place of a policy of the widest possible alliances of the peace forces to take action against the threats of aggressive war by the imperialists, they substitute the subordination of the people’s forces to imperialism’s manoeuvres and designs.
Thermonuclear blackmail is an essential element of their policy and “theories.”
Thermonuclear hell for the “bad ones” who do not want to kneel before imperialism, and the paradise of “a world without war and without arms” — at a time when imperialism still exists — for those who agree to submit to perpetual slavery: this is their catechism.
There is no “world without war and without arms” so long as imperialism exists. Arms and means of re pression constitute an essential element of the state. This instrument of class domination is indispensable to capital both for maintaining its regime of the exploitation of man by man against the workers of each country and for ensuring colonialist and neo-colonialist super-exploitation against the oppressed peoples.
Instead of denouncing imperialism, and particularly U.S. imperialism, the main force of aggression and war in the world, the revisionists chatter about “extremists,” and “madmen,” so as to cause confusion.
But facts demonstrate that the “madmen” and the “extremists” are one of the forces which make up imperialism, which it does not neglect to make use of, when convenient, as bogies or as shock troops.
Events show that at the present time these “extremists” and these “madmen” support, in effect, the same policy as American imperialism and the revisionists as is shown by the adhesion of West Germany, of Franco, and of the Government of Thailand, etc. ... to the Moscow treaty.
The revisionists claim that history is made by this or that “individual” and that the fate of humanity depends on the “wisdom” of these “great men” and principally on those of imperialism. They thus deny that the great masses of the people are the creators of history, and that class struggle is the motive force of historical development.
For them it is not the October Revolution which constitutes a turning-point in human history but the “Camp David” talks.
“Eisenhower is a herald of peace.” “Kennedy plays a key role in the struggle for peace,” so the modern revisionists claim.
According to them the world must bow down before the injunctions coming from the collaboration of the re visionist Khrushchov and of Kennedy, who represents the principal force of aggression and of war in the world.
The revolutionary action of the working class of the capitalist countries and the national-liberation movement of the oppressed peoples in weakening imperialism and in dealing it decisive blows makes, by this very fact, an inestimable contribution to the struggle against the danger of aggressive wars.
The revisionists, however, oppose revolutionary struggle more and more openly under the pretext of not irritating imperialism and not provoking it.
Their counter-revolutionary policy signifies class collaboration on an international scale and in each capitalist country. It demands the subordination of peoples oppressed by colonialism, both new and old, to this collaboration.
The peoples who want to liberate themselves are accused of “racism.” And so, because the oppressors, the men of finance capital, are usually whites, they would forbid the oppressed blacks or yellows, and whites as well, to fight for their liberation.
It is a scandalous slander to charge the victim with the crimes of the aggressor and of the oppressor.
In the last analysis on what “ideology” do the revisionists base their policy of collaboration between the working class and the labouring masses on the one side, and trusts and monopolies on the other?
Their “solidarity” in the developed industrial countries is solidarity with capitalism; their “defence of the centres of modern civilization” is in reality participation in aggression and oppression by imperialist “civilization.”
It is an attempt to associate the working class of the imperialist countries with the policy of colonial plunder.
What is this but “racial chauvinism” which is rapidly becoming racism, pure and simple.
But the evidence of the class struggle which breaks out again and again makes nonsense of these miserable attempts at diversion by the revisionists.
To this shameful degeneration we oppose proletarian internationalism, the fraternal solidarity of all the exploited, of all the oppressed, of every continent, of every land, and of every colour.
This fighting solidarity will defeat imperialism, that colossus with feet of clay, that paper tiger.
Instead of the Leninist concept of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, they recommend peaceful coexistence between the exploiters and the exploited, between the oppressed and the oppressors, between capital and labour and between colonialism and colonized peoples.
They practise “peaceful collaboration” with imperial ism, they betray the masses and demobilize them.
On October 13, 1960, Jean Blume, National Secretary of the Belgian Communist Party, expounded the revisionist ideology still more clearly.
“Peaceful coexistence is a modern conception of the life of the world and of human evolution.
“It is to the working class and to its thinkers that one must look to discover a truly civilized way to solve conflicts, a truly popular and democratic new method of struggle for the transformation of society and of the world: peaceful coexistence.”
On November 3, 1960, when the colonialist terror was raging in the Congo, the revisionist Political Bureau published a resolution under the title “The Congo, Peace and Economic Expansion,” which said:
“If this situation is lost, one will be able to see in the Congo impatient reactions, desperate attempts to control by isolated acts of violence essentially political problems which can and must be settled through the normal functioning of institutions and level-headed negotiations between political groups.”
This was to slander in advance the Congolese people’s resistance to aggression and to demand that they submit to “the normal functioning of institutions,” which were colonialist and neo-colonialist!
For the same reasons revisionism is also opposed to the development of the struggle of the working class for its immediate claims and in defence of democratic liberties.
Notable evidence of these anti-militant aims and the restraining action of the revisionist Political Bureau was given:
— during the great strike of December 1960 to January 1961;
— with regard to “the fiscal reform,” the “social pro gramme” and the anti-strike laws;
— in everything which concerns the wage struggle, holidays with pay, a shorter working day and federalism.
The revisionists reject the Marxist-Leninist concept of the class nature of the state; the Yugoslav theses, the thesis of the 10th Congress of the Italian Communist Party and that of the 14th Congress of the Belgian Communist Party are particularly significant in this respect.
They need this revisionism, this revision of Marxism, to carry out the basic renunciation, that is, to give up the struggle for a socialist revolution.
Khrushchov’s spokesmen in Belgium show very concretely that the revisionists’ so-called pacifism is an obstacle to effective struggle against the warlike intrigues of imperialism.
They have abandoned all the concrete objectives of the struggle against the war danger such as, for example:
— the total prohibition and the destruction of nuclear armaments;
— the evacuation of foreign bases in Belgium;
— the reduction of military expenditure by 10,000 million [Belgian francs];
— the struggle against the aggressive NATO pact.
They laud the Moscow agreement favouring under ground nuclear tests.
Their one and only objective in the present circum stances is the signing of a “pact of non-aggression” be tween NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, an empty objective, if it is not accompanied by concrete actions, and which is destined solely to create a diversion.
The demagogy of the revisionists’ peace aligns itself with Kennedy’s “strategy of peace,” this “American peace” which has been very clearly exposed by the Pres ident of the United States in his speech of June 10, 1963, as:
— thermonuclear blackmail;
— the strengthening of colonialist and neo-colonialist bondage by increased intervention by American imperial ism;
— the division and weakening of the socialist camp and the international communist movement.
The danger of war has been made greater, as the revisionists themselves ought to admit. This is in large measure the result of their policy of capitulation before imperialism and of collaboration with it.
This is why it is necessary to strengthen action against the aggressive intrigues of imperialism by denouncing the manoeuvres of the revisionists.
The revisionists, who have nothing but good words and praise for the representatives of imperialism, over flow with hatred for those who lead a consistent struggle against imperialism and against the danger of war.
They impudently accuse us of being “belligerent.” According to them, one shouldn’t fight the causes of disease but the doctor.
They now in no way fall short of Spaak who, in 1938 called those who were denouncing Hitler belligerent, and who, in 1947 demanded a sacred union against what he called the “aggressive plans” of the Soviet Union.
Today Spaak, whose role and policies have not changed, is, moreover, the confidant of Khrushchov from whom he transmits information to NATO of which he was the Secretary-General.
Revisionism means capitulation to imperialism and leads to collaboration with it. This was clearly shown by the events in the Caribbean last autumn, by the Sino- Indian border conflict and by the recent Moscow agreement favouring underground nuclear tests by the United States.
The “open letter” again glorifies the blameworthy acts of the Khrushchov group during U.S. imperialism’s military blockade and acts of piracy against Cuba last autumn. However, the more the revisionists hold forth on this subject, the more they give themselves away.
They still do not explain the reasons why they installed missiles in Cuba and subsequently withdrew them. For it is no explanation to say, in the words of the “open letter”:
“This resolute step on the part of the Soviet Union and Cuba was a shock to the American imperialists. . . . Since the point at issue was not simply a conflict between the United States and Cuba, but a clash between two major nuclear powers, the crisis in the Caribbean area would have turned from a local clash into a world clash. A real danger of world thermonuclear war arose.”
That is certainly a case of adventurism. Why were the missiles withdrawn from Cuba? Here again, we quote the “open letter”:
“Every sober-minded person fully understands that in case of aggression by American imperialists, we shall come to the assistance of the Cuban people from Soviet territory. . . .”
But did not such a possibility exist earlier?
Was Khrushchov therefore not a “sober-minded per son”?
Only one explanation is valid: Khrushchov and Kennedy reached agreement to strike a blow at the Cuban revolution, to humiliate it and dim its radiance.
Among the fine phrases concerning Cuba in the “open letter” let us point out this one:
“. . . Revolutionary Cuba is living in peace and building socialism. . . .”
“Living in peace”?
Why give this “soothing” appraisal which in no way corresponds to reality since one knows that the economic and transport blockade continues and that Cuba remains the target of bombing raids and intrusions by counter revolutionaries backed by U.S. imperialism or its satellites.
“Revolutionary Cuba is not beaten.”
To be sure! But to attribute this victory of the peoples to the Kennedy-Khrushchov agreement is odious deceit. It is like pretending to have saved someone’s life, after having given him a poisoned drink which he did not want to take.
The Kennedy-Khrushchov agreement was not a com promise: Kennedy dictated his conditions.
“I feel respect and confidence about the statement you made in your message of October 27, 1962, to the effect that there will be no attack against Cuba. . . .”
Did Khrushchov write that to Kennedy on October 28 or not? Why does the “open letter” say today:
“The Chinese comrades argue that the imperialists can not be believed in anything, that they are bound to de ceive you. But this is not a case of faith but of sober calculation.”
Did not Khrushchov also write (October 28, 1962): “As I have already pointed out to you in my letter of October 27, we are ready to reach agreement with you for U.N. representatives to go to Cuba in order to be able to verify the dismantling of weapons which you call ‘offensive.’ ” This was sacrificing Cuba’s sovereignty, and creating the possibility of Cuba’s becoming a new Congo.
An analysis of the facts demonstrates that the Kennedy- Khrushchov agreement sacrificing Cuba’s sovereignty was rejected by the Cuban people and that, thanks to this firmness and action by the peoples of the world, U.S. imperialism drew back.
The joint attempt of Khrushchov and Kennedy was fortunately defeated. But the revisionists will for ever be branded with infamy for this shameful deed.
Since 1959 in step with the sharpening of the class struggle in India, and the increasingly reactionary course followed by the ruling strata of the Indian national bourgeoisie, provocations and aggression against the People’s Republic of China have been increasing along the Indian frontier.
These acts are linked with the introduction of the “new strategy” of U.S. imperialism and the increased activity of the revisionists in the heart of the international communist movement.
Through all these events the peaceful policy of socialist China has been once again dramatically demonstrated to all unbiased observers. The Government of the People’s Republic of China has never stopped proposing negotiations and has made a great number of unilateral peaceful gestures in order to bring about the opening of negotiations, despite the refusals of Nehru and his continuing aggression.
But what has been the attitude of the Khrushchov group?
Neutrality towards a socialist country under attack would have been an inadmissible position, contrary to proletarian internationalism. But under the cloak of a self-styled “neutrality,” and with hypocritical remarks about “their sister China” and “their friend India,” Khrushchov has continually and more and more openly supported the reactionary Indian national bourgeoisie in its aggression which was instigated by the American imperialists.
Ever since 1959 Khrushchov has been saying on the subject of the “Sino-Indian frontier incidents” (in other words the resistance to Indian aggression by the People’s Republic of China), that they were “deplorable and stupid.”
Since then Khrushchov has not only never condemned Indian aggression, but has actually implied that China was the aggressor.
While he refused all aid to the People’s Republic of China he carried treachery to its very limit by competing with the imperialists in supplying arms to Nehru — heli copters, military aircraft and now missiles.
This, then, is the “pacifism” of Khrushchov. This is his “peaceful competition” with imperialism.
Communists must denounce this unprecedented be trayal of proletarian internationalism.
We believe that:
“The conclusion of a separate treaty on discontinuing nuclear tests at a time when the Western powers were pursuing a reckless arms race could only create a general illusion that something was being done to prevent a nuclear war, whereas the Western powers were actually pushing matters precisely to such a war. . . . The conclusion of a treaty on the ending of tests, in isolation from the general problem of disarmament and with a continual nuclear arms race in progress, besides failing to do any good to the cause of peace, might even lead to the contrary— it might camouflage preparations for a nuclear war.”
This quotation is drawn from the Soviet government memorandum of September 28, 1961.
Let us also remember these remarks made by Khrushchov on September 9, 1961.
“Agreement on the cessation of one kind of tests only — in the atmosphere — would be a disservice to the cause of peace.” He said that this would be “a dishonest deal. Of course, the Soviet Government cannot and will not strike such a bargain. A deal of this nature is wanted by those who build their policy on deceit of the peoples, on playing at negotiation.”
This criticism applies perfectly to the Moscow agreement which in fact encourages underground tests by the powers which have already made hundreds of tests and accumulated enormous stocks of nuclear weapons.
This very same Khrushchov has taken his stand today with “those who build their policy on deceit of the peoples, on playing at negotiation.” He does this without the slightest justification, surrendering the cause of the struggle against the menace of war, endangering the defence of the socialist camp and the Soviet Union itself and meeting the demands of American imperialism, the main force of aggression and war in the world.
The revisionists of the Political Bureau of the Belgian Communist Party, once again surrendering the positions taken by the Party and its congresses, have distinguished themselves in the deafening chorus of praise from all the pseudo-pacifists whose actions increase the danger of war.
The Moscow agreement represents not only a new blind capitulation before imperialism but actually leads to collaboration with the imperialists.
The latter are only worried about strengthening their aggressive military potential, principally through carrying on underground nuclear tests. They do this to the detriment of the defensive potential of the socialist camp and oppose other socialist countries, notably China, having at their disposal suitable means for discouraging the aggression with which they are constantly threatened.
This aggression is, moreover, carried on daily by imperialism in, for example, Taiwan, Viet Nam, Korea and in general against the peoples oppressed by all forms of colonialism.
On the other hand three imperialist countries possess atomic weapons. Innumerable American bases through out the world as well as the American navy and air force are equipped with missiles carrying nuclear weapons.
This is the spread of nuclear arms organized by the imperialists.
There is, in addition, no further advantage to be de rived by U.S. imperialism from continuing above-ground tests. Instead the Pentagon will now be able to devote its maximum effort in the conditions most favourable to itself to developing “tactical” nuclear weapons especially suitable for aggression against the peoples.
It has cynically publicized this objective by announcing the immediate beginning of a new series of tests. In his message to the American Senate on August 8, 1963, on the morrow of the signing of the Moscow treaty, President Kennedy stated clearly and cynically the aims of the imperialism he represents.
“The United States has more experience in under ground testing than any other nation; and we intend to use this capacity to maintain the adequacy of our arsenal. Our atomic laboratories will maintain an active development programme, including underground testing, and we will be ready to resume testing in the atmosphere if necessary.
“On the other hand, unrestricted testing — by which other powers could develop all kinds of weapons through atmospheric tests more cheaply and quickly than they could underground — might well lead to a weakening of our security.
“This treaty is in our national interest.”
In these conditions it is not surprising that the manufacturers of bombs, of Polarises, of the F-104G, and the servants of NATO should utter cries of admiration.
The revisionists, and notably those of the Political Bureau of the Belgian Communist Party, go them one better in this chorus of acclaim. There is nothing surprising about that.
As Jaures said, “capitalism brings war just as a cloud brings a storm.” In carrying out its policies, capitalist imperialism hopes to continue to be able to use thermonuclear weapons as a powerful means of aggression and blackmail.
The revisionists, acting as servants of the bourgeoisie, develop their deceitful “ideology” of class collaboration on the same basis, using thermonuclear blackmail as their sole “argument.”
This is why neither the imperialists nor the revisionists want the banning and destruction of nuclear weapons; and why only the action of the people can impose it upon them.
As the August 7, 1963, resolution of the Hiroshima World Conference Against Nuclear Weapons declared, peace- loving people need nuclear disarmament and not a “more rationalized” arms race for “more perfect” nuclear weapons.
The Lefevre-Spaak government which has hastened to give its support to the Moscow agreement takes an active part in the policy of overarming NATO: military expenditure increases; German bases have been established, the F-104G continues to be manufactured at great cost and they are just now forming an atomic wing of the air force.
Communists, consistent fighters for peace, will not relax their vigilance. They will not allow themselves to be duped by the compliments which the imperialists and their new “collaborators” heap on each other.
They will expose the insane slanders of the imperialists and revisionists who dare to accuse of adventurism and bellicosity those who take courageous action against the danger of war, and its causes and those who profit from it: lies and fabrications have always accompanied the criminal actions of imperialism.
They welcome the resolution of the Hiroshima World Conference which called for action for the conclusion of a treaty totally banning nuclear tests and nuclear weapons.
They support the statement of the Chinese Government dated July 31, 1963, to all the countries of the socialist camp and to all peace-loving countries and peoples in the world, calling on them to unite and struggle firmly to the end for the banning and the complete, total, thorough and resolute prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons and for the defence of world peace.
The lie is the usual weapon of revisionism. The “open letter” is nothing but a chaotic heap of lies. We have drawn attention to a few of them.
In Belgium the spokesmen of Khrushchov have got us used to these procedures. The revisionists cannot hon estly explain their position to the working class and the workers. In the attempt to camouflage their activities they pour insults and slanders on the revolutionaries. They are moving more and more openly to collaboration with the imperialists in their persecution and repression of the Marxist-Leninists.
But they will act in vain. They cannot prevent the triumph of the truth, nor can they block the irresistible advance, of the world’s socialist revolution.
It is precisely because the class struggle is sharpening that imperialism is growing increasingly unsteady and the revisionists are forced to unmask themselves.
The fight against modern revisionism and classical reformism is an indispensable condition of the working class and the labouring masses being able to carry on effectively their struggle for their immediate claims, for the defence of democratic liberties, against the danger of war and against capitalism. For even stronger reasons it is indispensable for assuring final victory.
The current objective situation is excellent for. the world’s revolutionary forces.
All the conditions are combined for the world socialist revolution to achieve new successes and decisive victories.
This means that it is both possible and essential to defeat revisionism!
Let us hold high the banner of Marxism-Leninism and of the revolutionary principles of the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960!
Marxist-Leninists will not fail in their task.
Modern revisionism will be defeated despite the complicity of the bourgeoisie and the support of the Khrushchov group.
Communists of the Brussels Federation: Let us strengthen our mass political action on the basis of the resolutions of our extraordinary Federal Congress in June.
Communists of the other federations: we greet the results of your Marxist-Leninist actions. The moment has come to eliminate revisionism, the liquidator of our Party.
Militant revolutionary workers, reinforce our ranks!
Marxist-Leninists, unite!
Long live the Communist Party of Belgium from which we will drive out revisionism!
Long live Marxism-Leninism!
Proletarians of all countries and all oppressed peoples, unite!
Brussels, August 15, 1963